Learning from foreign operation modesThe virtuous path for innovation

  1. Cristina Villar 1
  2. José Pla-Barber 1
  3. Pervez Ghauri 2
  1. 1 University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
  2. 2 University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Journal:
Business Research Quarterly

ISSN: 2340-9444,  2340-9436

Year of publication: 2020

Volume: 23

Issue: 2

Pages: 159-171

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1177/2340944420916341 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Business Research Quarterly

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

In this article, we analyze the impact of learning from internationalization on small and medium enterprises’ (SMEs) performance along different development paths. Drawing on the exploitation versus exploration logic, we use an alternative view of foreign operation modes (the learning perspective) to provide insights into the impact of such learning on technological and organizational innovation as well as overall performance. Our results, which are derived from a sample of 132 SMEs active in traditional manufacturing industries, point to a path to superior performance that entails resource-augmenting operation modes and organizational innovation.

€ View funding

Funding information

The authors are grateful for the financial support received from the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (ECO201785456R) and Valencian Government (GV/2017/155).

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • Anderson, E., Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(2), 209–230.
  • Araújo, B., Salerno, M. (2015). Technological strategies and learning-by-exporting: The case of Brazilian manufacturing firms, 2006–2008. International Business Review, 24(5), 725–738.
  • Azar, G., Ciabuschi, F. (2017). Organizational innovation, technological innovation, and export performance: The effects of innovation radicalness and extensiveness. International Business Review, 26(2), 324–336.
  • Ballot, G., Fakhfakh, F., Galia, F., Salter, A. (2015). The fateful triangle: Complementarities in performance between product, process and organizational innovation in France and the UK. Research Policy, 44(1), 217–232.
  • Basile, R. (2001). Export behaviour of Italian manufacturing firms over the nineties: The role of innovation. Research Policy, 30(8), 1185–1201.
  • Battisti, G., Stoneman, P. (2010). How innovative are UK firms? Evidence from the fourth UK community innovation survey on synergies between technological and organizational innovations. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 187–206.
  • Benito, G. R., Petersen, B., Welch, L. S. (2009). Towards more realistic conceptualisations of foreign operation modes. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1455–1470.
  • Benner, M. J., Tushman, M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.
  • Cadogan, J., Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J. (2002). Export market-oriented activities: Their antecedents and performance consequences. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 615–626.
  • Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796.
  • Cavusgil, S. T., Zou, S. (1994). Marketing strategy-performance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing, 58, 1–21.
  • Chen, H., Hsu, C. W. (2010). Internationalization, resource allocation and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1103–1110.
  • Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Chiva, R., Ghauri, P., Alegre, J. (2014). Organizational learning, innovation and internationalization: A complex system model. British Journal of Management, 25(4), 687–705.
  • Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101.
  • Damijan, J., Kostevc, C., Polanec, S. (2010). From innovation to exporting or vice versa? The World Economy, 33(3), 374–398.
  • De Clercq, D., Sapienza, H. J., Yavuz, R. I., Zhou, L. (2012). Learning and knowledge in early internationalization research: Past accomplishments and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 143–165.
  • Doran, J. (2012). Are differing forms of innovation complements or substitutes? European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 351–371.
  • Golovko, E., Valentini, G. (2014). Selective learning-by-exporting: Firm size and product versus process innovation. Global Strategy Journal, 4(3), 161–180.
  • Hagen, B., Zucchella, A., Ghauri, P. (2018). From fragile to agile: Marketing as a key driver of entrepreneurial internationalization. International Marketing Review, 36(2), 260–288.
  • Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
  • Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Blackwell.
  • Hervás-Oliver, J. L., Sempere-Ripoll, F., Arribas, I. (2015). Asymmetric modeling of organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2654–2262.
  • Hsu, C. W., Lien, Y. C., Chen, H. (2013). International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48(1), 58–67.
  • Johanson, J., Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm—A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.
  • Johanson, J., Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalization of the firm-four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–323.
  • Kafouros, M. I., Buckley, P. J., Shapr, J. A., Wang, C. (2008). The role of internationalization in explaining innovation performance. Technovation, 28, 63–74.
  • Klingebiel, R., Rammer, C. (2014). Resource allocation strategy for innovation portfolio management. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 246–268.
  • Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), 413–427.
  • Lavie, D., Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797–818.
  • Leonard-Barton, D., Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Management Science, 34(10), 1252–1265.
  • Lin, H. E., McDonough, E. F., Lin, S. J., Lin, C. Y. Y. (2013). Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox: The role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 262–278.
  • Liu, S. S., Luo, X., Shi, Y. Z. (2002). Integrating customer orientation, corporate entrepreneurship, and learning orientation in organizations-in-transition: an empirical study. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 367–382.
  • Lu, J. W., Beamish, P. W. (2006). Partnering strategies and performance of SMEs' international joint ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 461–486.
  • Lumpkin, G. T., Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.
  • Luo, Y. (2002). Capability exploitation and building in a foreign market: Implications for multinational enterprises. Organization Science, 13(1), 48–63.
  • Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P. (2010). Using innovation surveys for econometric analysis. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 2, 1129–1155.
  • Majocchi, A., Bacchiocchi, E., Mayrhofer, U. (2005). Firm size, business experience and export intensity in SMEs: A longitudinal approach to complex relationships. International Business Review, 14(6), 719–738.
  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
  • Menguc, B., Auh, S. (2008). The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity-firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(4), 455–470.
  • Meyer, K., Wright, K., Pruthi, S. (2009). Research notes and commentaries managing knowledge in foreign entry strategies: A resource-based analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(6), 557–574.
  • Nitzl, C., Roldan, J. L., Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849–1864.
  • Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  • O’Cass, A., Weerawardena, J. (2009). Examining the role of international entrepreneurship, innovation and international market performance in SME internationalization. European Journal of Marketing, 43(11–12), 1325–1348.
  • Onufrey, K., Bergek, A. (2020). Second wind for exploitation: Pursuing high degrees of product and process innovativeness in mature industries. Technovation, 89, 102068.
  • O’Reilly, C. A., Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and DevelopmentEurostat. (2005). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological data [Oslo manual].
  • Oviatt, B. M., McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.
  • Pla-Barber, J., Villar, C., León-Darder, F. (2014). Augmenting versus exploiting entry modes in soft services: Reconsidering the role of experiential knowledge. International Marketing Review, 31(6), 621–636.
  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
  • Prange, C., Verdier, S. (2011). Dynamic capabilities, internationalization processes and performance. Journal of World Business, 46(1), 126–133.
  • Preacher, K. J., Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
  • Preacher, K. J., Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.
  • Ribau, C. P., Moreira, A. C., Raposo, M. (2019). The role of exploitative and exploratory innovation in export performance: An analysis of plastics industry SMEs. European Journal of International Management, 13(2), 224–246.
  • Ripollés, M., Blesa, A., Monferrer, D. (2012). Factors enhancing the choice of higher resource commitment entry modes in international new ventures. International Business Review, 21(4), 648–666.
  • Riviere, M., Suder, G. (2016). Perspectives on strategic internationalization: Developing capabilities for renewal. International Business Review, 25(4), 847–858.
  • Safari, A., Chetty, S. (2019). Multilevel psychic distance and its impact on SME internationalization. International Business Review, 28(4), 754–765.
  • Salomon, R., Jin, B. (2008). Does knowledge spill to leaders or laggards? Exploring industry heterogeneity in learning by exporting. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1), 132–150.
  • Schwens, C., Zapkau, F. B., Brouthers, K. D., Hollender, L. (2018). Limits to international entry mode learning in SMEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(7), 809–831.
  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.
  • Thakur-Wernz, P., Cantwell, J., Samant, S. (2019). Impact of international entry choices on the nature and type of innovation: Evidence from emerging economy firms from the Indian bio-pharmaceutical industry. International Business Review, 28(6), 101601.
  • Vermeulen, F., Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 457–476.
  • Villar, C., Alegre, J., Pla-Barber, J. (2014). Exploring the role of knowledge management practices on exports: A dynamic capabilities view. International Business Review, 23(1), 38–44.
  • Wei, Z., Zhao, J., Zhang, C. (2014). Organizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 33, 134–153.
  • Wu, J., Wang, C., Hong, J., Piperopoulos, P., Zhuo, S. (2016). Internationalization and innovation performance of emerging market enterprises: The role of host-country institutional development. Journal of World Business, 51(2), 251–263.
  • Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R. J., Griffith, D. A. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities: Implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 63–93.
  • Zahra, S., Ireland, D. R., Hitt, M. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 925–950.
  • Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.
Data source: Dialnet