family business review 2009 claver 125 35

7/28/2019 Family Business Review 2009 Claver 125 35

1/12

http://fbr.sagepub.com/ Family Business Review

http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125The online version of this article can be foun d at:

DOI: 10.1177/08944865083300542009 22: 125 originally published online 5 March 2009Family Business Review Enrique Claver, Laura Rienda and Diego Quer

Family Firms' International Commitment : The Influence of Family-Related Factors

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Family Firm Institute

can be found at:Family Business Review Additional services and information for

http://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts: http://fbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 5, 2009OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 28, 2009Version of Record>>

at INDIAN INST MGMNT KOZHIKODE on June 29, 2013fbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.ffi.org/http://www.ffi.org/http://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://fbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125.refs.htmlhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125.refs.htmlhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/03/05/0894486508330054.full.pdfhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/03/05/0894486508330054.full.pdfhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125.full.pdfhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125.full.pdfhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/03/05/0894486508330054.full.pdfhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125.full.pdfhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.ffi.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/125http://fbr.sagepub.com/


2/12

Family Business RVolume 22 Nu

June 2009 1 2009 Family Firm Institut

10.1177/08944865083http://fbr.sagep

Authors Note: Address correspondence to Laura Rienda, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics, University of Alicante, Campus SanVicente del Raspeig, E-03080 Alicante (Spain), e-mail: [email protected].

Family Firms International Commitment

The Influence of Family-Related FactorsEnrique Claver Laura RiendaDiego Quer University of Alicante, Spain

Few studies have dealt with family businesses and internationalization theories. The aim of this article is to bridge this gap byexamining the family-related factors that have an impact on the international commitment level of these companies. From a sam-

ple of Spanish family firms, findings show that long-term vision and the presence of nonfamily managers are positively related toentry modes involving stronger international commitment, although self-financing limits this commitment.

Keywords: family firms; international commitment; family factors

research. From a theoretical point of view, few studies havedealt with the determinants of the international commitmentof family firms. In addition, few empirical studies haveapplied a quantitative methodology with primary data totest the family-related factors that play a relevant role in thechoice of foreign direct investment as a way to enter markets abroad.

This article aims to bridge the gap in two ways. Regarding

theory, the objective is to analyze the influence exerted by various family-specific factors on the choice of entrymodes involving different degrees of resource commitment:exports, contractual agreements, joint ventures, and whollyowned subsidiaries. From a dynamic perspective of theinternationalization process, progress comes with the increasedknowledge of foreign markets (Eriksson, Johanson, Majkgard,& Sharma, 1997). Thus, according to the Uppsala model,international expansion appears as a gradual process in termsof knowledge and firm commitment to other markets (Johanson& Vahlne, 1977). From an empirical standpoint, the purpose of this article is to carry out a firm-level statistical analysis, based

on primary data, of Spanish family firms involved ininternational activities.

Literature Review

In the case of family firms, the internationalization process is influenced not only by certain generic factors

I t is becoming more and more evident that markets tendtoward a greater level of globalization, characterized bya wider dissemination of the information that generates agrowing homogeneity in consumer tastes and preferencesworldwide. This in turn leads to an increased number of integration and cooperation processes, as well as strategicalliances.

A large number of firms and industries have intensified

their global orientation in the last few decades, which hasmade family firms aware of the vast potential of internationalization as an instrument of expansion andgrowth (Okoroafo, 1999).

Internationalization can prove beneficial to the long-term competitiveness of family firms. It allows theorganization to access a larger market, achieve economiesof scale, diversify risk, or simply avoid competitivedisadvantages (Gallo & Sveen, 1991). However,internationalization is not always associated withadvantages. In fact, some organizations think that it is

better to abandon the idea of undertaking international

projects if doing so entails a risk of losing family values, aswell as control over the enterprise (Okoroafo, 1999).

The review of the literature on the internationalization of family firms reveals that a number of issues need further

http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/


3/12


4/12

Claver et al. / Family Firms International Commitment 127

transformation often arise during the transition from onegeneration to the next, and this is beneficial to the succession

process and its ultimate success (Barnes & Hershon, 1976;Sharma, Chrisman, & Chua, 1997).

Moreover, family firms in second or successive genera-tions are more likely to be present in international markets

(Fernndez & Nieto, 2005; Gallo & Garca Pont, 1996);thus, we would expect the following:

Hypothesis 2: The number of generations running a familyfirm will increase its likelihood of using entry modesthat involve a high level of resource commitment.

Another distinctive feature of family firmsoften thoughtto be one of their strengthsis long-term vision (Daily &Dollinger, 1993; Gersick, Davis, Hampton McCollom, &Lansberg, 1997; Harris, Martnez, & Ward, 1994; Tagiuri& Davis, 1992). This vision is the prevailing image regarding

the familys involvement in the business in years to come,where prevailing means that the most influential members of the family share this vision (Ward & Aronoff, 1994).

Long-term vision leads to development and differentiationand so promotes international success when it results fromgrowth outside the local market (Gallo & Sveen, 1991;Okoroafo, 1999). This idea has to do with the postulatesof international entrepreneurship, which emphasize thecharacteristics of the entrepreneur as a key element of theinternational strategy (Oviatt & McDougall, 2005; Zahra,Korri, & Yu, 2005).

Long-term vision therefore appears as a driving factor

behind the internationalization process (Dyer & Handler,1994). Some family firms believe that it is impossible toseparate the familys vision and goals from the strategy itfollows. This approach results in a more unified long-termstrategy and a stronger commitment to fulfill it (Habbershon& Williams, 1999). This vision can also help the family firmto overcome the drawbacks of the internationalization proc-ess and so allow it to make decisions involving a greater levelof resource commitment; thus, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3: Long-term vision in family firms willincrease the likelihood of their using entry modes that

involve a high level of resource commitment.

Another interesting issue has to do with family firmmembers attitudes toward internationalization strategiesand knowledge of foreign markets. Obtaining this type of knowledge may prove difficult, though not so much if fam-ily members bring themselves to learn foreign languages

or travel abroad. In this case, the presence of a successor with proper training and an internationally oriented mental-ity may facilitate the internationalization process.

Such family members can become an important locus of intangible resources (following the resource-based view of the firm; Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993) or ownership

advantages (from the perspective of the eclectic paradigm;Dunning, 1981).Sending descendants to work abroad or having family

members who live in other countries is bound to increasethe international commitment of family firms (Gallo &Sveen, 1991; Reid, 1981). Family members are the oneswho can best diagnose the opportunities and risks in a mar-ket unbeknownst to the organizations. For this reason, thesefamily members may assume the responsibility for develop-ing firm activities in the country where they are living(Gallo & Garca Pont, 1996), which leads us to the follow-ing hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: The presence of family members in other countries will increase the firms likelihood of usingentry modes that involve a high level of resourcecommitment.

The family firm must also ensure its survival through the professionalism of its managers. However, the knowledgeand skills needed to succeed in the implementation of theinternationalization process may not be present in the fam-ily, because, as Ward (1997) pointed out, the descendantsmotivation is not enough; they must also have a specialset of skills. External managers can provide a number of resources that are valuable for the family firm in its effortsto forge ahead in an internationalization process. Previousexperience in negotiations in different cultural contexts andknowledge about international markets are likely to becomeimportant intangible resources and ownership advantages for the firm, following the theoretical frameworks mentioned inthe preceding hypothesis.

Although a family firm can increase its professionalism by promoting family members to become managers, this isusually linked to the process of change that these firmsmust go through when they pass from the incorporation of one or two professionals giving advice on some areas to the

presence of external executives managing the wholeinternationalization process.

Internationalization can also help to overcome one of the main obstacles to the continuance of nonfamilymanagersnamely, the perception made by the latter of alimitation regarding their promotion chances inside the



5/12

128 Family Business Review

company (Gallo, 1995); therefore, we propose the follow-ing hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: The presence of nonfamily managers willincrease a firms likelihood of using entry modes thatinvolve a high level of resource commitment.

Family Firms Financial Structure

When a firm decides to go through an internationalization process, it must carry out an economic and financialanalysis of its present and future situation. This can help itchoose sources that will finance the investment planned.

The peculiarities of family firms make it more difficultfor them to be as economically rational as other enterprises.In fact, the financial decisions made by these firms oftendepend on personal features and circumstances of theownermanager. The framework for the study of financial

behavior shown by family firms is often associated with the pecking order theory (Myers, 1984; Myers & Majluf, 1984).This theory analyzes the financial structure, not in terms of ease or trouble to access financial sources, but accordingto an internal preference order established within theorganization. The inclination of family firms to use internalfinancing sources limits their internationalization capabilitiesand so makes them incur significant opportunity costs.According to this theory, when the time comes to choose thesources that will finance business activity, self-financingalways appears as the first option. The second option is theuse of external funds, mainly provided by a financial

institution. This includes funds provided by the governmentor any other institution, as aids or subsidies to the firm. Thefollowing option involves using external capital sources,thereby allowing investors to enter the firm (Chittenden,Hall, & Hutchinson, 1996; Gibson, 2002). This scheme hasa lot to do with the owners refusal to incorporate into thefirm any agents who can participate or intervene in itsmanagement. The owners wish here is to keep all theinformation about the organization under family control.

In fact, this theory reflects the policy that some familyfirms follow because of their great risk aversion and their wishto maintain the control of the firm in the hands of the family

(McConaughy et al., 2001; Mishra & McConaughy, 1999).The difficulty to access the capital market may also

reduce business growth, in markets both national and inter-national (Barry, 1975; Gallo & Vilaseca, 1996; Morck &Yeung, 2003). This highlights the fact that the financial

policies traditionally implemented by these enterprises, withlittle indebtedness and an almost-exclusive dependence on

self-financing, may have reduced their expansion chances(Mishra & McConaughy, 1999). As such, we propose thefollowing:

Hypothesis 6: Self-financing in family firms will reducethe likelihood of their using entry modes that involve

a high level of resource commitment.

Method

Sample and Data Sources

We used a sample of Spanish family firms withinternational operations. The SABI database 1 allowed us obtain a population of 7,783 Spanish exporting firms. Thefigure later went down to 7,382 after removing those insituations that would probably make it difficult to obtaindata about them (extinguished or inactive firms or those

that had gone bankrupt, had suspended payments, or had been dissolved).

Furthermore, because the results might vary dependingon the industry and, above all, because of its importance inthe internationalization process (Diamantopoulos & Inglis,1988), the population was stratified using the first twodigits of the International Standard Industrial Classification(Revision 3).

A random sample of the population emerged as the bestoption. With a 2% error and an average response rate locatedaround 5%, it seemed appropriate to select a sample of some2,000 firms. The stratification of the sample through

proportional affixation gave the following result: 60 firmsfrom the primary extractive industry, 1,068 from themanufacturing industry, 60 from the construction industry,606 from the trade sector, and 206 from the service sector.

The instrument used to collect the data was a mailsurvey. At the end of the data collection period, 92 familyfirms returned complete questionnaires.

Obtaining specific information about family firms isdifficult (Daily & Dollinger, 1993; Upton & Heck, 1997).As such, it was necessary to identify these firms ex postfactothat is, selecting from a large sample of enterprisesthose showing a number of characteristics typically

associated with family-managed companies. As in thestudies of Donckels and Aerts (1994), Westhead andCowling (1998) and Chrisman, Chua, and Steier (2002),identification results from the review of the answers tovarious questions about ownership and management thatappeared at the beginning of the questionnaire. We classifieda company as a family firm if most of its ownership and



6/12


management lies in the hands of a family (Chua, Chrisman,& Sharma, 2003; Donckels & Aerts, 1994; Gallo & Sveen,1991; Graves & Thomas, 2004).

Moreover, the information obtained after the surveyhelped to identify the entry modes used by each company.The questionnaire included a question in which the manager

had to select the entry mode used in foreign markets,distinguishing between exports, contractual agreements, joint ventures, and wholly owned subsidiaries.

Regarding nonresponse bias, no significant differencesexist between the population and the sample in terms of industry or firm sizewith the latter being measured bynumber of employees and turnover.

Dependent Variable

International commitment. International commitmentwas measured by four categories, the order of which indi-cated a growing degree of resource commitment: exports,contractual agreements, joint ventures, and wholly ownedsubsidiaries. This measure has been used in research onentry modes (Aulakh & Kotabe, 1997; Contractor &Kundu, 1998; Pan & Tse, 2000).

Independent Variables

Risk aversion. Risk aversion shows the managerial per-ception regarding the importance assigned to the risk entailed by international activity, based on a 5-point Likert-type scale (Bauerschmidt, Sullivan, & Gillespie, 1985).Interviewees could choose from 1 ( not important at all ) to5 ( very important ).

Generation. For the generation variable, the manager had to select the option corresponding to the generationcurrently in charge of the firmfrom the first generation tothe fourth or successive one (Gallo & Vilaseca, 1998;Okoroafo, 1999; Romano et al., 2001).

Long-term vision. The variable of long-term visionreflects the managerial perception regarding the impact of such vision on the internationalization process (Gallo &Garca Pont, 1996). A 5-point Likert-type scale was used,from 1 ( not important at all ) to 5 ( very important ).

Family members in other countries. In the case of familymembers in other countries, each manager had to assesshow relevant such presence was in terms of the internation-alization process, using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Gallo& Garca Pont, 1996).

Nonfamily managers. Following Ford (1988) and Dyer(1989), we used a dummy variable that takes the value of 0if family members occupy the top management positions,as well as all the other positions of responsibility. If thereare external managers, the variable takes the value of 1.

Self-financing. We used two variables to assess self-financing (Romano et al., 2001). A 5-point Likert-typescale served to show the importance of family funds in thefinancing of business growth. The second variable was thatof profit reinvestment, which was measured using a 5-pointLikert-type scale (the same as the previous).

Control Variables

Firm size. One of the most influential factors on entrymode choice is that of firm size. A larger dimension impliesgreater availability of financial and managerial resources,which in turn makes it easier to set up wholly owned sub-sidiaries (Tallman & Fladmoe-Lindquist, 2002). Previousresearch has supported that firm size is related to interna-tional commitment (Agarwal & Ramaswami, 1992; Campa& Guilln, 1999; Rialp, Axinn, & Thach, 2002; Stopford &Wells, 1972), which is why we included it as a controlvariable, using the number of employees as a measure (witha logarithmic transformation that would reduce a potentialdistortion in the results caused by outliers in the data).

International experience. International experience haoften appeared in the literature about internationalization,although no conclusive relationship with the entry modehas become clear. Some work has found that a firms expe-rience can reduce its uncertainty about foreign markets andincrease its proneness to use wholly owned subsidiaries(Erramilli, 1991; Gatignon & Anderson, 1988; Hyuk, 2000;Moon & Lee, 1990). Nevertheless, some companies do notneed to accumulate a vast amount of experience to assumea stronger commitment in their internationalization proc-esses. There are firms that, despite having operated for fewyears in foreign markets, prefer full-control entry modes, toavoid the costs linked to the negotiation with local agents(Anderson & Gatignon, 1986; Erramilli, 1991; Hill & Kim,1988; Madhok, 1997; Zhao, Luo, & Suh, 2004). Moreover,some work has identified firms that have shown a highinternational proneness since their inception. These are theso-called international new ventures (McDougall, Shane, &Oviatt, 1994; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994) that question thesequential approach defended by the Uppsala model. Thus,with the aim of considering the dynamics of the internation-alization process, we included international experience as a



7/12


control variable. It was proxied by the number of countrieswhere the firm has started operations (Agarwal &Ramaswami, 1992; Diamantopoulos & Inglis, 1988;Kwon & Hu, 1995). The introduction of a logarithmictransformation of this variable avoids the influenceof outliers.

Table 1 provides a summary of the variables used in our empirical research.

Results

As pointed out above, the dependent variable includesfour categories that involve an increasing commitment:

exports, contractual agreements, joint ventures, and whollyowned subsidiaries. Following Chu and Anderson (1992), anordered logistic regression model is applicable to test thehypotheses, as has been done in previous research (Aulakh &Kotabe, 1997; Contractor & Kundu, 1998; Pan & Tse, 2000).

This type of regression allows one to shape the dependencyof a polytomic ordinal response (dependent variable) on aset of predictors (independent variables). The estimatedcoefficients reflect how changes in predictors affect theresponse. In our model, a positive sign indicates that theindependent variable increases the likelihood of using entrymodes that involve a higher level of commitment, whereas

a negative sign implies just the opposite. Table 2 offers thecorrelation coefficients between the independent variables.The calculation of the variance inflation factor for all theindependent variables permitted verification of the possibleexistence of multicollinearity. As can be seen, the highestvariance inflation factor was 1.35, situated well below 10.0,the cutoff point recommended by Neter, Wasserman, and

Kutner (1985). This result clearly rules out the presence of multicollinearity.

Table 3 shows the results of the ordered logisticregression used to test the hypotheses.

Discussion and Conclusions

Discussion of Hypotheses

Our model does not provide statistical support for theinfluence of risk aversion on the international commitmentof family firms; therefore, Hypothesis 1 is not supported.This result could be due to the active involvement of second-generation members or external managers in thefirms decisionsthese being two factors that can play animportant role in the internationalization process becausethey help the organization to make progress in the successivestages of that process (Fernndez & Nieto, 2005). The

presence of later generations or nonfamily members cantherefore reduce the risk aversion traditionally shown bymany of these enterprises. However, further research on thisissue is necessary regarding, for instance, the source of reluctance to change.

The second hypothesis proposed that later generationsincrease the likelihood of using entry modes that involve ahigh level of resource commitment. Nevertheless, theimpact of successive generations has no statisticalsignificance in our model; thus, Hypothesis 2 is notsupported. Although the mere intention of incorporatinglater generations may strengthen attitudes of stewardship,the actual inclusion of later generations in a family businessis a challenge fraught with negative aspects: Succession

problems arise; a plethora of family members may drain

Table 1Variables and Measures

Hypothesis Independent Variable Dependent Variable

1 Risk aversion: 5-point Likert scale International 2 Generation: nominal variable commitment:3 Long-term vision: 5-point Likert scale Ordinal variable4 Family members abroad: 5-point Likert scale5 Non-family managers: dichotomous [0,1] 1 = exports6 Family funds: 5-point Likert scale 2 = contractual agreements Profit reinvestment: 5-point Likert scale 3 = joint venturesControl Firm size: number of employees (log) 4 = wholly-owned subsidiariesControl International experience: number of countries (log)

Note: Five-point Likert-type scale: 1 ( not important at all ) to 5 ( very important ).



8/12


resources; and agency problems and political skirmishes become more likely (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006).According to agency theory, the passing of generations maycause a greater disalignment of interests as ownership

becomes scattered among different family members.Likewise, the arrival of new generations gives rise to one of the greatest concerns that these firms must face: thegenerational transfer process. Thus, the search for thisfamily union and harmony in front of this problematicsituation can prove to be a hindrance to the internationalization

process. This situation, combined with the passing of time,increases the level of complexity (Gersick et al., 1997),

which leads to a perception of greater international openingas an excessively risky option owing to the divergence of interests among the family members involved.

The third hypothesis presented long-term vision as afactor that can favor or encourage greater internationalcommitment (Louter, Ouwerkerk, & Bakker, 1991). Thisvariable becomes statistically significant and has a positivesign, which supports Hypothesis 3. This finding is in keepingwith the idea expressed by many authors who describe long-term vision as one of the strengths of family firms (Daily &Dollinger, 1993; Fernndez & Nieto, 2006; Harris et al.,1994; Tagiuri & Davis, 1992). In the case of family firms,long-term vision emerges as a factor that favors international

behavior, which is essential to make progress toward moreadvanced stages in the internationalization process.

The fourth hypothesis stated that family members trainedfor international openings were positively associated withentry modes involving higher levels of commitment (Gallo& Garca Pont, 1996); however, this relationship did notturn out to be significant in our modelthus, Hypothesis 4is not supported. The relative impact of this variable in theregression might be underestimated because of the positiveeffect of external managers. Nevertheless, knowing theimpact caused by the stay of family members abroad would

probably require an analysis of every entry carried out bythe firm in individual countries. This examination couldhelp to assess whether the family firm uses entry modes thatinvolve a greater resource commitment in countries inwhich there are already family members able to provide adeeper knowledge about each market.

Our results show that the presence of nonfamily managersis positively related to international commitment, therebysupporting Hypothesis 5. Risk aversion in family firms

Table 2Correlation Matrix and Multicollinearity Diagnosis

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 VI

1. Risk aversion 3.81 1.13 1.232. Generation 1.84 0.79 .12 1.353. Long-term vision 3.85 0.84 .14 .10 1.134. Family members abroad 2.77 0.89 .17 .17 .08 1.155. Nonfamily managers 0.54 0.50 .09 .16 .11 .11 1.306. Family funds 3.40 1.12 .11 .01 .07 .03 .08 1.107. Profit reinvestment 4.62 0.60 .03 .01 .19 .15 .01 .24 ** 18. Firm size 1.33 0.53 .11 .21 ** .04 .15 .22 ** .16 .23 ** 19. International experience 0.90 0.47 .19 * .19 * .18 .07 .29 *** .12 .13 .14 1.3

Note: VIF = variance inflation factor.* p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01.

Table 3Ordered Logit Regression Model

Independent Variable Parameter Estimates

H1: Risk aversion 0.233 (0.262)H2: Generation 0.228 (0.408)H3: Long-term vision 0.769 * (0.400)H4: Family members abroad 0.208 (0.334)H5: Nonfamily managers 1.393 ** (0.676)H6: Family funds 0.538 ** (0.258)H6: Profit reinvestment 0.218 (0.458)Firm size (Control) 0.672 (0.578)International experience (Control) 0.105 (0.749)Intercept 1 4.531 (2.808)Intercept 2 4.698 * (2.812)Intercept 3 5.444 * (2.835) 2 19.749 **

2 log likelihood 114.519

Note: Standard errors appear in parentheses.* p < .10. ** p < .05.

http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/


9/12


could be mitigated by ensuring the presence of successivegenerations at the firms management or by hiring externalmanagers (Dyer, 1989). As stated above, these externalmanagers are likely to provide experience and knowledgethat may become valuable, intangible resources and so help

progress in the internationalization process.

The last hypothesis is the one about the financialstructure of family firms. Two variables served to show their preference for self-financing. The first variable refers to theimportance assigned to family funds. The negative significantrelationship obtained in the model tells us that the more thatfamily firm managers assign relevance to family funds for international activity, the less internationally committed theorganization isa result that coincides with those obtainedin previous research (Romano et al., 2001). As such, thisfinding supports Hypothesis 6.

Nevertheless, self-financing can also be associated with profit reinvestment. This measure, as used and applied in

the ordered logistic regression, did not turn out to besignificant. Many firms that use profit reinvestment mayhave utilized other financing resources, such as credits or loans given by financial institutions. Accordingly, thisfinding does not confirm the relationship that refers to profitreinvestment as a factor hindering stronger internationalcommitment. In sum, Hypothesis 6 is only partiallysupported.

Finally, it is worth highlighting that the two controlvariables included in the ordered logistic regressionmodelthe size of the family firm and its internationalexperiencehave not influenced the results.

Conclusions and Contributions

The purpose of this research was to analyze theinternational involvement of Spanish family firms. As for findings, the first is that long-term vision is a key element of the international expansion of family firms. According tothe postulates of international entrepreneurship, this factor is linked with the characteristics of the entrepreneur. Inaddition, this factor can definitely help the family firmto make progress in the successive stages of theinternationalization process proposed by the Uppsala model.

According to which, international expansion appears as agradual process both in terms of knowledge and in terms of firm commitment.

The second finding refers to the fact that the presence of external managers within the family firm may lead thesecompanies to choose entry modes involving greater resourcecommitment. The valuable resources that nonfamilymanagers can provide, following the resource-based view

of the firm, can end up becoming ownership advantages for the family firm that, according to the eclectic paradigm,favor foreign direct investment. Finally, our findings showthat the importance of family funds in the financing of

business growth has a significant negative association withentry modes that require a higher commitment level, as

defended by the pecking order theory. As we stated above,this theory analyzes the financial structure not in terms of the ease or trouble to access financial sources but accordingto an internal preference order established within the firm.

Among the contributions made in this article, one standsout that seeks to fill an important void in the literature aboutfamily-owned firms, focusing on a key issue that can affecttheir survival: the internationalization process. Our articlehas tried to bridge this gap through a quantitative approachwith several hypotheses, in the hope that they will help toreveal certain factors linked to the international commitmentof family firms. The formulation of these hypotheses

required the combination of various theoretical frameworks,some of them traditionally applied to family firm research(agency theory, stewardship theory or pecking order theory),some coming from strategic management (the resource-

based view of the firm), and finally, others as used in studiesabout internationalization (the eclectic paradigm and theUppsala model).

Based on the results obtained, it would be advisable toemphasize the role played by public administration in theinternational expansion of family firms and to focus on theissues highlighted by entrepreneurs. All of them favor the opening into external markets and so reduce the high

mortality rate of these firms caused by such reasons as thewidespread tendency to reject growth strategies and thereluctance to enter international markets. Public administrationcould adopt measures favoring the incorporation of externalmanagers into family firms and could offer advice andtraining in internationalization to the new generations, withthe aim of increasing the international commitment level of firms without any nonfamily managers.

Limitations and Future Research

Because of the small response rate, definitive conclusions

cannot be drawn from this exploratory study. However, because the final sample obtained was representative of the population under study, it is possible to extrapolate theresults to all other exporting family firms in Spain.Regardless, the degree of applicability of these findings tocompanies located in other countries will depend on theaverage size of the companies studied, as well as on theindustries to which they belong.



10/12


Finally, a possible limitation of this research wouldrefer to the way of measuring family firms internationalcommitment level, according to the choice of several foreignentry modes. Different results might have emerged usingother approaches. To overcome this limitation, future researchcould consider, for instance, export intensity or the number

of assets located in foreign countries, which would increasethe chances to compare different approaches to this issue.In addition, among the main findings of this study stands

out the greater influence of nonfamily managers, comparedto that of family managers, on the likelihood of the firmsdeepening in its internationalization process. This finding

paves the way for future research into the relative importanceof both types of managers as far as international commitmentis concerned. Likewise, this study could be extended usingnew variables, such as commercial and technologicalcapabilities, and analyzing their influence on family firms.

Note1. Sistema de Anlisis de Balances Ibricos (Iberian [Peninsula]

Balance Analysis System).

References

Agarwal, S., & Ramaswami, S. N. (1992). Choice of foreign market entrymode: Impact of ownership, location and internalisation factors.

Journal of International Business Studies, 23(1), 1-27.Allen, M. P., & Panian, S. K. (1982). Power, performance, and succession in

the large corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (4), 538-547.Anderson, C. R., & Paine, F. T. (1975). Managerial perceptions and stra-

tegic behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 18 (4), 811-823.Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of foreign entry: A transac-

tion cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 17 (3), 1-26.

Aulakh, P. S., & Kotabe, M. (1997). Antecedents and performance impli-cations of channel integration in foreign markets. Journal of

International Business Studies, 28(1), 145-175.Barnes, L. B., & Hershon, S. A. (1976). Transferring power in the family

business. Harvard Business Review, 54(4), 105-114.Barney, J. (1991). The resource-based model of the firm: Origins, implica-

tions, and prospects. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120.Barry, B. (1975). The development of organization structure in the family

firm. Journal of General Management, 3 (1), 42-60.Bauerschmidt, A., Sullivan, D., & Gillespie, K. (1985). Common factors

underlying barriers to export: A Comparative study in the US paper industry. Journal of International Studies, 16 (3), 111-123.

Birley, S. (1986). Succession in the family firm. Journal of Small Business Management, 24 (3), 36-43.

Campa, J. M., & Guilln, M. F. (1999). The internalization of exports:Firm- and location-specific factors in a middle-income country.

Management Science, 45(11), 1463-1478.Chittenden, F., Hall, G., & Hutchinson, P. (1996). Small firm growth,

access to capital markets and financial structure: Review of issues andan empirical investigation. Small Business Economics, 8 (1), 59-67.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. P. (2002). The influence of national culture and family involvement on entrepreneurial percep-tions and performance at the state level. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 26 (4), 113-130.Chu, W., & Anderson, E. M. (1992). Capturing ordinal properties of cat-

egorical dependent variables: A review with application to modes of foreign entry. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9149-160.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (2003). Succession and nonsuc-cession concerns of family firms and agency relationship with nonfa-mily managers. Family Business Review, 16 (2), 89-107.

Contractor, F. J., & Kundu, S. K. (1998). Modal choice in a world of alli-ances: Analyzing organizational forms in the international hotel sector.

Journal of International Business Studies, 29(2), 325-356.Daily, C. M., & Dollinger, M. J. (1991). Family firms are different. Rev

of Business, 13 (1/2), 3-5.Daily, C. M., & Dollinger, M. J. (1993). Alternative methodologies for

identifying family- versus nonfamily-managed businesses. JournalSmall Business Management, 31 (2), 79-90.

Davis, J., Schoorman, R., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Towards a stewardshiptheory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20-4

Diamantopoulos, A., & Inglis, K. (1988). Identifying differences between

high- and low-involvement exporters. International Marketing Review5(2), 52-60.

Donckels, R., & Aerts, R. (1994, September). Internationalization anownership: Family versus non-family enterprises . Paper presented the Fifth Family Business Network Conference, Lausanne,Switzerland.

Donckels, R., & Frhlich, E. (1991). Are family businesses really differ-ent? European experience from STRATOS. Family Business Revie4(2), 149-160.

Dunning, J. H. (1981). International production and the multinational enterprise. London: Allen & Unwin.

Dyer, W. G., Jr. (1989). Integrating professional management into a familyowned business. Family Business Review, 2(3), 221-235.

Dyer, W. G., & Handler, W. (1994). Entrepreneurship and family business:Exploring the connections. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,19(1), 71-83.

Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgard, A., & Sharma, D. D. (1997).Experiential knowledge and cost in the internationalization process.

Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 337-360.Erramilli, M. K. (1991). The experience factor in foreign market entry

behaviour of service firms. Journal of International Business Studies,22(3), 479-501.

Fernndez, Z., & Nieto, M. J. (2005). Internationalization strategy of smalland medium-sized family businesses: Some influential factors. Fam

Business Review, 18(1), 77-89.Fernndez, Z., & Nieto, M. J. (2006). Impact of ownership on the interna-

tional involvement of SMEs. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 37 (3), 340-351.

Ford, R. H. (1988). Outside directors and the privately owned firm: Are

they necessary? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13 (1), 49-5Fox, M., & Hamilton, R. (1994). Ownership and diversification: Agency the-

ory or stewardship theory. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 69-81.Gallo, M. A. (1995). Empresa familiar. Textos y casos [Family Busine

Text and Cases]. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Praxis, S.A.Gallo, M. A., & Garca Pont, C. (1996). Important factors in family busi-

ness internationalization. Family Business Review, 9 (1), 45-59.Gallo, M. A., & Luostarinen, R. (1991). Internacionalizacin: Un cambio

desafiante para las empresas familiares [Internationalization. A



11/12


Challenging Change for Family Business]. In M. A. Gallo & V. Font.(1993), La Empresa Familiar 4 . Barcelona, Spain: Publicaciones de laCtedra de Empresa Familiar, Estudios y Ediciones IESE.

Gallo, M. A., & Sveen, J. (1991). Internationalizing the family business:Facilitating and restraining factors. Family Business Review, 4 (2),181-190.

Gallo, M. A., & Vilaseca, A. (1996). Finance in family business. Family Business Review, 9 (4), 387-401.

Gallo, M. A., & Vilaseca, A. (1998). A financial perspective on structure,conduct, and performance in the family firm: An empirical study.

Family Business Review, 11 (1), 5-48.Gatignon, H., & Anderson, E. (1988). The multinational corporations

degree of control over foreign subsidiaries: An empirical test of atransaction cost explanation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 4(2), 305-336.

Geeraerts, G. (1984). The effect of ownership on the organization structurein small firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29 (2), 232-237.

Gersick, K. E., Davis, J. A., Hampton McCollon, M., & Lansberg, I.(1997). Empresas familiares. Generacin a generacin [Generation toGeneration: Life Cycles of the Family Business]. McGraw-HillInteramericana Editores, S.A.

Gibson, B. (2002, January). A cluster analysis approach to financial struc-

ture in small firms in the United States. Paper presented at the annualnational conference of the United States Association for SmallBusiness and Entrepreneurship, Reno, Nevada.

Graves, C., & Thomas, J. (2004). Internationalisation of the family busi-ness: A longitudinal perspective. International Journal of Globalisationand Small Business, 1(1), 7-27.

Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based frame-work for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family

Business Review, 12(1), 1-25.Harris, D., Martnez, J. I., & Ward, J. L. (1994). Is strategy different for

the family-owned business? Family Business Review, 7 (2), 159-174.Hill, C. W. L., & Kim, W. C. (1988). Searching for a dynamic theory of

the multinational enterprise: A transaction cost model. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 93-104.

Hyuk, J. (2000). Market entry and locational strategies in international expansion: A theoretical approach based on the incremental model and its extension . Paper presented at the 26th annual conference of theEuropean International Business Academy, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm. A model of knowledge development and increasing foreignmarket commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1),23-32.

Kwon, Y.-C., & Hu, M. Y. (1995). Comparative analysis of export-orientedand foreign production-oriented firms foreign market entry decisions.

Management International Review, 35(4), 325-336.Levinson, H. (1971). Conflicts that plague family businesses. Harvard

Business Review, 49 (2), 90-98.Louter, P., Ouwerkerk, C., & Bakker, B. (1991). An inquiry into successful

exporting. European Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 7-23.Madhok, A. (1997). Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The trans-

action and the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 39-61.McConaughy, D. L., Matthews, C. H., & Fialko, A. S. (2001). Founding

family controlled firms: Performance, risk, and value. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(1), 31-49.

McDougall, P. P., Shane, S., & Oviatt, B. M. (1994). Explaining theformation of international new ventures: The limits of theories from

international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9469-487.

Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Busine Review, 19(1), 73-87.

Mishra, C. S., & McConaughy, D. L. (1999). Founding family control andcapital structure: The risk of loss of control and the aversion to debt.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 (4), 53-64.Moon, J., & Lee, H. (1990). On the internal correlates of export stage

development: An empirical investigation in the Korean electronics. International Marketing Review, 7 (5), 16-26.

Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2003). Agency problems in large family businessgroups. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27 (4), 367-382.

Myers, S. (1984). The capital structure puzzle. Journal of Finance, 39575-592.

Myers, S., & Majluf, N. (1984). Corporate financing and investment deci-sions when firms have information investors do not have it. Journal

Financial Economics, 13 (2), 187-221. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1985). Applied linear statist

cal models: Regression, analysis of variance and experimental designs(2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Okoroafo, S. C. (1999). Internationalization of family businesses: Evidence

from northwest Ohio, USA. Family Business Review, 12 (2), 147-15Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international

new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (1), 45-6Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). The internationalization of entre-

preneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (1), 2-8.Pan, Y., & Tse, D. K. (2000). The hierarchical model of market entry

modes. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(4), 535-554.Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New Yo

John Wiley.Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A

resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-191.Reid, S. D. (1981). The decision-maker and export entry and expansion.

Journal of International Business Studies, 12 (2), 101-112.Rialp, A., Axinn, C., & Thach, S. (2002). Exploring channel internaliza-

tion among Spanish exporters. International Marketing Review, 19133-155.

Romano, C. A., Tanewski, G. A., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2001). Capital struc-ture decision making: A model for family business. Journal

Business Venturing, 16 (3), 285-310.Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (1997). Strategic management

of the family business: Past research and future challenges. Fam Business Review, 10 (1), 1-35.

Stopford, J. M., & Wells, L. T. (1972). Managing the multinational enterprise. Organization of the firm and ownership of the subsidiaries . NYork: Basic Books.

Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. A. (1992). On the goals of successful family companies. Family Business Review, 5 (2), 105-117.

Tallman, S., & Fladmoe-Lindquist, K. (2002). Internationalization, globalization, and capability-based strategy. California Managemen

Review, 45(1), 116-135.Thomsen, S., & Pedersen, T. (2000). Ownership structure and economic

performance in the largest european companies. Strategic Manageme Journal, 21, 689-705.

Upton, N., & Heck, R. K. (1997). The family business dimension of entrepreneurship. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneursh2000 (pp. 243-266). Chicago: Upstart.

Wall, R. A. (1998). An empirical investigation of the production functionof the family firm. Journal of Small Business Management, 36 24-32.



12/12


Ward, J. L. (1997). Growing the family business: Special challenges and best practices. Family Business Review, 10(4), 323-337.

Ward, J. L., & Aronoff, C. E. (1994, fall). How family affects strategy.Small Business Forum, pp. 85-90.

Westhead, P., & Cowling, M. (1998). Family firm research: The need for a methodological rethink. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,23(1), 31-56.

Zahra, S. A. (2005). Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms. Family Business Review, 18(1), 23-40.

Zahra, S. A., Korri, J. S., & Yu, J. (2005). Cognition and internationalentrepreneurship: Implications for research on international opportu-nity recognition and exploitation. International Business Review, 14, 129-146.

Zhao, H., Luo, Y., & Suh, T. (2004). Transaction cost determinants andownership-based entry mode choice: A meta-analytical review. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 524-544.

Enrique Claver (PhD, University of Valencia, Spain) is a professor andhead of the Department of Management at the University of Alicante, Spain.His primary research interests include strategic management, knowledgemanagement, and international management. He has published researcharticles in international journals, including Information & Management ,

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence , International Busine Review, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade , Asia Pacific Journal o Management , and Journal of General Management .

Laura Rienda (PhD, University of Alicante, Spain) is an associate profes-sor in the Department of Management at the University of Alicante, Spain.Her primary research interests include family business management, inter-

national management, and business and management in India. She has published research articles in international journals, including Asia Paci Journal of Management , Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal , Journal of General Management , and Journal of Small Businesand Enterprise Development .

Diego Quer (PhD, University of Alicante, Spain) is an associate professor in the Department of Management at the University of Alicante, Spain. His

primary research interests include several topics of international manage-ment, such as entry modes, emerging markets, and the internationalization

process of hotel companies. He has published research articles in interna-tional journals, including International Business Review , Emerging Mark

Finance and Trade , Asia Pacific Journal of Management , Journal of Gener Management , and Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal


family business review 2009 claver 125 35

Documents