Small, young entrepreneurial firms’ governance structure across countries has generated an interesting debate in recent years. That is, should these firms internalize or externalize transactions in their internationalization? Existing studies suggest that there are advantages and disadvantages to both structures, but the findings are mixed. This study explores the factors that determine the governance structure of small, young technology–based entrepreneurial firms (SYTEFs). Evidence collected in this study indicates that choice of governance structure by SYTEFs is determined by a specific set of conditions, specifically, their choice of governance structure depends on their strategic assets, industry dynamism, and business scope.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongD. & OvertonT. (1977). Estimating non–response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
2.
ArregleJ.–L., NaldiL., NordqvistM., & HittM. (2012). Internationalization of family–controlled firms: A study of the effects of external involvement in governance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1115–1143.
3.
AspelundA., MadsenT., & MoenO. (2007). A review of the foundation, international marketing strategies, and performance of international new ventures. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1425–1428.
4.
BaronR. & TangJ. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm–level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 49–60.
5.
BaumJ.C., CalabreseT., & SilvermanB.S. (2000). Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267–294.
6.
BaumgartnerH. & SteenkampE.M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross–national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 143–156.
7.
BrinckmannJ., SalomoS., & GemuendenH.G. (2011). Financial management competence of founding teams and growth of new technology–based firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 217–243.
8.
BuckleyP. (2009). Internalization thinking: From the multinational enterprise to the global factory. International Business Review, 18, 224–235.
9.
BuckleyP.J. & CassonM. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.
10.
BuckleyP.J. & CassonM. (2007). Edith Penrose's theory of the growth of the firm and the strategic management of multinational enterprises. Management International Review, 47(2), 151–173.
11.
BuckleyP.J. & CassonM. (2009). The internalization theory of the multinational enterprises: A review of the progress of a research agenda after 30 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1563–1580.
12.
CarayannopoulosS. (2009). How technology–based new firms leverage newness and smallness to commercialize disruptive technologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 419–438.
13.
CassonM. (2000). Enterprise and leadership: Studies on firms, networks and institutions. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
14.
CassonM. (2003). The entrepreneur: An economic theory, new edition, Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
15.
CassonM. & BuckleyP. (2010). Entrepreneurship and the growth of the firm: An extension of Penrose's theory. In CassonM. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship (pp. 88–112). Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
16.
CassonM., DarkK., & GulamhussenM.A. (2009). Extending internalization theory: From the multinational enterprise to the knowledge–based empire. International Business Review, 18, 236–256.
17.
CassonM. & GodleyA. (2010). Entrepreneurship and vertical integration: The origins of the Singer global distribution system. In CassonM. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship (pp. 251–263). Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
18.
CovinJ. & MillerD. (2013). International entrepreneurial orientation: Conceptual considerations, research themes, measurement issues and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, doi:10.1111/etap.12027.
19.
CrickD. & JonesM. (2000). Small high–technology firms and international high–technology markets. Journal of International Marketing, 8(2), 63–86.
20.
CuiA., CalantoneR., & GriffithD. (2011). Strategic change and termination of interfirm partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 402–423.
21.
DyerJ.H. & SinghH. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter–organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.
22.
ErikssonK., JohansonJ., MajkgardA., & SharmaD. (1997). Experiential knowledge and cost in the internationalization process. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 337–360.
23.
FanT. & PhanP. (2007). International new ventures: Revisiting the influences behind the “born–global” firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 1113–1131.
24.
GabrielssonM. & GabrielssonP. (2011). Internet–based sales channel strategies of born global firms. International Business Review, 20(1), 88–99.
25.
GabrielssonM. & KirpalaniV.H.M. (2004). Born globals: How to reach new business space rapidly. International Business Review, 13(5), 555–571.
26.
GabrielssonP., GabrielssonM., & SeppalaT. (2012). Marketing strategies for foreign expansion of companies originating in small and open economies: The consequences of strategic fit and performance. Journal of International Marketing, 20(2), 25–48.
27.
GedajlovicE. & CarneyM. (2010). Markets, hierarchies, and families: Toward a transaction cost theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 1145–1171.
28.
HakanssonH. & SnehotaI. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London: Routledge.
29.
HarrisonD.A., McClaughlinM.E., & CoalterT.M. (1996). Context, cognition, and common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 246–261.
30.
HeideJ. (1994). Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 58(January), 71–85.
31.
JohansonJ. & VahlneJ.–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.
