Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ownership structure contingency in the sequential international entry mode decision process: Family owners and institutional investors in family-dominant versus family-influenced firms

  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Extending our understanding of family firms and international business research with respect to entry mode decisions, this study explains how entry mode choice is the product of a sequential decision-making process, with an important ownership structure contingency. We propose that firms with a dominant family owner (family-dominant firms) prefer low equity ownership as their entry mode for the purpose of preserving their socioemotional wealth. Their preference is persistent even when the institutional investors are the dominant shareholders in the firm (family-influenced firms). This nuanced examination of the role family values play in the entry mode decision extends our understanding of how family firms enter international markets.

Résumé

En élargissant notre compréhension des entreprises familiales et de la recherche en international business en ce qui concerne les décisions relatives au mode d’entrée, cette étude explique comment le choix du mode d’entrée est le produit d’un processus séquentiel de prise de décision, avec une contingence importante concernant la structure de propriété. Nous proposons que les firmes ayant un propriétaire familial principal (firmes à dominante familiale) préfèrent une faible participation au capital comme mode d’entrée afin de préserver leur richesse socio-émotionnelle. Leur préférence persiste même lorsque les investisseurs institutionnels sont les principaux actionnaires de la firme (firmes à influence familiale). Cet examen nuancé du rôle que jouent les valeurs familiales dans la décision du mode d’entrée nous permet de mieux comprendre comment les firmes familiales accèdent aux marchés internationaux.

Resumen

Extendiendo nuestra comprensión de empresas familiares y la investigación en negocios internacionales con relación a las decisiones de modo de entrada, este estudio explica como la elección de modo de entrada es el producto de un proceso secuencial de toma de decisiones, con una importante contingencia de estructura de propiedad. Proponemos que las empresas con un propietario familiar dominante (empresas dominadas por la familia) prefieren la propiedad de capital bajo como modo de entrada con el propósito de preservar la riqueza socio-emocional. Su preferencia es persistente incluso cuando los inversionistas institucionales son los accionistas dominantes en la empresa (empresas influenciadas por la familia). Esta examinación matizada del rol que juegan los valores familiares en las decisiones de modo de entrada amplía nuestro entendimiento de cómo las empresas familiares entran a mercados internacionales.

Resumo

Ampliando nosso entendimento sobre empresas familiares e pesquisa em negócios internacionais em relação às decisões de modo de entrada, este estudo explica como a escolha do modo de entrada é o produto de um processo de tomada de decisão sequencial, com uma importante contingência de estrutura de propriedade. Propomos que empresas com um proprietário familiar dominante (empresas dominadas por família) prefiram baixa participação acionária como seu modo de entrada com o propósito de preservar sua riqueza socioemocional. Sua preferência é persistente mesmo quando os investidores institucionais são os acionistas dominantes na empresa (empresas influenciadas por família). Esse exame nuançado do papel que valores familiares desempenham na decisão do modo de entrada amplia nosso entendimento sobre como as empresas familiares entram em mercados internacionais.

摘要

本研究通过扩展我们对家族企业和国际商业研究在进入模式决策方面的理解, 解释了进入模式的选择如何成为顺序决策过程的产物,具有重要的所有权结构偶然性。我们提出, 拥有占主导地位的家族所有者(以家族为主导的公司)的公司更倾向于将低股权作为其进入模式, 以保护其社会情感财富。即使机构投资者是公司的主要股东(受家族影响的公司), 他们的偏好也是持久的。对家庭价值观在进入模式决策中所起作用的细致考察, 扩展了我们对家族企业如何进入国际市场的理解。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Agarwal, S., & Ramaswami, S. N. 1992. Choice of foreign market entry mode: Impact of ownership, location and internalization factors. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(1): 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., Marano, V., & Haxhi, I. 2019. International corporate governance: A review and opportunities for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(4): 457–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. 1986. Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3): 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. 2003. Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3): 1301–1328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J. L., Duran, P., Hitt, M. A., & Essen, M. 2017. Why is family firms’ internationalization unique? A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5): 801–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., & Mari, I. 2019. A missing link in family firms’ internationalization research: Family structures. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(5): 809–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. 2007. The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1): 73–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J. L., Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., & Hitt, M. A. 2012. Internationalization of family-controlled firms: A study of the effects of external involvement in governance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6): 1115–1143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athanassiou, N., Crittenden, W. F., Kelly, L. M., & Marquez, P. 2002. Founder centrality effects on the Mexican family firm’s top management group: Firm culture, strategic vision and goals, and firm performance. Journal of World Business, 37(2): 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banalieva, E. R., & Eddleston, K. A. 2011. Home-region focus and performance of family firms: The role of family vs non-family leaders. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(8): 1060–1072.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beamish, P. W., & Kachra, A. 2004. Number of partners and JV performance. Journal of World Business, 39(2): 107–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2012. Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3): 258–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9): 1460–1480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeh, K. K., & Beamish, P. W. 2012. Travel time and the liability of distance in foreign direct investment: Location choice and entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(5): 525–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boellis, A., Mariotti, S., Minichilli, A., & Piscitello, L. 2016. Family involvement and firms’ establishment mode choice in foreign markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8): 929–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D. 2013. A retrospective on: Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(1): 14–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D., & Hennart, J.-F. 2007. Boundaries of the firm: Insights from international entry mode research. Journal of Management, 33(3): 395–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 1998. Analyzing foreign market entry strategies: Extending the internalization approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(3): 539–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Chen, L., Clegg, L. J., & Voss, H. 2018. Risk propensity in the foreign direct investment location decision of emerging multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(2): 153–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canabal, A., & White, G. O. 2008. Entry mode research: Past and future. International Business Review, 17(3): 267–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannella, A. A., Jones, C. D., & Withers, M. C. 2015. Family- versus lone-founder-controlled public corporations: Social identity theory and boards of directors. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2): 436–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M. 2005. Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3): 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casson, M. 1999. The economics of the family firm. Scandinavian Economic History Review, 47(1): 10–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. J., Chung, J., & Moon, J. J. 2013. When do wholly owned subsidiaries perform better than joint ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 34(3): 317–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, N., Fedenia, M., Skiba, H., & Sokolyk, T. 2017. Portfolio concentration and performance of institutional investors worldwide. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(1): 189–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Rau, S. B. 2012. Sources of heterogeneity in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6): 1103–1113.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claver, E., Rienda, L., & Quer, D. 2009. Family firms’ international commitment: The influence of family-related factors. Family Business Review, 22(2): 125–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coviello, N., Kano, L., & Liesch, P. W. 2017. Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: Macro-context and microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1151–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E., & Glaister, K. W. 2008. Factors affecting perceptions of the choice between acquisition and greenfield entry: The case of western FDI in an emerging market. Management International Review, 48(1): 5–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanaraj, C., & Beamish, P. W. 2004. Effect of equity ownership on the survival of international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3): 295–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, D., Liesch, P., & Welch, L. 2017. Inertia and managerial intentionality: Extending the Uppsala model. Management International Review, 58(3): 465–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. 1980. Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1): 9–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. 2008. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., Van Essen, M., & Zellweger, T. 2016. Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4): 1224–1264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. 2006. Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6): 785–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elango, B., & Sambharya, R. B. 2004. The influence of industry structure on the entry mode choice of overseas entrants in manufacturing industries. Journal of International Management, 10(1): 107–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elia, S., Larsen, M.M., & Piscitello, L. 2019. Entry mode deviation: A behavioral approach to internalization theory. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00235-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farooqi, J., Jory, S., & Ngo, T. 2017. Institutional investors’ activism and credit ratings. Journal of Economics and Finance, 41(1): 51–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogel, K. 2006. Oligarchic family control, social economic outcomes, and the quality of government. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 603–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, H., & Anderson, E. 1988. The multinational corporation’s degree of control over foreign subsidiaries: An empirical test of a transaction cost explanation. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 4(2): 305–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiler, P., & Renneboog, L. 2016. Executive remuneration and the payout decision. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(1): 42–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Wiklund, J., & Zahra, S. A. 2005. Ownership and the internationalization of small firms. Journal of Management, 31(2): 210–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillan, S. L., & Starks, L. T. 2003. Corporate governance, corporate ownership, and the role of institutional investors: A global perspective. Journal of Applied Finance, 13(2): 4–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Campbell, J. T., Martin, G., Hoskisson, R. E., Makri, M., & Sirmon, D. G. 2014. Socioemotional wealth as a mixed gamble: Revisiting family firm R&D investments with the behavioral agency model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6): 1351–1374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Nunez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. 2007. Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 106–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Makri, M. 2003. The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2): 226–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Makri, M., & Kintana, M. L. 2010. Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2): 223–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, C., & Thomas, J. 2008. Determinants of the internationalization pathways of family firms: An examination of family influence. Family Business Review, 21(2): 151–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R. 2008. A behavioral theory of firm growth: Sequential attention to size and performance goals. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 476–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handler, W. C. 1990. Succession in family firms: A mutual role adjustment between entrepreneur and next-generation family members. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(1): 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handler, W. C. 1994. Succession in family business: A review of the research. Family Business Review, 7(2): 133–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, G. S., & Hill, C. W. L. 1991. Are institutional investors myopic: A time-series study of 4 technology-driven industries. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W. 2002. Acquisitions versus greenfield investments: International strategy and management of entry modes. Strategic Management Journal, 23(3): 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F., Majocchi, A., & Forlani, E. 2017. The myth of the stay-at-home family firm: How family-managed SMEs can overcome their internationalization limitations. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(5): 758–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J. M. A., & Slangen, A. H. L. 2015. Yes, we really do need more entry mode studies!: A commentary on shaver. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1): 114–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hogarth, R. M. 1987. Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M., & Karelaia, N. 2005. Ignoring information in binary choice with continuous variables: When is less ‘more’? Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49(4): 354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, R. M., Miller, T., Hitt, M. A., & Salmador, M. P. 2013. The interrelationships among informal institutions, formal institutions, and inward foreign direct investment. Journal of Management, 39(2): 531–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Johnson, R. A., & Grossman, W. 2002. Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4): 697–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. 1989. Eclipse of the public corporation. Watertown: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4): 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josefy, M., Kuban, S., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. 2015. All things great and small: Organizational size, boundaries of the firm, and a changing environment. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1): 715–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kano, L., & Verbeke, A. 2018. Family firm internationalization: Heritage assets and the impact of bifurcation bias. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1): 158–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaynak, E., Demirbag, M., & Tatoglu, E. 2007. Determinants of ownership-based entry mode choice of MNEs: Evidence from Mongolia. Management International Review, 47(4): 505–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepner, E. 1983. The family and the firm: A coevolutionary perspective. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1): 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., Kim, H., & Lee, P. M. 2008. Ownership structure and the relationship between financial slack and R&D investments: Evidence from Korean firms. Organization Science, 19(3): 404–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochhar, R., & David, P. 1996. Institutional investors and firm innovation: A test of competing hypotheses. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1): 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54(2): 471–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 2000. Agency problems and dividend policies around the world. Journal of Finance, 55(1): 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampel, J., Bhalla, A., & Ramachandran, K. 2017. Family values and inter-institutional governance of strategic decision making in Indian family firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(4): 901–930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and environment: Managing integration and differentiation. Boston: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liesch, P. W., Welch, L. S., & Buckley, P. J. 2011. Risk and uncertainty in internationalisation and international entrepreneurship studies. Management International Review, 51(6): 851–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. 2002. Capability exploitation and building in a foreign market: Implications for multinational enterprises. Organization Science, 13(1): 48–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Chung, C.-N., & Sobczak, M. 2009. How do corporate governance model differences affect foreign direct investment in emerging economies? Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3): 444–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. 2015. Managerial cognition and internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(7): 733–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, X., Swaminathan, A., & Tihanyi, L. 2007. Modeling international expansion. In D. Ketchen & D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., & Estrin, S. 2001. Brownfield entry in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 575–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., & Nguyen, H. V. 2005. Foreign investment strategies and sub-national institutions in emerging markets: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 63–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Breton-Miller, Le, & Lester, R. H. 2010. Family ownership and acquisition behavior in publicly-traded companies. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2): 201–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. 2014. Deconstructing socioemotional wealth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(4): 713–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Lee, J., Chang, S., & Breton-Miller, I. L. 2009. Filling the institutional void: The social behavior and performance of family vs non-family technology firms in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5): 802–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W. L., & Lehmann, D. R. 1989. A paired comparison nested logit model of individual preference structures. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4): 420–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neckebrouck, J., Schulze, W., & Zellweger, T. 2018. Are family firms good employers? Academy of Management Journal, 61(2): 553–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pongelli, C., Caroli, M. G., & Cucculelli, M. 2016. Family business going abroad: The effect of family ownership on foreign market entry mode decisions. Small Business Economics, 47(3): 787–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozen, R. C. 1994. Institutional investors: The reluctant activists. Harvard Business Review, 72(1): 140–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangan, S., & Drummond, A. 2011. The problem of control and the role of home–host ties in explaining multinationals’ foreign operations, competitiveness, and performance. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3–4): 362–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, M., & Yang, Y. 2007. Determinants of foreign ownership in international R&D joint ventures: Transaction costs and national culture. Journal of International Management, 13(2): 110–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1): 7–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. M. G., & Carpenter, M. A. 1998. Internationalization and firm governance: The roles of CEO compensation, top team composition, and board structure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(2): 158–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. 2003. Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4): 473–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwens, C., Zapkau, F. B., Brouthers, K. D., & Hollender, L. 2018. Limits to international entry mode learning in SMEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(7): 809–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, J. M. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44(4): 571–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, W., Markoczy, L., & Stan, C. V. 2014. The continuing importance of political ties in China. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1): 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. C., McKelvie, A., Ketchen, D. J., & Chandler, G. N. 2009. Firm and industry effects on firm performance: A generalization and extension for new ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(1): 47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. 2009. Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(13): 1375–1394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Arregle, J.-L., & Campbell, J. T. 2010. The dynamic interplay of capability strengths and weaknesses: Investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13): 1386–1409.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slangen, A. H. L. 2013. Greenfield or acquisition entry? The roles of policy uncertainty and MNE legitimacy in host countries. Global Strategy Journal, 3(3): 262–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souder, D., Zaheer, A., Sapienza, H., & Ranucci, R. 2017. How family influence, socioemotional wealth, and competitive conditions shape new technology adoption. Strategic Management Journal, 38(9): 1774–1790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A., & Hitt, M. A. 2012. Why can’t a family business be more like a nonfamily business? Modes of professionalization in family firms. Family Business Review, 25(1): 58–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szanyi, M. 2001. Privatization and greenfield FDI in the economic restructuring of Hungary. Transnational Corporations, 10(3): 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. E., Eden, L., Hitt, M. A., & Miller, S. R. 2007. Experience of emerging market firms: The role of cognitive bias in developed market entry and survival. Management International Review, 47(6): 845–867.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D. A., & Russell, C. J. 2005. The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3): 270–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tihanyi, L., Johnson, R. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Hitt, M. A. 2003. Institutional ownership differences and international diversification: The effects of boards of directors and technological opportunity. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2): 195–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuschke, A., Sanders, W. M. G., & Hernandez, E. 2014. Whose experience matters in the boardroom? The effects of experiential and vicarious learning on emerging market entry: Board ties, learning, and emerging market entry. Strategic Management Journal, 35(3): 398–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. 1972. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4): 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Sarin, A., & Awasthi, V. 1996. Impact of corporate insider, blockholder, and institutional equity ownership on firm risk taking. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2): 441–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yiu, D., & Makino, S. 2002. The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective. Organization Science, 13(6): 667–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. 2003. International expansion of U.S. manufacturing family businesses: The effect of ownership and involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4): 495–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. 2005. Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms. Family Business Review, 18(1): 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. 2012. Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organization Science, 23(3): 851–868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Luo, Y., & Suh, T. 2004. Transaction cost determinants and ownership-based entry mode choice: A meta-analytical review. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6): 524–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Peter Liesch, the editor, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We also acknowledge the constructive comments offered by Professors Heather Berry, Garry Bruton, and Laszlo Tihanyi on previous versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX, 78249, USA

    Kai Xu & Stewart R. Miller

  2. Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, 420 Wehner Building; 4221 TAMU, College Station, USA

    Michael A. Hitt

  3. Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, 2900 Lubbock Avenue, Fort Worth, TX, 76109, USA

    Michael A. Hitt

Authors
  1. Kai Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael A. Hitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stewart R. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Xu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Peter Liesch, Area Editor, 27 May 2019. This article has been with the authors for four revisions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, K., Hitt, M.A. & Miller, S.R. The ownership structure contingency in the sequential international entry mode decision process: Family owners and institutional investors in family-dominant versus family-influenced firms. J Int Bus Stud 51, 151–171 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00250-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00250-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation