North American entrepreneurs in Cubawhich entry mode and government affiliation strategy?

  1. Vila-Lopez, Natalia 1
  2. White, Graham 2
  1. 1 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

  2. 2 Cameron School of Business, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina, USA
Revista:
European journal of management and business economics

ISSN: 2444-8494,  2444-8451

Año de publicación: 2018

Volumen: 27

Número: 3

Páginas: 285-303

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1108/EJMBE-12-2017-0065 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: European journal of management and business economics

Resumen

To have success in newly liberalized markets, firms must have a plan of action before resources are committed. What some companies do not realize is that their own entrepreneurial orientation (EO) will dictate their strategies, and performance outcomes, in both their home market and abroad. In order to maximize firm performance in newly liberalized markets (such as Cuba), firms must be able to objectively gauge their own EO. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Within this framework, the present paper will attempt to effectively measure the EO of decision-making managers from US companies that have an interest in entering the Cuban market. A final sample of 81 US managers accepted to collaborate. They were then split into two groups (high and low EO; with 41 and 35 managers in each group, respectively) and compared regarding three variables: entry mode strategy, government affiliation strategy, and performance outcomes. The results show that EO is related with performance, but not with the two proposed variables of entry mode and government affiliation. In sum, the added value of the paper is to link US managers’ strategies and performance in a newly liberalized market which has been seldom studied: Cuba. The fields of entry mode strategies and government affiliation decisions in this newly liberalized market remain poorly investigated. Not all firms managed by highly entrepreneurial-orientated managers will decide to enter foreign markets and, on the contrary, domestic firms which are not interested in international markets can be run by highly entrepreneurial managers. This is due, in part, to the fact that internationalization can be driven by other factors. Therefore, this paper will attempt to demonstrate if certain entry modes will perform better than others when the foreign market is a newly liberalized economy. Additionally, the importance, and effect, of governmental relationships on performance outcomes will be tested within the research

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Agarwal, S. and Ramaswami, S.N. (1992), “Choice of foreign market entry mode: impact of ownership, location and internalization factors”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
  • Anderson, E. and Gatignon, H. (1986), “Modes of foreign entry: a transaction cost analysis and propositions”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 1-26.
  • Anderson, O. (1997), “Internationalization and market entry mode: a review of theories and conceptual frameworks”, Management International Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 27-42.
  • Boso, N., Story, V.M. and Cadogan, J.W. (2013), “Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, network ties, and performance: study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 708-727.
  • Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
  • Datta, D.K., Liang, X. and Musteen, M. (2009), “Strategic orientation and the choice of foreign market entry mode”, Management International Review, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 269-290.
  • Del Sol, P. (2010), “Chilean regional strategies in response to economic liberalization”, Universia Business Review, No. 25, pp. 112-131.
  • Dimaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-160.
  • Dunning, J.H. (1980), “Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-31.
  • Dunning, J.H. (1988), “The eclectic paradigm of international production: a restatement and some possible extensions”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-31.
  • Fadda, N. and Sørensen, J.F.L. (2017), “The importance of destination attractiveness and entrepreneurial orientation in explaining firm performance in the Sardinian accommodation sector”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 1684-1702.
  • Goodnow, J.D. and Hansz, J.E. (1972), “Environmental determinants of overseas market entry strategies”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 33-50, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490740.
  • Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper Echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-206.
  • Herrmann, P. and Datta, D.K. (2006), “CEO experiences: effects on the choice of FDI entry mode”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 755-778.
  • Hilmersson, M. and Jansson, H. (2012), “International network extension processes to institutionally different markets: entry nodes and processes of exporting SMEs”, International Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 682-693.
  • Hingtgen, N., Kline, C., Fernandes, L. and McGehee, N.G. (2015), “Cuba in transition: tourism industry perceptions of entrepreneurial change”, Tourism Management, Vol. 50, pp. 184-193.
  • Huang, H.-C. (2016), “Entrepreneurial resources and speed of entrepreneurial success in an emerging market: the moderating effect of entrepreneurship”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
  • Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F. and Knight, G.A. (2004), “Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on business performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 429-438.
  • Jones, M.V. and Coviello, N.E. (2005), “Internationalisation: conceptualising an entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 284-303.
  • Kumaraswamy, A., Mudambi, R., Saranga, H. and Tripathy, A. (2012), “Catch-up strategies in the Indian auto components industry: domestic firms’ responses to market liberalization”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 368-395.
  • Lonial, S.C. and Carter, R.E. (2015), “The impact of organizational orientations on medium and small firm performance: a resource-based perspective”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 94-113.
  • Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-172.
  • Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (2001), “Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: the moderating role of environment and industry life cycle”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 429-451.
  • Madhok, A. (1997), “Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: the transaction and the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, pp. 39-61.
  • Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T. and Özsomer, A. (2002), “The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 18-32.
  • Miller, A. and Camp, B. (1985), “Exploring determinants of success in corporate ventures”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 87-105.
  • Miller, D. (2011), “Miller (1983) revisited: a reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 873-894.
  • Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1982), “Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two models of strategic momentum”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
  • Nakos, G. and Brouthers, K.D. (2002), “Entry mode choice of SMEs in Central and Eastern Europe”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 47-63, doi: 10.1111/1540-8520.271003.
  • Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), “The assessment of reliability”, Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, NY, pp. 248-292.
  • Ortega, S.M.S., Cabrera, A.M.G. and Knight, G.A. (2016), “Knowledge acquisition for SMEs first entering developing economies: evidence from Senegal”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 22-35.
  • Pan, Y. and Tse, D.K. (2000), “The hierarchical model of market entry modes”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 535-554, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490921.
  • Perez-López, J. (2012), “Cuba’s external sector and the VI Party Congress”, Cuba in Transition, Vol. 21, ASCE, pp. 437-450.
  • Poon, J.M., Ainuddin, R.A. and Junit, S.O.H. (2006), “Effects of self-concept traits and entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 61-82.
  • Rauch, A. (2009), “Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 761-787.
  • Reijonen, H., Hirvonen, S., Nagy, G., Laukkanen, T. and Gabrielsson, M. (2015), “The impact of entrepreneurial orientation on B2B branding and business growth in emerging markets”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 51, pp. 35-46.
  • Ripollés, M., Blesa, A. and Monferrer, D. (2012), “Factors enhancing the choice of higher resource commitment entry modes in international new ventures”, International Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 648-666.
  • Sánchez-Escobedo, M.C., Fernández-Portillo, A., Díaz-Casero, J.C. and Hernández-Mogollón, R. (2016), “Research in entrepreneurship using GEM data. Approach to the state of affairs in gender studies”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 150-160.
  • Sheth, J.N. (2011), “Impact of emerging markets on marketing: rethinking existing perspectives and practices”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 166-182.
  • Simsek, Z., Heavey, C. and Veiga, J.J.F. (2010), “The impact of CEO core self-evaluation on the firm’s entrepreneurial orientation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 110-119.
  • Thomas, H. and Baird, I.S. (1985), “Toward a contingency model of strategic risk taking”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 230-243.
  • Wang, C., Hong, J., Kafouros, M. and Wright, M. (2012), “Exploring the role of government involvement in outward FDI from emerging economies”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 655-676.
  • White, G. and Vila, N. (2017), “Entrepreneurial orientation’s effect on marketing strategies and success: implications for US firms entering Cuba”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 501-523.
  • Zhang, X., Ma, X., Wang, Y. and Wang, Y. (2014), “How can emerging market small and medium-sized enterprises maximise internationalisation benefits? The moderating effect of organisational flexibility”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 667-692.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet