Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T11:27:43.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance Effects of Internationalization: Contingency Theory Analysis of Russian Internationalized Firms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2020

Desislava Dikova  and
Anna Veselova
Desislava Dikova
Affiliation:
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
Anna Veselova*
Affiliation:
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University, Russia
*
Corresponding author: Anna Veselova (asveselova@hse.ru)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between internationalization and performance has attracted researchers’ attention for more than 40 years, producing contradictory results. Research on emerging-market (EM) multinationals’ performance has not added much clarity to the issue. Although contingency theory is widely applied in management research to explain superior organizational performance as a direct result of a ‘fit’ between structure, strategy, and environment, there has been little effort in extending the notion of strategy-structure-environment fit to include internationalization. We address this limitation by offering a comprehensive analysis of Russian internationalized firms’ performance, which reflects the complexity of strategic and structural changes that Russian firms make during internationalization. We use survey data on 213 predominantly private and mature firms to examine whether the alignment of a multitude of strategic and structural choices in a specific context matters for subsequent performance. We apply a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) and find several distinct types of ‘fit’ that positively affect Russian internationalized firms’ performance.

摘要

摘要

国际化与业绩的关系在过去四十年吸引了学者们的注意力，这一领域存在相互矛盾的结果。关于新兴市场上跨国公司业绩的研究没有澄清这一矛盾。尽管权变理论被广泛地用于管理研究来解释卓越的组织业绩直接来自于结构、战略和环境的“适配”，学者们很少努力纳入国际化以拓展战略--结构--环境适配的理念。为了解决这一局限，我们全面地分析了俄罗斯国际化公司的业绩，反映出这些公司在国际化过程中做出战略和结构变革的复杂性。我们运用针对213家私营和成熟公司的调查数据，检验在特定情境下大量战略和结构选择之间的适配是否会影响到随后的业绩。我们采用了模糊集的定性比较分析(fsQCA) ，发现对俄罗斯国际化公司的业绩产生积极影响的几种不同类别的“适配”。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

Изучение влияния интернационализации на производительность привлекало внимание исследователей на протяжении более 40 лет и приводило к противоречивым результатам. Исследования деятельности транснациональных корпораций из развивающихся стран не внесли особой ясности в этот вопрос. Хотя теория непредсказуемости широко применяется в исследованиях в области управления для того, чтобы объяснять превосходные организационные показатели как прямое следствие «соответствия» между структурой, стратегией и окружающей средой, недостаточно усилий было приложено для расширения понятия «соответствия» между стратегией-структурой-средой с тем, чтобы оно также включало интернационализацию. Мы устраняем это ограничение, предлагая всесторонний анализ результатов деятельности российских международных компаний, который отражает сложность стратегических и структурных изменений, которые российские компании производят в ходе интернационализации. Мы используем данные опроса из 213 преимущественно частных успешных компаний для того, чтобы выяснить, имеет ли значение согласование множества стратегических и структурных решений в конкретном контексте для последующей деятельности. Мы применяем качественный сравнительный анализ нечетких данных (fsQCA) и находим несколько различных типов «соответствия», которые положительно влияют на результаты деятельности российских международных компаний.

Resumen

RESUMEN

La relación entre internacionalización y desempeño ha atraído la atención de los investigadores durante más de 40 años, produciendo resultados contradictorios. La investigación sobre el desempeño de las multinacionales de los mercados emergentes (EM por sus iniciales en inglés) no ha agregado mucha claridad al tema. Aunque la teoría de la contingencia empresarial se aplica ampliamente en la investigación de gestión para explicar el desempeño organizacional superior como resultado directo de un "ajuste" entre la estructura, la estrategia y el entorno, ha habido poco esfuerzo en ampliar la noción de estrategia-estructura-entorno adecuado para incluir la internacionalización. Abordamos esta limitación ofreciendo un análisis exhaustivo del desempeño de las empresas internacionalizadas rusas que refleja la complejidad de los cambios estratégicos y estructurales que las empresas rusas hacen durante la internacionalización. Utilizamos datos de encuestas sobre 213 empresas predominantemente privadas y maduras para examinar si la alineación de una multitud de opciones estratégicas y estructurales en un contexto específico es importante para el desempeño ulterior. Aplicamos un análisis comparativo cualitativo de conjuntos difusos (fsQCA por sus iniciales en inglés) y encontramos varios tipos distintos de "ajuste" que afectan positivamente el desempeño de las empresas internacionalizadas rusas.

Keywords

contingency theoryfitfsQCAinternationalizationperformance权变理论适配模糊集的定性比较分析(fsQCA)国际化业绩теория непредсказуемостисоответствиекачественный сравнительный анализ нечетких данных (fsQCA)интернационализацияпроизводительностьteoría de contingenciaajusteanálisis comparativo cualitativo de conjuntos difusosinternacionalizacióndesempeño
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 173 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Maral Muratbekova-Touron

References

REFERENCES

Aldrich, H. E. 1979. Organization and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Aleksander, J. A. 1991. Adaptive change in corporate control practices. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1): 162–193.Google Scholar
Andrews, K. R. 1980. The concept of corporate strategy. New York, NY: R. D. Irwin.Google Scholar
Aulakh, P. S. 2009. Revisiting internationalization-performance relationship: Implications for emerging economy firms. Decision, 36(2): 25–39.Google Scholar
Banalieva, E., & Sarathy, R. 2011. A contingency theory of internationalization. Management International Review, 51(5): 593–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. Tavistock, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. 2001. Top management teams, global strategic posture and moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3): 533–545.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Wang, C., & Hsu, W. C. 2014. How do resources and diversification strategy explain the performance consequences of internationalization? Management Decision, 52(5): 897–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. 1992. The anatomy of R&D intensity distributions. American Economic Review, 82(4): 773–799.Google Scholar
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1): 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Ramamurti, R. 2017. Home country underdevelopment and internationalization: Innovation-based and escape-based internationalization. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 27(3): 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delios, A., & Beamish, P.W. 1999. Geographic scope, product diversity and the corporate performance of Japanese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20(8): 711–727.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Sol, P., & Kogan, J. 2007. Regional competitive advantage based on pioneering economic reforms: The case of Chilean FDI. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(6): 901–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahara, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. I., & Lane, P. J. 2003. Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3): 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikova, D., Panibratov, A., & Veselova, A. 2019. Investment motives, ownership advantages and institutional distance: An examination of Russian cross-border acquisitions. International Business Review, 28(4): 625–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikova, D., Jaklic, A., Burger, A., & Kuncic, A. 2016. What is beneficial for first-time SME-exporters from a transition economy: A diversified or a focused export-strategy? Journal of World Business, 51(2): 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, L. 1987. Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defense of contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4): 514–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estrin, S., Meyer, K. E., & Pelletier, A., 2018. Emerging economy MNEs: How does home country munificence matter? Journal of World Business, 53(4): 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fainshmidt, S., Witt, M. A., Aguilera, R., & Verbeke, A. 2020. The contributions of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 51: 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filipescu, D. A., Prashantham, S., Rialp, A., & Rialp, J. 2013. Technological innovation and exports: Unpacking their reciprocal causality. Journal of International Marketing, 21(1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiss, P. C. 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1180–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiss, P. C. 2011. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geringer, J. M., Tallman, S., & Olsen, D. M. 2000. Product and international diversification among Japanese multinational firms. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1): 51–80.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 603–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govindarajan, V. 1984. Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: An empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 9(2): 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hage, J., & Aiken, M. 1970. Social change in complex organizations. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Hartmann, F. 2005. The effects of tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty on the appropriateness of accounting performance measures. ABACUS, 41(3): 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C. W. L., & Hoskisson, R. E., 1987. Strategy and structure in the multiproduct firm. Academy of Management Review, 12(2): 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. 1997. International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4): 767–798.Google Scholar
Hofer, C. W. 1975. Towards a contingency theory of business strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4): 784–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, W.-T., Chen, H.-L., & Cheng, C.-Y. 2013. Internationalization and firm performance of SMEs: The moderating effects of CEO attributes. Journal of World Business, 48(1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G. R, & Hill, C. W. L. 1988. Transaction cost analysis of strategy-structure choice. Strategic Management Journal, 9(2): 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalotay, K., & Sulstarova, A. 2010. Modeling Russian outward FDI. Journal of International Management, 16(2): 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khandwalla, P. N. 1977. The design of organizations. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Lee, H., Kelley, D., Lee, J., & Lee, S. 2012. SME survival: The impact of internationalization, technology resources, and alliances. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, X., & Germain, R. 2003. Organizational structure, context, customer orientation, and performance: Lessons from Chinese state-owned enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11): 1131–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. 2004. International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 598–609.Google Scholar
Luo, Y., & Park, S. H. 2001. Strategic alignment and performance of market-seeking MNCs in China. Strategic Management Journal, 22(2): 141–156.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y., & Wang, S. L. 2012. Foreign direct investment strategies by developing country multinationals: A diagnostic model for home country effects. Global Strategy Journal, 2(3): 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marano, V., Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Spadafora, E., & van Essen, M. 2016. Home country institutions and the internationalization-performance relationship: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 42(5): 1075–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. E., & Thaijongrak, O. 2013. The dynamics of emerging economy MNEs: How the internationalization process model can guide future research. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, 30(4): 1125–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1175–1195.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1988. Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2): 280–309.Google Scholar
Miller, D., & Droege, C. 1986. Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4): 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. R., Lavie, D., & Delios, A. 2016. International intensity, diversity, and distance: Unpacking the internationalization–performance relationship. International Business Review, 25(4): 907–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H. 1979. The structuring of organizations a synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. 2017. Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1): 255–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeller, M., Harvey, M., Griffith, D., & Richey, G. 2013. The impact of country-of-origin on the acceptance of foreign subsidiaries in host countries: An examination of the ‘liability-of-foreignness’. International Business Review, 22(1): 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, N. A., & Hu, Q. H. 2008. Implications of the fit between organizational structure and ERP: A structural contingency theory perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 28(5): 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajunen, K. 2008. Institutions and inflows of foreign direct investment: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 652–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panibratov, A. 2015. Liability of foreignness of emerging market firms: The country of origin effect on Russian IT companies. Journal of East-West Business, 21(1): 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, I. O., Kourouthanassis, P. E., Giannakos, M. N., & Chrissikopoulos, V. 2016. Explaining online shopping behavior with fsQCA: The role of cognitive and affective perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 69(2): 794–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paswan, A. K., Dant, R. P., & Lumpkin, J. R. 1998. An empirical investigation of the linkages among relationalism, environmental uncertainty, and bureaucratization. Journal of Business Research, 43(3): 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piga, C. A., & Vivarelli, M. 2004. Internal and external R&D: A sample selection approach. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 66(4): 457–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. H. 1976. Organization structure in its context: The Aston program 1. Westmead, UK: Saxon House.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. 2000. Fuzzy set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramamurti, R. 2012. What is really different about emerging market multinationals? Global Strategy Journal, 2(1): 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider., M., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. 2010. Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 246–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, H., & Davis, S. M. 1981. Matching corporate culture and business strategy. Organizational Dynamics, 10(1): 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenkar, O. 1990. International joint ventures’ problems in China: Risks and remedies. Long Range Planning, 23(3): 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaaning, S. E. 2011. Assessing the robustness of crisp-set and fuzzy-set QCA results. Sociological Methods & Research, 40(2): 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stopford, J. M., & Wells, L. T. 1972. Managing the MNE: Organization of the firm and ownership of the subsidiaries. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Tosi, H. L., & Slocum, J. W. 1984. Contingency theory. Some suggested directions. Journal of Management, 10(1): 9–26.Google Scholar
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. 1993. Customer intimacy and other value disciplines. Harvard Business Review, 71(1): 84–93.Google Scholar
Tung, R. L. 1979. Dimensions of organizational environments: An exploratory study of their impact on organization structure. Academy of Management Journal, 22(4): 672–693.Google Scholar
Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. 1992. Designing organizations that have good fit: A framework for understanding new architectures. In Gerstein, M., Nadler, D., & Shaw, R. (Eds.), Organizational architecture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
UniCredit Aton Research. 2008. Politics–Putin presents new cabinet, Rosneft chairman to control natural resources, 13 May. Russian and CIS Daily, Moscow.Google Scholar
Venkatraman, N. 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: Towards verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 423–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, A., Petrovic, J., & Orttung, R. W. 2006. Russian business power: The role of Russian business in foreign and security relations. Routledge Transnational Crime and Corruption. Washington, DC: Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center, American University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Woodside, A. G. 2013. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4): 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, S. S., Jeong, I., Moon, J. J., Chung, C. C., & Chung, J. 2013. Internationalization and performance of firms in China: Moderating effects of governance structure and the degree of centralized control. Journal of International Management, 19(2): 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., Ma, X., Wang, Y., & Wang, Y. 2014. How can emerging market small and medium-sized enterprises maximize internationalization benefits? The moderating effects of organizational flexibility. International Small Business Journal, 32(6): 667–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar