International entrepreneurial culture—Toward a comprehensive opportunity-based operationalization of international entrepreneurship

International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Business Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev

International entrepreneurial culture—Toward a comprehensive opportunity-based operationalization of international entrepreneurship Pavlos Dimitratos a,*, Irini Voudouris b, Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki c, George Nakos d a

University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece c Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece d Clayton State University, Morrow, GA, USA b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 10 April 2010 Received in revised form 30 July 2011 Accepted 2 August 2011

Despite the abundance of international entrepreneurship studies, there is a need to develop valid measures of the international entrepreneurship construct. Based on prior conceptual studies, we contribute to the literature by advancing a scale of the international entrepreneurial culture (IEC) that considers opportunity-based behavior; and, aims to capture the overarching context of international entrepreneurship. We followed established scale development practices and conducted a research on UK and US medium-sized firms. Our proposed six-dimensional operationalization of IEC, which sufficiently matches the initial conceptualization, consists of international entrepreneurial orientation; international market orientation; international motivation; international learning orientation; international networking orientation with competitors; and, international networking orientation with non-competitors. The main implication from this study is that international entrepreneurship scholars can use in future research these six dimensions of the encompassing IEC context rather than a confined international entrepreneurship construct. ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: International entrepreneurial culture International entrepreneurship Opportunity Scale development

1. Introduction Although research in the fields of entrepreneurship and international entrepreneurship has experienced explosive growth recently, the creation of constructs required to test firm-level entrepreneurship has not been developed accordingly (Oviatt & McDougall, 2005; Thomas & Mueller, 2000; Thompson, 2009). Likewise in the international entrepreneurship area there is a necessity to develop robust firm-level instruments of international entrepreneurship (Coviello & Jones, 2004; Keupp & Gassmann, 2009). More importantly, entrepreneurship constructs essentially do not directly address to what extent firms are involved in the recognition and exploitation of opportunities (Brown, Davidsson, & Wiklund, 2001). This is crucial since Stevenson (1983) posits that entrepreneurship is linked to an incessant passion for pursuit of opportunities with no regard to resources currently controlled. Alertness regarding novel opportunities lies at the heart of both entrepreneurship (Shane & Venkatraman, 2000; Tang, Kacmar, & Busenitz, 2011) and international entrepreneurship (Hadjikhani, Ghauri, & Johanson, 2005; Oviatt & McDougall, 2005). In this paper, we employ the notion of an international entrepreneurial culture (IEC) to propose an operationalization of international entrepreneurship, which is based on international entrepreneurship, international business and related fields.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 141 330 2760. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Dimitratos). 0969-5931/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.08.001

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

709

An IEC can provide an encompassing construct that captures international entrepreneurial activities of the firm seeking to identify and pursue opportunities abroad (Dimitratos & Jones, 2005; Zahra, Korri, & Yu, 2005). The present study integrates past research in the aforementioned business research disciplines in its attempt to suggest a firm-level opportunity-based instrument of international entrepreneurship. Our operationalization of the IEC scale is tested on a sample of UK and US firms since a two-country sample of firms can strengthen the validity of the proposed IEC scale. In order to measure this scale, we use constructs that have been validated in prior research. We decided to employ existing constructs in order to increase the validity of our instrument. These measurements have been used independently by various researchers to capture different aspects of the culture of the firm. By bringing together formerly developed measurements of components of the IEC notion, we aim to propose a holistic measurement of IEC. The remaining of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides the theoretical domain of the measurement instrument through exploring IEC and its six dimensions. In Section 3, we elaborate on how the IEC instrument was developed, revised and validated. Section 4 discusses the identified IEC dimensions. Section 5 explores the major research and managerial implications, and outlines future research directions. 2. The notion of international entrepreneurial culture An IEC is the organizational culture that facilitates and accommodates the entrepreneurial activities of the firm internationally (Zahra, 2005). If the firm has strong IEC, it is more likely to engage in international entrepreneurial ventures seeking opportunities. In the international entrepreneurship field, organizational culture and IEC are terms increasingly employed in activities of both small and large firms. In relation to small firms, international business competence rests upon aspects of its organizational culture (Knight & Kim, 2009). Two major aspects of the born global’s organizational culture, notably its international entrepreneurial and international marketing orientations, are found to principally influence its international entrepreneurship (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004). As regards activities of large firms, there exists evidence that multinational subsidiary entrepreneurial culture comprises global vision, entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial multinational corporation network management (Boojihawon, Dimitratos, & Young, 2007). International entrepreneurship has hitherto been perceived to be the aggregate of the firm’s innovativeness, risk attitude and proactiveness in international markets (Dimitratos, Lioukas, & Carter, 2004; McDougall & Oviatt, 2000; Zahra & Garvis, 2000; Zhou, 2007). Despite its popularity, this three-item construct suffers from limitations. In the entrepreneurship area, Wiklund (1999) argues that researchers find it difficult to determine what type of construct the scale actually measures. Zahra, Jennings, and Kuratko (1999) also posit that there is no unanimity among researchers on the label of this entrepreneurship scale. Furthermore, after undertaking a meta-analysis of the literature, Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, and Frese (2009) posit that additional subvariables should be included in the entrepreneurship construct. This is especially important as entrepreneurship research has evolved from an investigation focused on the creation of new enterprises to a study of firm-level risk-taking innovative activities within both small and large firms (Kor, Mahoney, & Michael, 2007; Petra & Koenraad, 2006; Zahra et al., 1999). IEC has been associated with the opportunity theme in prior conceptual papers. To elaborate, Zahra et al. (2005) posit that IEC affects the way entrepreneurs in born globals become alert to and exploit international opportunities. Dimitratos and Jones (2005) further note that IEC relies on an organization-wide process that seeks to generate value through the exploitation of opportunities in the international marketplace. However, despite the necessity to develop an operationalization of IEC involving the opportunity theme (Jones, Coviello, & Tang, 2012), this has not been undertaken in previous measures. An opportunity-based conceptualization of IEC can consist of six interrelated organizational culture dimensions; namely international market orientation, international learning orientation, international innovation propensity, international risk attitude, international networking orientation and international motivation (Dimitratos & Plakoyiannaki, 2003; Zahra et al., 2005). This six-dimensional IEC construct that focuses on opportunity is broader in comparison to the entrepreneurship construct that measures the firm’s willingness to innovate, undertake risks and act proactively (developed by Khandwalla (1977), Miller and Friesen (1982), and Covin and Covin (1990), respectively). This six-item IEC notion of Table 1 both addresses the gap arising from the lack of the opportunity aspect in the three-item entrepreneurship construct and is more broadly based on different relevant business research streams. The six-dimensional IEC construct captures various facets of the organizational culture of the internationalized firm irrespective of size, age, sector or time to foreign markets. It may provide a complete and accurate picture of the factors that induce opportunity-action activities abroad (Armario, Ruiz, & Armario, 2008; Freeman & Cavusgil, 2007). Such an operationalization can offer valuable insights for future study in the international entrepreneurship field (Styles & Seymour, 2006). Below we discuss the six IEC dimensions and link them to the organizational culture and opportunity themes. The main respective references pertaining to this discussion are shown in Table 1. 2.1. International market orientation International market orientation refers to the posture and behavior that the firm can adopt to create superior value for its foreign customers (Murray, Gao, Kotabe, & Zhou, 2007). International market orientation is inherent in the organizational

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

710

Table 1 IEC dimensions and key supporting references. IEC dimension International International International International International International

market orientation learning orientation innovation propensity risk attitude networking orientation motivation

Link to organizational culture

Link to opportunity

Zhou et al. (2006) Moorman (1995) Lemon and Sahota (2004) Reynolds (1986) Powell et al. (1996) Zhou et al. (2006)

