Abstract
Despite extensive research, the literature is unclear about the circumstances under which a firm learns from its past foreign entry modes and how this experiential learning is related to future mode choices. Building on the internationalization process (IP) model and the idea that some experiential learning is location-bound, while other learning is non-location-bound, we develop and test theory to explain how experiential learning about foreign operation modes and markets impact future mode choices in new foreign markets. Overall, we argue that mode-based experiential learning is limited. Through the repeated use of a specific operation mode firms develop routines and processes that are non-location-bound and can be replicated in new foreign markets, leading to the use of this same mode type in new locations. But when complemented by experiential learning about a target market/region firms opt for operation modes with greater commitment in new foreign markets. Drawing on a sample of German SMEs and examining four different types of entry modes we find some support. However, we also identify a number of notable exceptions to our theory. In this way, we help provide unique new insights informing future IP model, experiential learning, and international entry mode research.
Resume
En dépit de recherches approfondies, la littérature n'est pas claire sur les circonstances dans lesquelles une entreprise apprend de ses modes d'entrée à l'étranger passés et sur la façon dont cet apprentissage par expérience est lié aux choix des modes futurs. En nous appuyant sur le modèle du processus d'internationalisation (PI) et sur l'idée que certains apprentissages par expérience sont liés à la localisation et d'autres non liés à la localisation, nous élaborons et testons une théorie pour expliquer comment l'apprentissage par expérience des modes de fonctionnement et des marchés étrangers influe sur les choix des modes futurs pour les nouveaux marchés étrangers. Globalement, nous considérons que l'apprentissage expérientiel fondé sur les modes d’entrée est limité. Grâce à l'utilisation répétée d'un mode de fonctionnement spécifique, les entreprises développent des routines et des processus qui ne sont pas liés à la localisation et peuvent être reproduits dans de nouveaux marchés étrangers ; ce qui conduit à l'utilisation de ce même type de mode dans de nouvelles localisations. Mais lorsqu'elles sont complétées par l'apprentissage par expérience d'un marché ou d’une région cible, les entreprises optent pour des modes de fonctionnement avec un plus grand engagement dans les nouveaux marchés étrangers. En nous appuyant sur un échantillon de PME allemandes et en examinant quatre types différents de modes d'entrée, nous trouvons une certaine confirmation. Cependant, nous identifions également un certain nombre d'exceptions notables à notre théorie. Ainsi, nous contribuons à fournir des nouveaux éclairages uniques qui offrent des informations sur les futurs modèles du PI, l'apprentissage par expérience et la recherche sur les modes d'entrée sur un marché international.
Resumen
A pesar de la extensa investigación, la literatura no está clara sobre las circunstancias bajo las cuales una empresa aprende de sus modos de entrada al extranjero en el pasado y cómo este aprendizaje experiencial se relaciona con las opciones de modos futuros. Sobre la base del modelo de proceso de internacionalización (IP) y la idea de que algún aprendizaje experiencial está ligado a la ubicación mientras que otro aprendizaje no está ligado a la ubicación, desarrollamos y probamos la teoría para explicar cómo el aprendizaje experiencial sobre modos de operación y mercados en nuevos mercados extranjeros. En general, argumentamos que el modo de operación basado en aprendizaje experiencial es limitado. Mediante el uso repetido de un modo de operación específico, las empresas desarrollan rutinas y procesos que no están vinculados a la ubicación y pueden replicarse en nuevos mercados extranjeros, lo que lleva al uso de este mismo tipo de modo en nuevas ubicaciones. Pero cuando se complementa con el aprendizaje experiencial sobre un mercado/región objetivo, las empresas optan por modos de operación con mayor compromiso en los nuevos mercados extranjeros. Basándonos en una muestra de pymes alemanas y examinando cuatro tipos diferentes de modos de entrada, encontramos algo de apoyo. Sin embargo, también identificamos una serie de excepciones notables a nuestra teoría. De esta forma, ayudamos a dar nuevos conocimientos únicos que informan modelos futuros de IP, aprendizaje experiencial y la investigación sobre modos de entrada internacional.
Resumo
Apesar de extensa pesquisa, a literatura não é clara sobre as circunstâncias sob as quais uma empresa aprende com seus anteriores modos de entrada no estrangeiro e como essa aprendizagem experiencial está relacionada com futuras escolhas de modo. Com base no modelo de processo de internacionalização (IP) e na ideia de que algumas aprendizagens experienciais estão vinculadas à localização enquanto outras não, desenvolvemos e testamos uma teoria para explicar como a aprendizagem experiencial sobre modos de operações estrangeiras e mercados influencia futuras escolhas de modo em novos mercados estrangeiros. No geral, argumentamos que a aprendizagem experiencial baseada em modo é limitada. Através do uso repetido de um modo de operação específico, as empresas desenvolvem rotinas e processos não vinculados à localização que podem ser replicados em novos mercados estrangeiros, levando ao uso desse mesmo tipo de modo em novos locais. Mas, quando complementados por aprendizados experienciais sobre um mercado/região alvo, empresas optam por modos de operação com maior comprometimento com novos mercados estrangeiros. Com base em uma amostra de SMEs alemãs e examinando quatro tipos diferentes de modos de entrada, encontramos algum apoio. No entanto, também identificamos um número de notáveis exceções à nossa teoria. Desta forma, ajudamos a fornecer novos insights únicos, informando futuros modelos de IP, aprendizado experiencial e pesquisa sobre modo de entrada internacional.
摘要
尽管有广泛的研究, 关于企业从过去的外国进入模式中学习以及这种体验学习如何与未来模式选择相联系的情况的文献尚不清楚。基于国际化进程(IP)模型和有些体验学习受位置约束而其它学习不受位置约束的观点, 我们开发并测试理论, 来解释有关国外运营模式和市场的体验学习如何影响在新的国外市场里未来模式的选择。总的来说, 我们认为基于模式的体验学习是有限的。公司通过对特定运营模式的重复使用, 开发出不受地域限制的套路和流程, 并可以在新的国外市场进行复制, 从而导致新地点使用相同类型模式。但是当对目标市场/区域的体验学习是个补充的时候, 企业会选择在新的海外市场有更多投入的运营模式。借鉴德国中小企业样本并研究四种不同类型的进入模式, 我们找到了一些支持。然而, 我们也发现了一些对我们理论的显著的例外。我们通过这种方式为未来知识产权(IP)模式、体验学习以及国际进入模式研究提供了独特的新见解。
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ai, C., & Norton, E. C. 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80(1): 123–129.
Allison, P. D. 1999. Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Anand, J., Mulotte, L., & Ren, C. R. 2016. Does experience imply learning? Strategic Management Journal, 37(7): 1395–1412.
Andersen, O. 1993. On the internationalization process of firms: A critical analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(2): 209–231.
Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. 1986. Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3): 1–26.
Anderson, D. R., Sweeney, D. J., Williams, T. A., Camm, J. D., & Cochran, J. J. 2016. Statistics for business & economics (13th ed.). Boston, Ma: Cengage Learning.
Argyris, C. 1976. Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3): 363–375.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3): 396–402.
Barkema, H. G., & Drogendijk, R. 2007. Internationalising in small, incremental or larger steps? Journal of International Business Studies, 38(7): 1132–1148.
Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. 1998. International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 7–26.
Benito, G. R. G. 2005. Divestment and international business strategy. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(2): 235–251.
Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9): 1460–1480.
Blomstermo, A., Sharma, D. D., & Sallis, J. 2006. Choice of foreign market entry mode in service firms. International Marketing Review, 23(2): 211–229.
Brouthers, K. D. 2002. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 203–221.
Brouthers, K. D., & Brouthers, L. E. 2003. Why service and manufacturing entry mode choices differ: the influence of transaction cost factors, risk and trust. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5): 1179–1204.
Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Werner, S. 2008. Resource-based advantages in an international context. Journal of Management, 34(2): 189–217.
Brouthers, K. D., & Hennart, J.-F. 2007. Boundaries of the firm: Insights from international entry mode research. Journal of Management, 33(3): 395–425.
Brouthers, K. D., & Nakos, G. 2004. SME Entry mode choice and performance: A transaction cost perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(3): 229–247.
Bruneel, J., Yli-Renko, H., & Clarysse, B. 2010. Learning from experience and learning from others: How congenital and interorganizational learning substitute for experiential learning in young firm internationalization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2): 164–182.
Capron, L., & Guillén, M. 2009. National corporate governance institutions and post-acquisition target reorganization. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8): 803–833.
Casillas, J. C., & Moreno-Menéndez, A. M. 2014. Speed of the internationalization process: the role of diversity and depth in experiential learning. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1): 85–101.
Chan, C. M., & Makino, S. 2007. Legitimacy and multi-level institutional environments: implications for foreign subsidiary ownership structure. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 621–638.
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.
Clarke, J. E., & Liesch, P. W. 2017. Wait-and-see strategy: Risk management in the internationalization process model. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(8): 923–940.
Clarke, J. E., Tamaschke, R., & Liesch, P. W. 2013. International experience in international business research: A conceptualization and exploration of key themes. International Journal Of Management Reviews, 15(3): 265–279.
Dawson, J. F. 2014. Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1): 1–19.
Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. 1999. Ownership strategy of Japanese firms: Transactional, institutional, and experience influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10): 915–933.
Dow, D., & Karunaratna, A. 2006. Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 578–602.
Dow, D., & Larimo, J. 2009. Challenging the conceptualization and measurement of distance and international experience in entry mode choice research. Journal of International Marketing, 17(2): 74–98.
Dow, D., & Larimo, J. 2011. Disentangling the roles of international experience and distance in establishment mode choice. Management International Review, 51(3): 321–355.
Echambadi, R., Arroniz, I., Reinartz, W., & Lee, J. 2006. Empirical generalizations from brand extension research: How sure are we? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3): 253–261.
Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgard, A., & Sharma, D. D. 1997. Experiential knowledge and cost in the internationalization process. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2): 337–360.
Erramilli, M. K. 1991. The experience factor in foreign market entry behavior of service firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3): 479–501.
Erramilli, M. K., & D’souza, D. E. 1993. Venturing into foreign markets: The case of the small service firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(4): 29–41.
Finkelstein, S., & Haleblian, J. 2002. Understanding acquisition performance: The role of transfer effects. Organization Science, 13(1): 36–47.
Ford, J. K., Maccallum, R. C., & Tait, M. 1986. The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2): 291–314.
Forsgren, M. 2002. The concept of learning in the uppsala internationalization process model: A critical review. International Business Review, 11(3): 257–277.
Gao, G. Y., Pan, Y., Lu, J., & Tao, Z. 2008. Performance of multinational firms’ subsidiaries: Influences of cumulative experience. Mir. Management International Review, 48(6): 749–767.
Greene, W. 2010. Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models. Economics Letters, 107(2): 291–296.
Guillén, M. F. 2003. Experience, imitation, and the sequence of foreign entry: Wholly owned and joint-venture manufacturing by south korean firms and business groups in China, 1987–1995. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 185–198.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. 2011. Pls-sem: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2): 139–152.
Henisz, W. J., & Delios, A. 2002. Learning about the institutional environment. Advances in Strategic Management, 19: 339–372.
Hennart, J.-F., & Slangen, A. H. 2015. Yes, we really do need more entry mode studies! A commentary on shaver. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1): 114–122.
Hoetker, G. 2007. The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4): 331–343.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.
Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1): 88–115.
Hutzschenreuter, T., & Matt, T. 2017. Mne internationalization patterns, the roles of knowledge stocks, and the portfolio of mne subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1131–1150.
IfM. (2017). Macro-economic significance of SMEs. Retrieved 3 Dec 2017, from https://en.ifm-bonn.org/statistics/.
Jansson, H., & Sandberg, S. 2008. Internationalization of small and medium sized enterprises in the Baltic Sea region. Journal of International Management, 14(1): 65–77.
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.
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 2003. Business relationship learning and commitment in the internationalization process. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(1): 83–101.
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.
Jones, M. V., & Casulli, L. 2014. International entrepreneurship: Exploring the logic and utility of individual experience through comparative reasoning approaches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1): 45–69.
Kay, R., Holz, M., & Kranzusch, P. 2014. Mittelstand Im Globalen Wettbewerb: Internationalisierung Als Unternehmerische Und Wirtschaftspolitische Herausforderung. Bonn: Gutachten Im Auftrag Der Abteilung Wirtschafts- Und Sozialpolitik Der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Kennedy, P. 2008. A guide to econometrics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 268–285.
Kingsley, A., Noordewier, T. G., & Vanden Bergh, R. 2017. Overstating and understating interaction results in international business research. Journal of World Business, 52(2): 286–295.
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.
Laufs, K., & Schwens, C. 2014. Foreign market entry mode choice of small and medium-sized enterprises: A systematic review and future research agenda. International Business Review, 23(6): 1109–1126.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319–340.
Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. 2010. With or without u? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1): 109–118.
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. 2014. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata (3rd ed.). College Station: Stata Press.
Lu, J. W. 2002. Intra- and inter-organizational imitative behavior: Institutional influences on japanese firms’ entry mode choice. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1): 19–37.
Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. 2001. The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 565–586.
Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. 2004. International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 598–609.
Luo, Y. 2001. Dynamic capabilities in international expansion. Journal of World Business, 35(4): 355–378.
Maekelburger, B., Schwens, C., & Kabst, R. 2012. Asset specificity and foreign market entry mode choice of small and medium-sized enterprises: The moderating influence of knowledge safeguards and institutional safeguards. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(5): 458–476.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.
Mcclelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. 1993. Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2): 376–390.
Meyer, K. E. 2001. Institutions, transaction costs, and entry mode choice in Eastern Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(2): 357–367.
Meyer, K. E., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Beugelsdijk, S. 2017. What’s in A P? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(5): 535–551.
Milanov, H., & Fernhaber, S. A. 2014. When do domestic alliances help ventures abroad? Direct and moderating effects from a learning perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3): 377–391.
Nakos, G., & Brouthers, K. D. 2002. Entry Mode choice of SMEs in central and Eastern Europe. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(1): 47–63.
OECD. 2012. Fostering SMEs’ participation in global markets: Final report. Paris: OECD.
Oehme, M., & Bort, S. 2015. SME internationalization modes in the german biotechnology industry: The influence of imitation, network position, and international experience. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(6): 629–655.
Osborne, K. 1996. The channel integration decision for small- to medium-sized manufacturing exporters. International Small Business Journal, 14(3): 40–56.
Padmanabhan, P., & Cho, K. R. 1999. Decision specific experience in foreign ownership and establishment strategies: Evidence from Japanese firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1): 25–43.
Pedersen, T., & Petersen, B. 1998. Explaining gradually increasing resource commitment to a foreign market. International Business Review, 7(5): 483–501.
Perkins, S. E. 2014. When does prior experience pay? Institutional experience and the multinational corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1): 145–181.
Petersen, B., Pedersen, T., & Lyles, M. A. 2008. Closing knowledge gaps in foreign markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(7): 1097–1113.
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 1992. A note on the transnational solution and the transaction cost theory of multinational strategic management. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4): 761–771.
Santangelo, G. D., & Meyer, K. E. 2011. Extending the internationalization process model: Increases and decreases of mne commitment in emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(7): 894–909.
Santangelo, G. D., & Meyer, K. E. 2017. Internationalization as an evolutionary process. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1114–1130.
Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.
Semadeni, M., Withers, M. C., & Trevis Certo, S. 2014. The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: understanding through simulations. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7): 1070–1079.
Shaver, J. M. 2013. Do we really need more entry mode studies? Journal of International Business Studies, 44(1): 23–27.
Sousa, C. M. P., & Bradley, F. 2006. Cultural distance and psychic distance: Two peas in a pod? Journal of International Marketing, 14(1): 49–70.
Tse, D. K., Pan, Y., & Au, K. Y. 1997. How mncs choose entry modes and form alliances: The China experience. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4): 779–805.
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.
Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. 2001. Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3): 457–476.
Welch, C., Nummela, N., & Liesch, P. 2016. The internationalization process model revisited: An agenda for future research. Management International Review, 56(6): 783–804.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bowen, H. P. 2009. The use of limited dependent variable techniques in strategy research: Issues and methods. Strategic Management Journal, 30(6): 679–692.
Williams, R. 2012. Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata Journal, 12(2): 308–331.
Xia, J., Boal, K., & Delios, A. 2009. When experience meets national institutional environmental change: Foreign entry attempts of us firms in the central and eastern European Region. Strategic Management Journal, 30(12): 1286–1309.
Yap, C. M., & Souder, W. E. 1994. Factors influencing new product success and failure in small entrepreneurial high-technology electronics firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(5): 418–432.
Yeoh, P.-L. 2004. International learning: Antecedents and performance implications among newly internationalizing companies in an exporting context. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5): 511–535.
Yiu, D., & Makino, S. 2002. The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective. Organization Science, 13(6): 667–683.
Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341–363.
Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 925–950.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., Caligiuri, P., & Thomas, D. C. 2016. From the editors: Experimental designs in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(4): 399–407.
Zhao, H., Ma, J., & Yang, J. 2017. 30 years of research on entry mode and performance relationship: A meta-analytical review. Management International Review, 57(5): 653–682.
Acknowledgements
This research is part of the research project “GZ: SCHW 1428/2-1” funded by the German Research Association (DFG). We acknowledge the financial support by the DFG. We would like to thank editor Klaus Meyer and the three anonymous reviewers for their highly developmental and constructive comments throughout the review process.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Accepted by Klaus Meyer, Area Editor, 11 April 2018. This article has been with the authors for three revisions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schwens, C., Zapkau, F.B., Brouthers, K.D. et al. Limits to international entry mode learning in SMEs. J Int Bus Stud 49, 809–831 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0161-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0161-9