Journal of Business Venturing
Prior research describes international expansion as a series of discrete steps and notes that taking them threatens new ventures' survival, especially due to unexpected setbacks. Seen through the lens of social science, the source of such threat becomes clearer. In this paper, we argue that internationalization in new ventures involves what social anthropologists call a liminal transition – a betwixt-and-between period lying between the intent to internationalize and the realization of a stable internationalized state. The ambiguous and transitory nature of this liminal transition has the potential to increase the odds of overreach (e.g. a high-cost market entry without sufficient resources). Avoiding the negative influence of liminality – and instead harnessing its positive effect – relies on three sources of support that we refer to as opportunity scaffolding: self-reflective learning, peer learning and consultative learning. We argue that entrepreneurs with personality profiles high in levels of core self-evaluation (CSE) are more likely to utilize the scaffolding like that available in business incubators effectively. This leads to the development of a more reflective mindset, making capability learning more likely, preventing decisions that lead to overreach and reducing the threat to INV survival. However we also strike a note of caution in that at excessive (hyper) levels of CSE, the internationalizing new venture could become the victim of hubris. Emboldened with unrealistically high self-confidence, hubristic entrepreneurs are more likely to rebuff use of scaffolding, leading to a more reactive mindset, increasing the probability of liminal overreach and threatening INV survival.
Journal of International Business Studies
Although international business scholars have begun to recognize the division of entrepreneurial labor between MNEs and SMEs, there is a fragmented understanding of the different forms MNE–SME cooperation can take. We develop a typology that takes into account not only complementarity of capabilities but also, crucially, the compatibility of intent between MNEs (exploration vs. exploitation) and SMEs (international vs. domestic orientation). The framework offers a novel way to understand the forms and dynamics of MNE–SME cooperation. We also show how it can be applied more broadly, by considering its application to societal challenges, such as achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
global value chain
Sustainable Development Goals
Building on stakeholder theory, the paper argues that geographical differences in stakeholders? reactions to corporate philanthropy lead to differences in the relationship between corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance across regions. When comparing the United States and China and different regions within China, it is found that the differences in stakeholder perceptions (as reflected by sinful industry) and information availability (as indicated by advertising intensity) across regions significantly moderate the corporate philanthropy?corporate financial performance relationship. The findings show that the value of corporate philanthropy varies by region and that stakeholder perception and information availability are two important mechanisms through which corporate philanthropy influences corporate financial performance.
It has been recognized that previous experiences can provide different types of feedback. However, it has not been systematically explored why firms are more likely to learn effectively from certain types of experience than others. From a feedback-based learning perspective, we argue that it is useful not only to focus on feedback valence (success or failure experiences) but also to examine feedback saliency (the magnitude of the experience’s influence). Based on a sample of acquisitions by U.S. firms, our results indicate that a firm’s success experience drives up the premium that it pays for a subsequent acquisition, whereas a failure experience reduces this subsequent premium. Moreover, we find that the magnitude of the effects of the four types of experiences—small failure, big failure, small success, and big success—does not follow a symmetrical pattern of inverse effects.