Dimov (2011), Schlosser and McNaughton (2007) Autio et al. (2000), Voudouris et al. (2011) Autio et al. (2011), Baker and Sinkula (2009) Aram and Morgan (1976), Dimitratos et al. (2010) Ellis (2011), Hadjikhani et al. (2005) Lee and Williams (2007), Zahra et al. (2005)

culture and may induce organizational change of the internationalized firm (Zhou, Tse, & Li, 2006). Market orientation is considerably linked to opportunity identification and exploitation (Dimov, 2011; Schlosser & McNaughton, 2007). When the entrepreneurial firm has strong international market orientation, it can more easily decide to internationalize (Armario et al., 2008; Perks & Hughes, 2008); increase its knowledge-creating capability abroad (Nguyen & Barrett, 2006); and, enhance its international performance (He & Wei, 2011; Knight & Kim, 2009; Kropp, Lindsay, & Shoham, 2006; Racela, Chaikittisilpa, & Thoumrungroje, 2007). International market orientation comprises three elements, namely international customer orientation, interfunctional coordination and international competitor orientation (cf. Narver & Slater, 1990). International customer orientation necessitates an in-depth understanding of international customers by putting their interests above all others. Interfunctional coordination pertains to the alignment of all corporate resources through the functional integration of strategy in order to create a market responsive firm internationally. International competitor orientation entails that the firm comprehends the core competencies and weaknesses of competitors in the international market. Competitor orientation complements entrepreneurship by instilling an organizational culture emphasizing pursuit of opportunities (Baker & Sinkula, 2009). 2.2. International learning orientation International learning orientation is connected to the propensity of the firm to actively obtain and use to its advantage intelligence on foreign markets (cf. Slater & Narver, 1995). Learning is a major dimension of organizational culture (Moorman, 1995). International learning orientation can define the business scope and decisively affect the discovery of opportunities of the firm (Voudouris, Dimitratos, & Salavou, 2011). A firm without a strong international learning orientation may not become aware of opportunities in foreign markets (Autio, Sapienza, & Almeida, 2000; Oviatt & McDougall, 2005). Learning is essential to the growth and success of the internationalized firm (Casillas, Moreno, Acedo, Gallego, & Ramos, 2009; Gassmann & Keupp, 2007). There are considerable similarities between international market and international learning (Armario et al., 2008; Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, & de Mortanges, 1999; Murray et al., 2007); yet, also distinct differences between the two dimensions (Nguyen & Barrett, 2006; Zhang & Tansuhaj, 2007). Learning on international market trends and demands can take place through three processes (cf. Moorman, 1995; Nevis, DiBella, & Gould, 1995). First, information acquisition concerns the practices the firm applies to generate international market-related intelligence. Second, information dissemination concerns the methods the internationalized firm employs to communicate this intelligence to internal participants. Third, information use concerns the mechanisms the internationalized firm utilizes to make decisions and acquire experience based on market-related intelligence. 2.3. International innovation propensity International innovation propensity is associated with the inclination of the firm to support new and creative ideas, products or processes designed to service markets abroad (Knight & Kim, 2009). Innovation propensity is an integral part of organizational culture (Lemon & Sahota, 2004). A culture that emphasizes pursuit of opportunities impacts on the quality and quantity of innovativeness of the firm (Baker & Sinkula, 2009). Exposure to new international opportunities can enhance innovativeness of the firm (Autio, George, & Alexy, 2011). However, internationalization can also be related to earlier organizational decisions regarding innovations (Cassiman & Golovko, 2011; Filatotchev & Piesse, 2009). Innovation in international markets may lead to increased profitability for the firm concerned (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004; Kyla¨heiko, Jantunen, Puumalainen, Saarenketo, & Tuppura, 2011). Innovation has been a fundamental part of entrepreneurship to the extent that some researchers use the two terms interchangeably (Bruyat & Julien, 2000). International innovation propensity enhances international entrepreneurship of the firm (Gabrielsson, Kirpalani, Dimitratos, Solberg, & Zucchella, 2008; Kropp et al., 2006; Styles & Genua, 2008). Drawing on Schumpeter’s (1934) seminal work, innovation propensity is typically captured in international entrepreneurship studies through the measure of Miller and Friesen (1982). This scale assesses the extent to which the internationalized firm favors innovative versus established products, many versus few product introductions and major versus minor changes in its new products.

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

711

2.4. International risk attitude International risk attitude relates to the degree to which the firm is prepared to undertake substantial and risky resource commitments in international markets (cf. Miller & Friesen, 1978). Risk attitude is a chief dimension of organizational culture (Reynolds, 1986). Risk posture of management of the firm is related to identification and pursuit of opportunities both domestically (Aram & Morgan, 1976) and internationally (Dimitratos, Plakoyiannaki, Pitsoulaki, & Tu¨selmann, 2010). Risk-taking accommodates the entrepreneurial orientation of internationalized firms (Styles & Genua, 2008). Moreover, risk propensity concerning the resources of international entrepreneurial firms seriously affects their decisions to internationalize (Perks & Hughes, 2008). In the entrepreneurship and international entrepreneurship disciplines, risk attitude is conceptualized through the tendency of the internationalized firm to favor low- versus high-risk projects, incremental versus wide-ranging behavior and cautious versus bold decisions when confronted with decision-making situations involving uncertainty (cf. Khandwalla, 1977). 2.5. International networking orientation International networking orientation pertains to the extent to which the firm obtains resources from the external environment through alliance creation and social embeddedness in order to use in its activities in markets abroad (cf. Granovetter, 1985; Gulati, 1998). Networking orientation is a principal part of organizational culture (Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996). Networking affects opportunity development and exploitation in international entrepreneurial firms (Agndal, Chetty, & Wilson, 2008; Ellis, 2011; Hadjikhani et al., 2005; Kontinen & Ojala, 2011) and leads to increased international performance (Johnsoon & Lindbergh, 2010; Racela et al., 2007). Reliance on both ‘‘fundamental and secondary networking capabilities’’ is important for international entrepreneurial firms (Mort & Weerawardena, 2006). International networking is associated with international market orientation as the latter can serve as an antecedent to development of business-to-business relationships (Gellynck, Vermeire, & Viaene, 2007). International networking is also linked to international learning orientation inasmuch as learning can emerge from business and social learning networks that facilitate internationalization (Freeman, Hutchings, Lazaris, & Zyngler, 2010; Johanson & Vahlne, 2009; Zucchella, Palamara, & Denicolai, 2007). Social interaction within the multinational enterprise further promotes knowledge sharing and learning (Noorderhaven & Harzing, 2009). Networking is connected to another interrelated IEC dimension, namely innovation propensity inasmuch as effective innovations are likely to be generated in such alliances (Kelley, Peters, & O’Connor, 2009). Interorganizational networks may also accommodate entrepreneurial ventures of multinational enterprise subsidiaries (Boojihawon et al., 2007). 2.6. International motivation International motivation refers to the process of initiation, direction and energization of human behavior of organizational members regarding ventures internationally (cf. Geen & Shea, 1997). Motivation is further connected to the incentives and rewards that should be offered to organizational participants to make them act toward desired performance (cf. Detert, Schroeder, & Mauriel, 2000). International motivation is integral to organizational culture in that the presence of a participative culture in the internationalized firm strengthens administrative changes (Zhou et al., 2006). Apart from this, ¨ zbilgin & Woodward, 2004). International motivation is managerial values and practices permeate organizational culture (O linked to opportunity identification in born globals (Zahra et al., 2005) and multinational enterprises (Lee & Williams, 2007). Human capital of the management team critically impacts on the growth of international entrepreneurial firms (Crick & Spence, 2005; Fernhaber & McDougall-Covin, 2009; Unger, Rauch, Frese, & Rosenbuch, 2011). Elaborating on different attitudinal orientations of top management in born globals, research evidence attests the significance of entrepreneurial inspiration and international vision throughout the organization (Freeman & Cavusgil, 2007; Gilbert, McDougall, & Audretsch, 2006). International motivation is further closely associated with both the learning (Michailova & Minbaeva, 2011) and the networking (Lee & Williams, 2007) orientations in multinational enterprises. 3. Developing the measurement instrument 3.1. Writing the items In the development of the scale that seeks to measure opportunity-based IEC as captured through the six aforementioned dimensions, we followed the recommendations for scale construction and evaluation of Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman (1991). These researchers offer a well-established methodology for scale development, which has been implemented previously in the entrepreneurship field (Brown et al., 2001; Thompson, 2009). The initial step for scale building is writing or locating items to include in the measure. The six proposed dimensions were based on previously validated scales that were adapted to the internationalization context. This facilitated the establishment of the face validity of the instrument. Specifically, international market orientation captures international customer orientation, interfunctional coordination and international competitor orientation. These three dimensions are drawn from Deshpande, Farley, and Webster (1993) and Kohli, Jaworski, and Kumar (1993); Narver and Slater (1990); and, Covin and Covin (1990) and Kohli et al. (1993),

