تخصیص منابع، ویژگی های شبکه دانش و گرایش کارآفرینی شرکت های چند ملیتی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|9629||2009||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 10533 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Research Policy, Volume 38, Issue 8, October 2009, Pages 1376–1387
This paper analyses entrepreneurial orientation (EO) in multinational corporations (MNCs) and develops a new typology of MNC EO based on combining R&D and asset growth investment intensities as orthogonal resource allocations. A cluster analysis of US MNCs on these two dimensions reveals three types of entrepreneurial stance: conservative, aggressive-asset growth and balanced. Internal knowledge network characteristics are shown to vary by stance, with more aggressive stances linked to knowledge governance supportive of the entrepreneurship process. In linking entrepreneurial orientation to the knowledge network of the MNC, this paper identifies factors important to the strategic management and on-going renewal of MNCs. In addition, the vector of R&D investment vs. asset growth investment is an indicator of entrepreneurial aggression and presents a new method of understanding the international strategies of MNCs.
Entrepreneurship is a process in which opportunities are identified, evaluated for commercial potential, and exploited in search of economic rent (Oviatt and McDougall, 2005 and Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Schumpeter (1934) took the view that economic development occurs when new combinations are carried out and discontinuous change is brought about as a result of this process. An important perspective that links this entrepreneurial process to the strategies of firms is that of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) (Covin, 1991, Fombrun and Ginsberg, 1990, Lumpkin and Dess, 1996 and Miller and Friesen, 1982). According to this view, any firm can be positioned and characterized on a continuum ranging from ‘passive’ (or conservative) to ‘aggressive’ (or entrepreneurial). When a firm is ‘aggressive’, it inherently has the ingredients of innovation, pro-activeness and risk-taking present in its corporate strategy (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996 and Wiklund, 1999) and it places a greater emphasis on opportunity identification, evaluation and exploitation than more passive firms. Multinational corporations (MNCs) enjoy deep pockets that enable them to allocate resources to activities such as in-house research and development (R&D) and corporate venturing (Burgelman, 1983 and Burgelman and Sayles, 1986) as well as acquisitions, mergers, disposals and joint ventures (Hoskisson and Busenitz, 2002 and Keil, 2002) on an international basis. This leads to the notion of a two-dimensional view of entrepreneurial orientation in the MNC based on dimensions of long-term technology development and shorter-term asset growth. This constitutes a space of possibilities in which a specific position represents a relative emphasis on attempts to identify, evaluate and exploit new opportunities in terms of both investment orientation, as well as an intensity, or overall level of ‘aggressiveness’. Prior MNC researchers have neglected to open up the entrepreneurial orientation continuum in this way. Given the importance of MNC entrepreneurship to the global economy and to the development of host countries, we propose a fresh look at entrepreneurial orientation in MNCs as a two dimensional space rather than a continuum, and suggest that organization characteristics matter to positioning in this space. A dominant view that has emerged over recent years treats MNCs as social communities and knowledge repositories that are more efficient at internal knowledge transfer than markets (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000 and Kogut and Zander, 1993). Drawing principally on the knowledge-based view of the MNC (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000 and Kogut and Zander, 1993), and supported by theories of internationalization through incremental market commitment (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977 and Johanson and Vahlne, 1990) and upper-echelons theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984), we propose that the most salient organizational characteristics to influence MNC entrepreneurial orientation relate to internal knowledge network and firm governance underpinning the process of entrepreneurship. The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, a typology of MNC entrepreneurial orientation and a model of the determinants of MNC entrepreneurial intensity are developed (Sections 2 and 3). Secondly, the method used to test these models is described (Section 4). Thirdly, the findings are presented and implications for theory, practice and future research are discussed (Sections 5 and 6). The current research contributes to the field of study of MNC entrepreneurship, as well as to the knowledge-based view of the MNC, by demonstrating how organizational factors conducive to efficient knowledge coordination enable the viability of R&D and asset-growth strategies.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Overall, the empirical evidence supports the central proposition: amongst the worlds most highly capitalized MNCs, those that are more conducive to efficient coordination of knowledge regarding opportunities invest to take advantage of that ability. 6.1. Implications for theory and practice In terms of theory, the results show the importance of the knowledge network perspective (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000 and Kogut and Zander, 1993) to entrepreneurial orientation (Covin, 1991, Fombrun and Ginsberg, 1990, Knight, 1997, Lumpkin and Dess, 1996 and Lumpkin and Dess, 2001). The core argument that the nature of the internal knowledge network determines the viability of entrepreneurial orientation has been supported. MNCs better able to use coordination capabilities for absorbing and utilizing knowledge relating to opportunity identification, evaluation and exploitation, are more likely to invest in a way that takes advantage of those capabilities (Aggressive (Asset Growth) and Balanced types). Smaller, less internationalized MNCs are more likely to adopt aggressive entrepreneurial orientations, and larger, more internationalized MNCs more likely to adopt a conservative stance. This also suggests that the behavioural theory of internationalization ( Johanson and Vahlne, 1977 and Johanson and Vahlne, 1990) is very relevant to entrepreneurial analysis of MNCs. Incremental knowledge commitment in overseas markets, which increases with internationalization, may act to dampen overall levels of entrepreneurship after a while because of the problems of knowledge coordination that size and internationalization bring. Upper-echelons theory ( Hambrick and Mason, 1984, Miller et al., 1998 and Wiersema and Bantel, 1992) is also relevant to theorizing about MNC entrepreneurial orientation from a knowledge-based perspective. Younger top management teams are more likely to embrace new knowledge generated within aggressive stances and use ownership sharing as part of the internal entrepreneurial climate to stimulate knowledge flows and participation. Thus we suggest a new entrepreneurial theory of MNCs that draws on the knowledge-based view to posit that internal knowledge network structure and governance combine to influence entrepreneurial intensity and orientation within a two dimensional R&D – asset growth space. Entrepreneurial intensity relates to the degree of resource commitment within this space (overall level of aggressiveness). Entrepreneurial orientation relates to the extent to which one dimension (R&D or asset growth) is favoured over the other. This extends the entrepreneurial orientation literature (Covin, 1991, Fombrun and Ginsberg, 1990, Knight, 1997, Lumpkin and Dess, 1996 and Lumpkin and Dess, 2001) by conceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation in terms of orthogonal components (i.e., R&D and investment ratios), as well as showing how entrepreneurial intensity and orientation are determined by knowledge-related variables. Our approach also highlights the possible tension that confronts younger management teams within larger, more internationalized MNCs. Whilst the nature of the MNC knowledge network may restrict the overall level of aggressiveness possible within a 2D space of entrepreneurial orientation, the nature of the top management team may be to pursue aggressive positions. Thus upper-echelons theory may explain why some large, highly internationalized MNCs still adopt highly entrepreneurial orientations. In this sense, stock options and shared ownership may be seen as a mechanism by which younger top management teams attempt to overcome knowledge coordination problems in MNCs that would otherwise fall more naturally into a more conservative stance. In terms of normative implications, the results suggest that, if top management teams of very large and highly internationalized MNCs attempt aggressive investment positions they may risk saturating the internal knowledge network with a volume and diversity of knowledge relating to new opportunities that cannot be adequately coordinated and exploited. The important imperative for a top management team is to encourage an intensity and direction of investment that makes optimum use of the knowledge network's capacity to coordinate and exploit knowledge for identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities. Additionally, our findings also suggest that the level of growth in the industry will matter to the intensity and direction of investment decision. This was not the primary focus of our research but the implications are important. Firstly, we note the positive coefficients for the growth industry control variables in Table 4 (OLS results for entrepreneurial intensity). Secondly, we note the positive and significant coefficients for the growth industry control variables for MNC R&D intensity but not asset growth intensity in Table 5 (SUR results). This suggests that overall entrepreneurial aggressiveness is a significantly lower for MNCs in traditional (mature) industries and that higher R&D intensity (aggressive investment in longer term proprietary technology) is more prominent in growth industries. Whilst these results are somewhat expected, we also see no significant differences between traditional and growth industries in terms of propensity to pursue aggressive entrepreneurial orientation through shorter-term asset growth. An ANOVA test by industry group shows significant differences between growth and traditional industries for MNC R&D intensity (F = 13.51, p < 0.001) and no significant differences for MNC asset growth intensity (F = 1.38, p > 0.1). Thus, MNC managers may benefit by considering their entrepreneurial orientation decisions along two orthogonal dimensions of increasing resource allocation and risk in relation to the maturity of their industry. In our data, we see cases of MNCs in traditional industries that adopt aggressive stances in terms of shorter term asset growth. 6.2. Limitations and future research avenues Firstly, the sample of US MNCs prevents generalization of the results to MNCs from other countries. A larger sample size including MNCs from different countries could control for differences in national institutional environments. It was more practical in the current research to use consistent measures for dependent and independent variables (based on US GAAP principles and reported in the 10-K filings). Any multi-country empirical testing of our model based on secondary data would need to verify that measures are comparable and accurately reported. Secondly, more knowledge network and governance variables could be included as explanatory variables. The upper-echelons literature (Hambrick and Mason, 1984, Miller et al., 1998 and Wiersema and Bantel, 1992) also stresses traits such as education and specialization, as well as heterogeneity in top management team demographics. Additionally, the wider networks in which the subsidiaries of the MNC are embedded play an important role in identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities (e.g., Andersson and Forsgren, 1996, Feinberg and Gupta, 2004 and Kogut, 2000). These variables also have the potential to influence knowledge flows and entrepreneurial orientation in the MNC. Thirdly, the research design was cross-sectional and used secondary data. A longitudinal design linking changes in MNC knowledge network characteristics to changes in entrepreneurial orientation could yield a stronger model that better represents the causal relationships between knowledge network and entrepreneurial stance. A triangulated approach, or an operationalization using management perceptions (e.g., interviews or survey) or behavioural (e.g., firm activity) evidence could support or extend the model. We suggest that future research should address these empirical issues by constructing research designs that include one or more of the following: inclusion of MNCs from more countries, inclusion of more measures of knowledge network structure and governance, alternative operationalizations of entrepreneurial orientation such as management perceptions and firm behaviour data in triangulation, and longitudinal designs to establish causality between explanatory and dependent variables. Future research should also examine more deeply the tension that arises when large, highly internationalized MNCs have younger top management teams at the helm. Our approach suggests this tension will be highly prominent during decision-making regarding the strategic positioning of the firm within a 2D space of entrepreneurial orientation. In addition, future research could explore the impact of MNC entrepreneurial orientation on performance at firm and subsidiary level, as well as organizational learning, to further develop our understanding of the links between entrepreneurial orientation, the internal knowledge network and internationalization.