32.
JohansonJ. & VahlneJ.–E. (2009). The Uppersala internationalization process model revisited: From the liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1411–1431.
33.
JonesM. & CovielloN. (2005). Internationalization: Conceptualising an entrepreneurial process of behavior in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 284–303.
34.
JonesM., CovielloN., & TangY. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 632–659.
35.
JongJ.P.J. (2013). The decision to exploit opportunities for innovation: A study of high–tech small–business owners. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 281–301.
36.
KeilT., MaulaM., SchildtH., & ZahraS. (2008). The effect of governance modes and relatedness of external business development activities on innovative performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(8), 895–907.
37.
KeilT., MaulaM., & WilsonC. (2010). Coming from outside: The role of unique complementary resources in helping corporations to enter the closely–knit syndication networks of venture capitalists. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 83–103.
38.
KnightG. & CavusgilS. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124–141.
39.
KothaR., ZhengY., & GeorgeG. (2011). Entry into new niches: The effects of firm age and the expansion of technological capabilities on innovative output and impact. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1011–1024.
40.
LaantiR., GabrielssonM., & GabrielssonP. (2007). The globalization strategies of business–to–business born global firms in the wireless technology industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(8), 1104–1117.
41.
LauC.M. & BrutonG.D. (2011). Strategic orientations and strategies of high technology ventures in two transition economies. Journal of World Business, 46, 371–380.
42.
LiL., QianG., & QianZ. (2012). Early internationalization and performance of small high–tech “born–globals.” International Marketing Review, 29(5), 536–561.
43.
LinZ., YangH., & AryaB. (2009). Alliance partners and firm performance: Resource complementarity and status association. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 921–940.
44.
LuJ.W. & BeamishP.W. (2001). The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 565–586.
45.
LuoY. (2007). Are joint venture partnerships more opportunistic in a more volatile environment?Strategic Management Journal, 28, 39–60.
46.
LuostarinenR. & GabrielssonM. (2004). Finnish perspectives of international entrepreneurship. In DanaL.–P. (Ed.), Handbook of research on international entrepreneurship (pp. 383–403). Cheltenham, U.K.: EdwardElgar.
47.
MacKenzieS.B. & PodsakoffP.M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.
48.
MathewsH. & ZanderI. (2007). The international entrepreneurial dynamics of accelerated internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 387–403.
49.
MudambiR. & ZahraS. (2007). The survival of international new venture. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 333–352.
50.
NielsenB.B. & NielsenS. (2011). The role of top management team international orientation in international strategic decision–making: The choice of foreign entry mode. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 185–193.
51.
OviattB.M. & McDougallP.P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25, 45–64.
52.
OviattB.M. & McDougallP.P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 537–554.
53.
PetersenB., PedersenT., & LylesM. (2008). Closing knowledge gaps in foreign markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(7), 1097–1113.
54.
PodsakoffP.M., MacKenzieS.B., LeeJ.Y., & PodsakoffN.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
55.
PorterM.E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
56.
PorterM.E. (1996). What is strategy?Harvard Business Review, 74(November–December), 61–79.
57.
PrashanthamS. & YoungS. (2011). Post–entry speed of international new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2), 275–292.
58.
QianG. & LiL. (2003). Profitability of small– and medium–sized enterprises in high–tech industries: The case of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(9), 881–887.
59.
QianG., LiL., LiJ., & QianZ. (2008). Regional diversification and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 197–214.
60.
SampsonR. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364–386.
61.
StuartT. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high–technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 791–811.
62.
SubramaniamM. & YoundtM.A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the nature of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–464.
63.
WeerawardenaJ., MortG., LieschP., & KnightG. (2007). Conceptualizing accelerated internationalization in the born global firm: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of World Business, 42, 294–306.
64.
WilliamsonO.E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
65.
XiaJ. (2011). Mutual dependence, partner substitutability, and repeated partnership: The survival of cross–border alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3), 229–253.
66.
ZacharakisA.L. (1997). Entrepreneurial entry into foreign markets: A transaction cost perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(3), 23–39.
67.
ZahraS.A. & GeorgeG. (2000). Manufacturing strategy and new venture performance: A comparison of independent and corporate ventures in the biotechnology industry. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 10(2), 313–345.
68.
ZhouL., WuW.–P., & LuoX. (2007). Internationalization and the performance of born–global SMEs: The mediating role of social networks. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 673–690.