712

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

respectively. International learning orientation is adapted from Moorman (1995). International innovation propensity is based on the scale of Miller and Friesen (1982). International risk attitude is drawn from Khandwalla (1977). International networking orientation refers to networking activities with both competitors and non-competitors, and uses items adapted from Dollinger (1990), and Dollinger and Golden (1992). International motivation is based on Hornsby, Kuratko, and Zahra (2002). The internationalization setting served as the context for these scales that were developed for activities of firms operating domestically. The IEC scale was developed in the following way. A pool of 50 items based on the aforementioned studies was generated. The items were of forced-choice type, with pairs of statements representing the opposite ends of a continuum. A seven-point Likert scale divided the two statements. First, we were concerned how understandable, readable, and clear the items of this scale were. Therefore, we presented the items of the whole scale to four academic experts, and asked them questions encouraging them to describe possible difficulties in the understanding of the items and suggest ideas about wording. All comments were recorded and assisted our research team examine each item vis-a`-vis the feedback from the respondents. At the end of this process, an improved (regarding wording) 50-item scale was generated. Second, and most important, we were concerned how valid the items of the IEC scale were. Hence, we used a judge panel method, which has been proposed in prior research (e.g. Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993) in order to evaluate the content adequacy of the items of our measure. This method is an improvement compared with the use of potentially biased or limited subjective judgments that rely on either one or few individuals. Thus, a series of interviews were conducted with both CEOs of a convenience sample of 17 internationalized firms (nine UK and eight US firms) and five academic experts in international entrepreneurship. We asked respondents to read the items of the 50-item IEC scale and provide their assessment (on a 1–3 scale) of each item’s content adequacy. At the end of this process, the ‘‘content validity ratio’’ (CVR) for each item on the IEC scale was computed (see Lawshe, 1975). Only items with a CVR above 0.42 were selected, which is a figure above the minimum CVR value recommended by Lawshe (1975). This resulted in the retention of a revised 27-item IEC scale, containing three to six items for each dimension. After these 27 items had been identified for inclusion in the final scale, the mean of the CVR values was computed. The content validity index was 0.76 for the whole scale, which further substantiates the content validity of the IEC scale. 3.2. The sample In order to generalize the results of the study it is essential to use a representative sample in its scale development (Robinson et al., 1991). We view international entrepreneurship as a notion that can be relevant to activities of all firms regardless of size, age, sector or time to internationalization (Keupp & Gassmann, 2009; Oviatt & McDougall, 2005; Zahra, 2005). Therefore, it was important to obtain a diverse random sample with analyzable subgroups. The primary sampling frame consisted of internationalized firms located in two industrialized countries, namely UK and USA. This was appropriate because entrepreneurial patterns between countries may differ (Hayton, George, & Zahra, 2002), and so, the comparison of cross-national data was essential. Firms in the population belonged to a variety of sectors ranging from low-tech clothing, food and drinks or textiles; to high-tech software packages, laser optics or biomedical devices. Sectors also included internationalized services such as advertising and education services. The time to achieve the first international market sale was not an issue since we did not discriminate between born globals and gradually internationalizing firms. Additionally, sampled firms could employ any foreign market servicing mode abroad ranging from exporting to wholly owned subsidiaries. As stated, the study of IEC can be applied to firms irrespective of size. However, a random sample of firms including microscopic, small, medium and large firms may be associated with methodological complications. For instance, owners or CEOs could easily fill in a questionnaire in small firms unlike in large firms, in which the respondent is likely to be a middlelevel manager. This would probably render the simultaneous treatment of all data problematic. Therefore, we chose to examine only medium-sized firms employing 50–249 people in both countries, assuming that medium-sized firms represent a legitimate compromise as far as the average enterprise size is concerned. Consequently, the criteria used to select our sample were that each examined firm: (a) had international activities (reported international sales); (b) was independently owned (i.e. not subsidiary of a large firm); (c) was UK- or US-owned (the two countries in which the study was conducted); and, (d) employed between 50 and 249 employees. The target respondent was the key informant concerning international activities of the firm, namely the owner, CEO, or top-level manager (in international activities, marketing or sales) of the internationalized firm. The questionnaire captured management perceptions regarding international activities of the firm in the ‘‘best-seller’’ foreign country, notably the market in which the firm achieved the highest level of sales among its foreign country destinations. The sampling process was completed in four steps following a procedure similar to that described by Newbold (1995). First, we randomly selected from the Dun and Bradstreet databases in the two countries. We chose our sample from this database because it mainly contains established, publicly trading firms. As entrepreneurship study has moved away from examining just start-up ventures and entrepreneurship has been accepted to be a range of activities that take place in established firms also (Brown et al., 2001), we sought to investigate organizations that had been around for a few years and had an already established culture. We investigated 700 firms that met the four aforementioned criteria (350 in each country). Second, the key informants of all 700 firms were contacted by telephone to check that they actually met the four criteria and were willing to participate in the study. This yielded 601 responses (86%). Third, the questionnaire was mailed to

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

713

the key informants of all those 601 firms. Fourth, follow-up telephone calls were made after a couple of weeks following the initial dispatch of the questionnaires to remind respondents to participate in the study. We received fully completed questionnaires from 162 firms, yielding a response rate of 27%. 3.3. Pre-testing, testing and adjusting the scale The pre-test had the form of a ‘‘rolling’’ test in accord with the procedure outlined by Brown et al. (2001). The 27-item version of the questionnaire was firstly mailed to 301 randomly selected firms of the two-country sample (consisting of 601 firms). This initial dispatch resulted in 94 completed questionnaires. At this point, the 27 items were factor analyzed as we sought to develop reliable indices of the IEC dimensions. However, the results of this analysis suggested two deletions of items and some alterations. Specifically, the dimensions of international innovation propensity and risk attitude along with most of the items of market orientation referring to competitor orientation merged together in one factor that was labeled international entrepreneurial orientation. This result is not particularly surprising. Entrepreneurial orientation is a wellestablished scale (Hansen, Deitz, Tokman, Marino, & Weaver, 2011) and mostly used as one summed index. Furthermore, not all items that were intended to measure international networking orientation loaded on one factor. Instead, two conceptually logical factors appeared, which we labeled international networking with competitors and international networking with non-competitors. We subsequently sent the remaining 300 firms of the full sample the refined 25-item version of the questionnaire. This resulted in the collection of 68 extra completed questionnaires. When all 162 (91 UK and 71 US) questionnaires were collected and analyzed, it turned out that two international entrepreneurial orientation items (one of the international innovation propensity and one of the international risk attitude dimensions) loaded on two different factors at levels around 0.40. As a result, they were dropped from the scale. The final version of the 23 items that constitute our IEC instrument is given in Appendix A along with the sources for each question. A factor analysis was run with these 23 items using principal component extraction and quartimax rotations. The results are shown in Table 2. Each item has its highest loading on the factor it conceptually belongs, and no item has a loading of 0.20 or more on any other factors. A vast majority of the loadings are in the high 0.60 s or more. The results of this analysis imply that we have isolated six empirically distinct factors that represent important dimensions of IEC: international entrepreneurial orientation, international market orientation, international motivation, international learning orientation, international networking orientation with competitors, and international networking orientation with non-competitors. However, these dimensions, although theoretically plausible, are somewhat different from the initial six-dimensional conceptualization. These discrepancies will be discussed in Section 4. The fact that the resulting dimensions could be extracted as orthogonal factors suggests that the dimensions are conceptually sound. If IEC is the cohesive part of organizational culture that facilitates the entrepreneurial activities of the firm abroad, we would expect the six dimensions to be positively correlated. We created summed indices on the basis of the

Table 2 Factor analysis loadings of the IEC scale (n = 162). Factor (variance explained) Variable I Entrepreneurial orientation 1 I Entrepreneurial orientation 2 I Entrepreneurial orientation 3 I Entrepreneurial orientation 4 I Entrepreneurial orientation 5 I Entrepreneurial orientation 6 I Entrepreneurial orientation 7 I Market orientation 1 I Market orientation 2 I Market orientation 3 I Market orientation 4 I Market orientation 5 I Motivation 1 I Motivation 2 I Learning orientation 1 I Learning orientation 2 I Learning orientation 3 Competitor I networking 1 Competitor I networking 2 Competitor I networking 3 Non-competitor I networking 1 Non-competitor I networking 2 Non-competitor I networking 3

Factor 1 (16.40%)

Factor 2 (14.45%)

Factor 3 (9.50%)

Factor 4 (9.35%)

Factor 5 (7.87%)

Factor 6 (6.85%)

0.675 0.749 0.687 0.755 0.500 0.543 0.723 0.741 0.803 0.762 0.662 0.647 0.924 0.881 0.588 0.584 0.617 0.752 0.866 0.846 0.769 0.784 0.799

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

714

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and measurement reliability of IEC (n = 162). Index

Mean

S.D.

Alpha

I Entrepreneurial orientation Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 I Market orientation Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4a Item 5a I Motivation Item 1a Item 2a I Learning orientation Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Competitor I networking orientation Item 1a Item 2 Item 3 Non-competitor I networking orientation Item 1a Item 2 Item 3

4.22 3.57 3.79 4.41 4.75 4.61 4.38 4.02 4.75 4.74 5.08 5.03 4.67 4.26 5.49 5.48 5.50 4.60 4.61 4.62 4.59 3.94 1.39 1.31 1.24 2.72 2.56 2.82 2.78

1.07 1.56 1.50 1.52 1.49 1.61 1.64 1.58 1.03 1.52 1.27 1.22 1.39 1.40 1.06 1.17 1.12 1.06 1.40 1.25 1.24 0.64 0.84 0.73 0.67 1.39 1.77 1.77 1,75

0.813

a

Item-total correlation 0.62 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.61 0.61 0.75

0.815 0.77 0.78 0.76 0.75 0.72 0.816 0.92 0.91 0.754 0.74 0.85 0.86 0.809 0.83 0.88 0.85 0.692 0.77 0.82 0.75

The descriptive statistics provided refer to the reverse-scaled items of Appendix A.

factor pattern and conducted correlations analyses. Indeed the vast majority of the fifteen correlation coefficients were positive, whereas most of them were statistically significant (p < 0.001). No statistically significant negative correlations appeared. We computed Cronbach alphas and item total correlation coefficients (Table 3) to further assess the reliability of the indices. As shown in this table, all indices (except one) achieved coefficient alphas higher than the 0.70 minimum acceptable value recommended by Nunnally (1978). International networking with non-competitors had a coefficient alpha of 0.692. Our instrument is designed to capture opportunity-based IEC, and hence, is a firm-level measure. This would render the use of a single respondent a possible limitation. In order to remedy this weakness, we assessed inter-respondent reliability. We expected that IEC scores as provided by the key respondent would concur with IEC responses of another key informant in the same firm. Initial respondents were contacted and asked to identify another person in the firm who would be qualified to answer the same questions. These persons were then mailed the questionnaire and follow-up telephone calls were made. We received mail responses from second respondents in 19 firms (12% of the sample). A correlation analysis was conducted using the responses of the two interviewees in each firm. This analysis was performed for the six identified dimensions. Correlations coefficients ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 and were significant at the 0.05 level. These results provide strong support for inter-respondent reliability, suggesting that our instrument is indeed a measure of the entire IEC of the firm and does not reflect individual characteristics of the key respondent. 3.4. Confirmatory factor analysis for scale validation The dimensionality and factor structure of the IEC scale was validated through confirmatory factor analysis. One method for validating the results of an exploratory factor analysis is to move to a confirmatory perspective and assess the replicability of the results ‘‘externally’’ with a new cross-validation sample (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Nevertheless, the external replication of the scale was restricted by the design of the current research consisting of 700 contacted firms. Therefore, we followed internal replication by using the bootstrap method. Developed by Efron (1979), the bootstrap method aims to generate an empirical sampling distribution used to test statistical hypotheses, estimate standard errors and produce confidence intervals. This becomes feasible through the creation of multiple new samples from the research sample so as to come up with a bootstrap empirical sampling distribution (Baldwin & Caldwell, 2003; Byrne, 2001). Bootstrapping is considered to be a unique and effective method for testing the stability and replicability of a scale (Guthrie, 2001). This method includes advantages such as overcoming concerns referring to possible violations of assumptions and modest sample sizes.

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

715

Table 4 Summary of bootstrapped parameter estimates of total sample, and UK/US sub-samples. Bootstrap estimates for 100 resamples Model 1

Model 2

Total sample (n = 162)

UK sub-sample (n = 91)

US sub-sample (n = 71)

Ba

Ba

Ba I Entrepreneurial orientation Item 1 0.531 Item 2 0.631 Item 3 0.685 Item 4 0.731 Item 5 0.531 Item 6 0.523 Item 7 0.694 I Market orientation Item 1 0.706 Item 2 0.802 Item 3 0.751 Item 4 0.597 Item 5 0.562 I Motivation 0.821 Item 1 Item 2 0.852 I Learning orientation Item 1 0.444 Item 2 0.854 Item 3 0.880 Competitor I networking Item 1 0.604 Item 2 0.900 Item 3 0.811 Non-competitor I networking Item 1 0.595 Item 2 0.830 Item 3 0.565 Model summary statistics x2(224) 281.137 p 0.131 CFI 0.952 Robust CFI 0.991 RMSEA 0.035 a b

SEb

Model 3

SEb

SEb

0.058 0.057 0.070 0.055 0.073 0.078 0.051

0.456 0.511 0.692 0.722 0.526 0.385 0.649

0.093 0.107 0.073 0.067 0.097 0.137 0.087

0.700 0.808 0.719 0.752 0.549 0.699 0.793

0.054 0.048 0.109 0.070 0.095 0.054 0.055

0.050 0.055 0.053 0.065 0.076

0.652 0.672 0.681 0.724 0.615

0.075 0.094 0.095 0.068 0.096

0.770 0.917 0.749 0.487 0.484

0.061 0.044 0.086 0.103 0.142

0.150 0.150

0.821 0.928

0.116 0.096

0.728 0.847

0.176 0.197

0.091 0.077 0.070

0.441 0.888 0.851

0.091 0.095 0.082

0.487 0.821 0.937

0.103 0.082 0.062

0.105 0.070 0.080

0.632 0.908 0.699

0.148 0.113 0.177

0.655 0.850 0.893

0.086 0.072 0.075

0.076 0.077 0.092

0.490 0.803 0.386

0.159 0.177 0.128

0.564 0.826 0.673

0.111 0.076 0.108

45.137

279.250 0.169 0.966 0.969 0.052

293.931 0.156 0.968 0.927 0.059

66.006

0.033 0.014 0.017

73.41 0.098 0.053 0.033

0.070 0.060 0.033

Reflects the mean value of sampling distribution for the statistic. Significant at p < 0.01. Standardized solution. The standard error is the standard deviation of the sampling distribution. It reflects the stability over resamples.

Thus, following Bone, Sharma, and Shimp (1989), we used a bootstrap procedure for evaluating our confirmatory factor analysis. Three separate analyses were run. First, a confirmatory factor examination was performed on the entire sample of 162 firms using 100 resamples. Subsequently two additional separate confirmatory factor analyses were performed on two sub-samples, one comprising the 91 UK firms and one comprising the 71 US firms. Again we used 100 resamples in both cases. The results of the three first-order confirmatory factor analyses of the IEC scale are shown in Table 4 (model 1 for the total sample, model 2 for the UK sub-sample and model 3 for the US sub-sample). The overall chi-square results indicate a good fit in all three models (x2(224) = 281.137, p = 0.131 in model 1; x2(224) = 279.250, p = 0.169 in model 2; x2(224) = 293.931, p = 0.156 in model 3). The comparative fit index (CFI) scores are higher than the 0.95 figure recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). Analytically, these scores are 0.952 in model 1, 0.966 in model 2 and 0.968 in model 3, thus indicating a close fit. Also, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values are all very satisfactory and below the optimal critical value of 0.06 that suggests a close fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). These values are 0.035 in model 1, 0.052 in model 2 and 0.059 in model 3. The factor loadings are significant at p < 0.01. They are all adequate and demonstrate loadings on the appropriate factor in the three models. More importantly, as shown in Table 4, the bootstrap standard error estimates in all three models are very small in relation to the mean bootstrap parameter estimates. This entails that the sample statistic is a stable one, and so, likely to be replicated (Guthrie, 2001). Hence, the results from these analyses confirm the replicability and related validity of the IEC scale. 3.5. Examining the validity of the scale In order to further establish the validity of the scale, it was essential to ascertain convergent validity. Toward this objective, we needed to compare our IEC scale with another measure of international entrepreneurship. We chose to use the

716

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

international entrepreneurial orientation scale suggested by Knight and Cavusgil (2004). This instrument was also included in the questionnaire of the current study. Nonetheless, we have eliminated four items from Knight and Cavusgil’s international entrepreneurial orientation measure since three of these items captured competitor orientation and the other item innovation propensity in very similar phrasing with that of our IEC scale. Had we included these four items in the international entrepreneurial orientation scale, we would have obtained misleadingly high correlations between the two measures. We summed all 23 items of our IEC scale in one index, and all (remaining) eight items of Knight and Cavusgil’s international entrepreneurial orientation scale in another index so as to compare the two constructs. The reliability levels of both IEC (a = 0.808) and international entrepreneurial orientation (a = 0.725) scales are above Nunnally’s (1978) recommended level. The correlation between the two indices is 0.7 (p < 0.001), which is a figure that indicates a high degree of correspondence between the two measures. This warrants that the IEC scale can indeed be a measure of international entrepreneurship. In order to additionally establish the validity of the IEC scale we needed to ascertain discriminant validity. Consequently, we compared the IEC scale with three other dimensions of international strategy that is a conceptually comparable, albeit distinct, concept; and, whose dimensions were also included in our questionnaire. Three dimensions of international strategy were used, while each one was measured by two or three items. These dimensions were differentiation strategy (a = 0.781); low-cost strategy (a = 0.741); and, niche strategy (a = 0.688). We correlated the summed IEC index with the summed indices of the three dimensions of international strategy. We obtained positive correlations for two of them. However, none of these correlations was sufficiently high (they were 0.222 and 0.286); or, none came close to the magnitude of the correlation between IEC and Knight and Cavusgil’s international entrepreneurial orientation. These findings suggest that IEC is sound and relatively distinct, empirically and conceptually, from international strategy. In order to further strengthen the validity of the opportunity-based IEC scale, we proceeded to the assessment of its relationship with an outcome of international entrepreneurship, notably international performance. We used two measures of international performance, notably foreign sales growth and profitability (see, for example, McDougall & Oviatt, 2000), which were also included in our questionnaire; and, linked the IEC measure to both of them. The correlations between the IEC scale and the two performance measures are 0.391 (p < 0.001) and 0.449 (p < 0.001) respectively, indicating a satisfactory positive linear relationship with both performance measures. These findings additionally strengthen the validity of the IEC scale because they provide actual evidence that opportunity-based international entrepreneurship is instrumental to the performance of entrepreneurial firms internationally as suggested by the literature (Dimitratos et al., 2004; Zahra & Garvis, 2000). 4. Discussion The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to measure opportunity-based IEC following previous conceptualizations in the literature. We propose a 23-item measurement instrument, from which a summed index with high reliability can be computed. The scale consists of six dimensions of IEC, which we label international entrepreneurial orientation; international market orientation; international motivation; international learning orientation; international networking orientation with competitors; and, international networking orientation with non-competitors. These dimensions were confirmed in two sub-samples of internationalized medium-sized firms in two countries, notably UK and USA. The first seven items of the IEC scale constitute the international entrepreneurial orientation dimension. This dimension consists of international risk attitude (items 1–2 of Appendix A); international competitor orientation or proactiveness (items 3–5); and, international innovation propensity (items 6–7). It is remarkable that these seven items constitute one factor loading that largely corroborates the operationalization of previous international entrepreneurship studies (e.g. Dimitratos et al., 2004; Zhou, 2007). This finding in part challenges our original conceptualization since international innovation propensity and risk attitude do not form separate factors (yet they appear in the final pool of items). In addition, competitor orientation largely ends up with its associated international entrepreneurial orientation items rather than the conceptualized market orientation sub-dimensions. Consequently, this result essentially confirms the unidimensionality of international entrepreneurship orientation. As regards international market orientation, its first four items relate to international customer orientation while the fifth item to international competitor orientation. Two points are worth commenting on this result. First, the most significant aspect of international market orientation turns out to be customer orientation (Deshpande et al., 1993; Knight & Kim, 2009). Second, the fact that interfunctional coordination is not part of the international market orientation construct substantiates the viewpoint that a mixture of customer and competitor orientations is what it is principally required for an effective market strategy at both the domestic (Day & Wensley, 1988) and international (Gellynck et al., 2007) levels. The items of international motivation underline the importance of activation of employee behavior toward entrepreneurial ventures abroad. These employees may not necessarily be in the higher-level ranks of the firm. This finding strengthens those of studies supporting the notion that entrepreneurial firms favor a results-based philosophy in their flat structures (Brown et al., 2001; Hornsby et al., 2002). Moreover, this finding is in accord with those of the international entrepreneurship literature suggesting that possession of a global vision for all enterprise employees is an imperative for the firm to compete successfully abroad (Fernhaber & McDougall-Covin, 2009; Oviatt & McDougall, 1995).

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

717

Furthermore, the evidence suggests that international learning orientation consists of information dissemination (item 1) and information use (items 2–3). It is interesting that information acquisition does not emerge as a separate part of the learning orientation. This may be associated with the finding that international market orientation, which is composed of customer and competitor orientations, can serve as a surrogate to information acquisition. Viewed in this light, market orientation is closely linked to its learning counterpart because the former provides scope to the firm and directs organizational learning toward specific market segments (Baker & Sinkula, 1999). The two last dimensions of IEC pertain to international networking. In line with Dollinger (1990), and Dollinger and Golden (1992), who elaborate on alliance strategies of smaller enterprises, it appears that direct activities with both competitors and non-competitors are instrumental to international entrepreneurial activities. Non-competitors are partners, distributors, suppliers, clients, firms of other sectors or governmental organizations in the foreign country. The existence of these two dimensions confirms the importance given in the international entrepreneurship literature to effective networking of firms to overcome resource constraints (Harris & Wheeler, 2005; Zucchella et al., 2007). 5. Conclusions 5.1. Implications There are significant implications for research and management resulting from the suggested IEC operationalization. As far as research is concerned, the contribution of this study is the development and validation of a new opportunity-based instrument to measure international entrepreneurship. The widely used three-component measurement is narrower and likely to provide an incomplete picture of international entrepreneurship. On the contrary, the IEC holistic instrument is multidimensional; and, may comprehensively measure the various facets of IEC of the firm identifying and pursuing opportunities. The conceptualization and operational definition of the IEC scale is robust inasmuch as prior theory was the primary source of the proposed six dimensions; and, the analysis of the homogeneity of scale items, the internal consistency reliability, and the convergent and discriminant validity characteristics of the measurement instrument substantiate its construct validity. This new scale brings together five more factors in addition to international entrepreneurial orientation. Although all these factors had been used in past international entrepreneurship and international business studies in a variety of ways, they have never been utilized together as a comprehensive measurement of IEC of the firm. Future research attempting to capture the opportunity theme in internationalization studies may employ the IEC operationalization proposed in the current study; and so, broaden the narrower focus of previous studies. Hence, research can shift attention from the notion of international entrepreneurship to the encompassing concept of opportunity-based IEC. In a recent literature review, Keupp and Gassmann (2009) note that international entrepreneurship studies should incorporate more theory-driven, organizational-level aspects that capture the international behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Similarly, Coviello and Jones (2004, p. 498) in another review article of the state of international entrepreneurship research suggest that ‘‘by integrating entrepreneurship and internationalization models, it is possible to develop constructs and measures that are robust, validated, reliable, and clearly positioned within the domain of IE [International Entrepreneurship]’’. By drawing on numerous literature streams, this opportunity-based IEC measure aims to provide greater legitimacy to the international entrepreneurship field. Specifically, the present study responds to the plea of a very recent literature review that ‘‘[t]o date, however, measures have not been developed to capture international entrepreneurial culture as a complete concept’’ (Jones et al., 2012, p. 10). In effect, we posit that the suggested operationalization provides a different lens that researchers can adopt in future studies; and, aims to facilitate reinvigoration of study in this area. The major managerial implication pertains to aspects of organizational culture that managers of internationalized firms have to develop in order to pursue entrepreneurial ventures abroad. Given the importance of international entrepreneurship for the international performance of the firm, management are advised to nurture an IEC that accommodates the entrepreneurial activities of their firms abroad. These organizational culture characteristics pertain to cultivating an international entrepreneurial orientation distinguished by risk-seeking, proactive (with respect to competition) and innovative propensity; a market orientation that puts the international customer at the center of enterprise activities and seeks to collect actively competitor information abroad; a motivational structure that induces employees to propose ideas and suggestions for foreign activities; a learning orientation that effectively disseminates and uses intelligence between the internationalized firm’s departments; and, an energetic networking stance pursuing joint manufacturing, research, advertising and marketing activities with both competing and non-competing organizations internationally. 5.2. Future research directions The way the IEC scale was developed in the current study is likely to suggest future research avenues. We explore three of them in the current section. The sample size was constrained by the design of this study targeting medium-sized firms and involving cross-national data. Also, it was not feasible to obtain cross-validation data in the current research. According to suggestions in the related literature (e.g. Hair et al., 2006), it is valuable to test the reliability and factor analytic structure of newly developed instruments on new samples. As we were hindered from performing external replication due to the design of this study, we attempted to remedy this by executing internal replication through the bootstrap procedure. Consequently, future research can involve larger samples that may validate the proposed IEC operationalization.

718

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

Moreover, the original scales upon which we relied on to draw the IEC operationalization were developed in the domestic context. Buckley (2002) criticizes the majority of international business research in that it transfers ideas and notions from ‘‘domestic’’ management areas into the internationalization context. Viewed in this light, our attempt may be subject to the same criticism. Nevertheless, we identified organizational culture dimensions that were central to internationalization. The international entrepreneurship and international business disciplines are likely to be in the future effective in developing more ‘‘international’’ scales that can subsequently be tested in IEC operationalizations and studies. In addition, our IEC scale was derived from studies on all sizes of firms while examined subjects were medium-sized enterprises. Researchers (Acs & Audretsch, 1990; Robinson & Pearce, 1983) question to what extent such ‘‘mainstream’’ scales are appropriate for smaller firms, and so, the generalizability of results can be debatable if one adopts this line of argumentation. Since medium-sized firms in two industrialized countries of Anglo-Saxon culture were investigated, further research may analyze internationalized small and large firms in other countries of dissimilar cultural backgrounds and levels of economic development. This would be necessary to validate the IEC operationalization for enterprises of various sizes in diverse national backgrounds.

Appendix A. International entrepreneurship culture (IEC) scale Please evaluate the following sentences with reference to your firm’s activities in the foreign country in which your firm achieves the highest level of sales. International entrepreneurial orientation 1. In this foreign country, we generally favor low-risk projects (with normal and certain rates of return 2. In general, we believe that owing to the nature of the environment in this foreign country it is best to achieve the firm’s objectives in its marketplace via cautious and incremental behavior 3. In dealing with its competitors in the marketplace of this foreign country, my firm typically responds to actions which competitors initiate 4. In dealing with its competitors in the marketplace of this foreign country, my firm is very seldom the first firm to introduce new products/services, administrative techniques and operating technologies 5. In dealing with its competitors in the marketplace of this foreign country, my firm typically seeks to avoid competitive clashes, preferring a ‘live-and-let-live’ posture 6. In the past five years my firm has not marketed any new lines of products or services in this foreign country 7. In the past five years in this foreign country changes in product or service lines have been mostly of a minor nature International market orientation 1. With regard to the activities of my firm in this foreign country, we lack routine or regular measures of customer service 2. With regard to the activities of my firm in this foreign country, our product or service development is not based on market and customer information 3. With regard to the activities of my firm in this foreign country, we have a limited sense of how our customers value our products/services 4. In its activities in this foreign country, my firm always collects information on our customers through various means (e.g. customer surveys, customer focus groups, customer meetings) 5. In its activities in this foreign country, my firm always collects information on our competitors through various means (e.g. reports, newsletters) International motivation 1. With reference to the management philosophy for the activities of my firm in this foreign country, developing an employee’s own ideas is especially encouraged for the improvement of the firm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

In this foreign country we favor high-risk projects (with chances of very high return) In general, we believe that owing to the nature of the environment in this foreign country it is best to achieve the firm’s objectives in its marketplace via bold and wide-ranging acts In dealing with its competitors in the marketplace of this foreign country, my firm typically initiates actions to which competitors then respond In dealing with its competitors in the marketplace of this foreign country, my firm is very often the first firm to introduce new products/services, administrative techniques and operating technologies In dealing with its competitors in the marketplace of this foreign country, my firm typically adopts a very competitive ‘beat-the-competitors’ posture In the past five years my firm has marketed very many new lines of products or services in this foreign country In the past five years in this foreign country changes in product or service lines have usually been quite dramatic With regard to the activities of my firm in this foreign country, we have many routine or regular measures of customer service With regard to the activities of my firm in this foreign country, our product or service development is heavily based on good market and customer information With regard to the activities of my firm in this foreign country, we have a very good sense of how our customers value our products/services In its activities in this foreign country, my firm never collects information on our customers through any means (e.g. customer surveys, customer focus groups, customer meetings) In its activities in this foreign country, my firm never collects information on our competitors through any means (e.g. reports, newsletters) With reference to the management philosophy for the activities of my firm in this foreign country, developing an employee’s own ideas is not particularly encouraged

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

719

Appendix A (Continued ) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

With reference to the management philosophy for the activities of my firm in this foreign country, top management are ignorant and rather unreceptive toward employees’ ideas and suggestions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

We have many formal information links established between departments/functions involved in the activities in this foreign country My firm has many formal or informal processes that provide clear direction on implementation of activities in this foreign country My firm has many formal or informal processes that evaluate the effectiveness of its activities in this foreign country

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 3. In this foreign country, my firm does not cooperate/ participate with competitors in advertising and marketing International networking orientation with non-competitors 1 1. In this foreign country, my firm cooperates/ participates intensively with non-competitors (partners, distributors, suppliers, clients, firms of other sectors, government) in joint manufacturing agreements 2. In this foreign country, my firm does not cooperate/ 1 participate with non-competitors in joint research

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

In this foreign country, my firm does not cooperate/ participate with non-competitors (partners, distributors, suppliers, clients, firms of other sectors, government) in joint manufacturing agreements

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

In this foreign country, my firm cooperates/ participates to a very large extent with noncompetitors in joint research In this foreign country, my firm cooperates/ participates heavily with non-competitors in joint advertising and marketing

2. With reference to the management philosophy for the activities of my firm in this foreign country, top management are aware and very receptive to employees’ ideas and suggestions International learning orientation 1. We do not have any formal information links established between departments/functions involved in the activities in this foreign country 2. My firm lacks formal or informal processes that provide clear direction on implementation of activities in this foreign country 3. My firm lacks formal or informal processes that evaluate the effectiveness of its activities in this foreign country International networking orientation with competitors 1. In this foreign country, my firm cooperates/ participates intensively with competitors in joint manufacturing agreements 2. In this foreign country, my firm does not cooperate/ participate with competitors in joint research

3. In this foreign country, my firm does not cooperate/ participate with non-competitors in joint advertising and marketing

1

In this foreign country, my firm does not cooperate/ participate with competitors in joint manufacturing agreements In this foreign country, my firm cooperates/ participates to a very large extent with competitors in joint research In this foreign country, my firm cooperates/ participates heavily with competitors in advertising and marketing

Sources: International entrepreneurial orientation, Questions 1–2 Khandwalla (1977); Qs 3–5 Covin and Covin (1990); Qs 6–7 Miller and Friesen (1982). International market orientation, Qs 1–3 Deshpande et al. (1993); Qs 4–5 Kohli et al. (1993) – Qs 4–5 are reverse-scaled. International motivation, Qs 1–2 Hornsby et al. (2002) – Qs 1–2 are reverse-scaled. International learning orientation, Qs 1–3 Moorman (1995). International networking orientation with competitors, Qs 1–3 Dollinger (1990), and Dollinger and Golden (1992) – Q 1 is reverse scaled. International networking orientation with non-competitors, Qs 1–3 Dollinger (1990), and Dollinger and Golden (1992) – Q 1 is reverse-scaled.

References Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1990). Innovation and small firms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Agndal, H., Chetty, S., & Wilson, H. (2008). Social capital dynamics and foreign market entry. International Business Review, 17, 663–675. Aram, J. D., & Morgan, C. P. (1976). The role of project team collaboration in R&D performance. Management Science, 22, 1127–1137. Armario, J. M., Ruiz, D. M., & Armario, E. M. (2008). Market orientation and internationalization in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 46, 485–511. Autio, E., George, G., & Alexy, O. (2011). International entrepreneurship and capability development — qualitative evidence and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 11–37. Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, H. J. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 909–924. Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 411–427. Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2009). The complementary of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 47, 443–464. Baldwin, C. K., & Caldwell, L. L. (2003). Development of the free time motivation scale for adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(2), 129–151. Bone, P. F., Sharma, S., & Shimp, T. A. (1989). A bootstrap procedure for evaluating goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation and confirmatory models. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 105–111. Boojihawon, D. K., Dimitratos, P., & Young, S. (2007). Characteristics and influences of multinational subsidiary entrepreneurial culture: The case of the advertising sector. International Business Review, 16, 549–572. Brown, T. E., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). An operationalization of Stevenson’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 953–968. Bruyat, C., & Julien, P.-A. (2000). Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 165–180. Buckley, P. J. (2002). Is the international business research agenda running out of steam? Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 365–373. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equations modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts applications and programming. Malrwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cadogan, J. W., Diamantopoulos, A., & de Mortanges, C. P. (1999). A measure of export market orientation: Scale development and cross-cultural validation. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 689–707. Casillas, J. C., Moreno, A. M., Acedo, F. J., Gallego, M. A., & Ramos, E. (2009). An integrative model of the role of knowledge in the internationalization process. Journal of World Business, 44, 311–322. Cassiman, B., & Golovko, E. (2011). Innovation and internationalization through exports. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 56–75. Coviello, N. E., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 485–508.

720

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

Covin, J. G., & Covin, T. J. (1990). Competitive aggressiveness, environmental context, and small firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(4), 35– 50. Crick, D., & Spence, M. (2005). The internationalization of ‘high performing’ UK high-tech SMEs: A study of planned and unplanned strategies. International Business Review, 14, 167–185. Day, G., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1–20. Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E., Jr. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23–37. Detert, J. M., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25, 850–863. Dimitratos, P., & Jones, M. V. (2005). International entrepreneurial culture, international opportunity perception and pattern of international exploitation: Towards an integrated model. In P. Ghauri, A. Hadjikhani, & J. Johanson (Eds.), Managing opportunity development in business networks (pp. 67–90). Palgrave: Houndmills, UK. Dimitratos, P., Lioukas, S., & Carter, S. (2004). The relationship between entrepreneurship and international performance: The importance of domestic environment. International Business Review, 13, 19–41. Dimitratos, P., & Plakoyiannaki, E. (2003). Theoretical foundations of an international entrepreneurial culture. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 187– 215. Dimitratos, P., Plakoyiannaki, E., Pitsoulaki, A., & Tu¨selmann, H. (2010). The global smaller firm in international entrepreneurship. International Business Review, 19, 589–606. Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 589–606. Dollinger, M. J. (1990). The evolution of collective strategies in fragmented industries. Academy of Management Review, 15, 266–285. Dollinger, M. J., & Golden, P. A. (1992). Interorganizational and collective strategies in small firms. Journal of Management, 18, 695–715. Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the Jackknife. Annals of Statistics, 7, 1–26. Ellis, P. D. (2011). Social ties and international entrepreneurship: Opportunities and constraints affecting firm internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 99–127. Fernhaber, S. A., & McDougall-Covin, P. P. (2009). Venture capitalists as catalysts to new venture internationalization: The impact of their knowledge and reputation resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 277–295. Filatotchev, I., & Piesse, J. (2009). R&D, internationalization and growth of newly listed firms: European evidence. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1260– 1276. Freeman, S., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Toward a typology of commitment states among managers of born-global firms: A study of accelerated internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 1–40. Freeman, S., Hutchings, K., Lazaris, M., & Zyngler, S. (2010). A model of rapid knowledge development: The smaller born-global firm. International Business Review, 19, 70–84. Gabrielsson, M., Kirpalani, V. H., Dimitratos, P., Solberg, C. A., & Zucchella, A. (2008). Born globals: Propositions to help advance the field. International Business Review, 17, 385–401. Gassmann, O., & Keupp, M. M. (2007). The competitive advantage of early and rapidly internationalizing in the biotechnology sector: A knowledge-based view. Journal of World Business, 42, 350–366. Geen, R., & Shea, J. D. C. (1997). Social motivation and culture. In D. Munro, J. F. Schumaker, & S. C. Carr (Eds.), Motivation and culture (pp. 33–48). Routledge: New York. Gellynck, X., Vermeire, B., & Viaene, J. (2007). Innovation in food firms: Contribution of regional networks within the international business context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19, 209–226. Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (2006). New venture growth: A review and extension. Journal of Management, 32, 926–950. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293–317. Guthrie, A. (2001). Using bootstrap methods with popular statistical programs. Annual meeting of the southwest educational research association (pp. 1–3). Hadjikhani, A., Ghauri, P., & Johanson, J. (2005). Opportunities, relational embeddedness and network structure. In P. Ghauri, A. Hadjikhani, & J. Johanson (Eds.), Managing opportunity development in business networks (pp. 1–24). Palgrave: Houndmills, UK. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hansen, J. D., Deitz, G. D., Tokman, M., Marino, L. D., & Weaver, K. M. (2011). Cross-national Invariance of the entrepreneurial orientation scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 61–78. Harris, S., & Wheeler, C. (2005). Export market development activities: Entrepreneur relationships as exchange based activities. International Business Review, 15, 187–207. Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33–52. He, X., & Wei, Y. (2011). Linking market orientation to international market selection and international performance. International Business Review, 20, 535–546. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 253–273. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. 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, 1411–1431. Johnsoon, S., & Lindbergh, (2010). The Impact of institutional impediments and information and knowledge exchange on SMEs’ investments in international business relationships. International Business Review, 19, 548–561. Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2012). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing 27doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001. Kelley, D. J., Peters, L., & O’Connor, G. C. (2009). Intra-organizational networking for innovation-based corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 221–235. Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). The past and future of international entrepreneurship: A review and suggestions for developing the field. Journal of Management, 35, 600–633. Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Bruce Jovanovich. Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 124–141. Knight, G. A., & Kim, D. (2009). International business competence and the contemporary firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 255–273. Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 467–477. Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2011). Network ties in the international opportunity recognition of family SMEs. International Business Review, 20, 440–453. Kor, Y. Y., Mahoney, J. T., & Michael, S. C. (2007). Resources, capabilities and entrepreneurial perceptions. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1187–1212. Kropp, F., Lindsay, N., & Shoham, A. (2006). Entrepreneurial, market and learning orientations and international entrepreneurial—business venture performance in South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23, 504–523. Kyla¨heiko, K., Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S., & Tuppura, A. (2011). Innovation and internationalization as growth strategies: The role of technological capabilities and appropriability. International Business Review, 20, 508–520. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575. Lee, S. H., & Williams, C. (2007). Dispersed entrepreneurship within multinational corporations: A community perspective. Journal of World Business, 42, 505–519.

P. Dimitratos et al. / International Business Review 21 (2012) 708–721

721

Lemon, M., & Sahota, P. S. (2004). Organizational culture as a knowledge repository for increased innovative capacity. Technovation, 24, 483–498. McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 902–908. Michailova, S., & Minbaeva, D. B. (2011). Organizational values and knowledge sharing in multinational corporations: The Danisco case. International Business Review 20doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.11.006. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1978). Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24, 921–933. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1– 25. Moorman, C. (1995). Organizational market information processes: Cultural antecedents and new product outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 318–336. Mort, G. S., & Weerawardena, J. (2006). Networking capability and international entrepreneurship. International Marketing Review, 23, 549–572. Murray, J. Y., Gao, G. Y., Kotabe, M., & Zhou, N. (2007). Assessing measurement invariance of export market orientation: A study of Chinese and non-Chinese firms in China. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 41–62. Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–36. Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 73–85. Newbold, P. (1995). Statistics for business and economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Nguyen, T. D., & Barrett, N. J. (2006). The knowledge-creating role of the Internet in international business: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of International Marketing, 12(2), 116–147. Noorderhaven, N., & Harzing, A. W. (2009). Knowledge-sharing and social interaction within MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 719–741. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1995). Global start-ups: Entrepreneurs on a worldwide stage. Academy of Management Executive, 9(2), 30–43. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 537–553. ¨ zbilgin, M., & Woodward, D. (2004). ‘Belonging’ and ‘otherness’: Sex equality in banking in Turkey and Britain. Gender, Work and Organization, 11, 668–688. O Perks, K. J., & Hughes, M. (2008). Entrepreneurial decision-making in internationalization: Propositions from mid-size firms. International Business Review, 17, 310–330. Petra, A., & Koenraad, D. (2006). Adaptation in new technology-based ventures: Insights at the company level. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 91–112. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145. Racela, O. C., Chaikittisilpa, C., & Thoumrungroje, A. (2007). Market orientation, international business relationships and perceived export performance. International Marketing Review, 24, 144–163. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 761–787. Reynolds, P. D. (1986). Organizational culture as related to industry, position and performance: A preliminary report. Journal of Management Studies, 23, 333–345. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In .P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1–16). San Diego: Academic Press. Robinson, R. B., Jr., & Pearce, J. A. (1983). The impact of formalized strategic planning on financial performance in small organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 197–207. Schlosser, F. K., & McNaughton, R. B. (2007). Individual-level antecedents to market-oriented actions. Journal of Business Research, 60, 438–446. Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385–417. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. (R. Opie: Translator). Shane, S. A., & Venkatraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–75. Stevenson, H. H. (1983). A perspective of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Working Paper 9-384-131. Styles, C., & Genua, T. (2008). The rapid internationalization of high technology firms created through the commercialization of academic research. Journal of World Business, 43, 146–157. Styles, C., & Seymour, R. G. (2006). Opportunities for marketing researchers in international entrepreneurship. International Marketing Review, 23, 126–145. Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Busenitz, L. (2011). Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing 26doi:10.1016/ j.jbusvent.2010.07.001. Thomas, A. S., & Mueller, S. L. (2000). A case of comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing the relevance of culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 31, 287– 301. Thompson, E. R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 669–694. Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbuch, N. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 341–358. Voudouris, I., Dimitratos, P., & Salavou, H. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning in the international new high-technology venture. International Small Business Journal, 28, 238–258. Wiklund, J. (1999). The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), 37–48. Zahra, S. A. (2005). A theory of international new ventures: A decade of research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 20–28. Zahra, S. A., & Garvis, D. M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating effect of international environment hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 469–492. Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D. F., & Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 45–63. Zahra, S. A., Korri, J. S., & Yu, J. (2005). Cognition and international entrepreneurship: Implications for research on international opportunity recognition and exploitation. International Business Review, 14, 129–146. Zhang, M., & Tansuhaj, P. (2007). Organizational culture, information technology capability, and performance: The case of born global firms. Multinational Business Review, 15(3), 43–77. Zhou, K. Z., Tse, D. K., & Li, J. J. (2006). Organizational changes in emerging economies: Drivers and consequences. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 248– 263. Zhou, L. (2007). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and foreign market knowledge on early internationalization. Journal of World Business, 42, 281–293. Zucchella, A., Palamara, G., & Denicolai, S. (2007). The drivers of the early internationalization of the firm. Journal of World Business, 42, 268–280.