Untitled

Hurmerinta-Peltomäki, Leila

doi:10.1023/a:1023856302314

Cited by 59 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The maturity scale is based on various temporal indicators of relative maturity derived primarily from the scholarly literatures in entrepreneurship and strategic management. Several building blocks of the maturity scale were identified as dichotomies construed of (i) continued entrepreneurship (Davidsson 1991;Lumpkin and Dess 1996) and continued management (Sandberg 1992;Hitt and Ireland 2000); (ii) entrepreneurial mode and planning mode of making strategic decisions (Mintzberg 1973); (iii) an effectual thinker and causal thinker (Sarasvathy 2001); (iv) new venture creation and new activity creation ); (v) strategic experimentation (NichollsNixon et al 2000) and strategic change (Rajagopalan and Spreitzer 1996); (vi) early growth and organic growth in new and established firms ); (vii) knowledge augmenting and knowledge exploitation in new and established ventures (Kuemmerle 2002); and (viii) "direction of time" and "direction in time" (Hurmerinta-Peltomäki 2003). For example, from the above synthesis of temporal indicators of relative maturity it was possible to derive a definition for the start-up process as the emergence of a new venture whereby early growth is achieved through strategic experimentation and knowledge augmentation applying entrepreneurial mode to strategic decision-making (Turcan 2006).…”

Section: Constructing the Research Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating theoretical and coverage biases in the design of theory-building research: an example from international entrepreneurship

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we advance a three-stage theory-building framework to assist scholars in addressing theoretical and coverage biases by means of the appropriate design of cross-domain theory-building research. In our discussion, we use an example from research in international entrepreneurship, which has been emerging as a cross-domain area for the entrepreneurship and international business research communities since the mid-1990s. Theoretical bias can stem from the situation where the conceptualisation of a phenomenon whose research is currently emerging and depends upon several of the established disciplines of social science and their sub-domains, is in fact dominated by the theoretical approaches of a single domain. As to the coverage bias, the somewhat novel research domain of international entrepreneurship provides us with a means to illustrate how research in an emerging domain tends to focus on positive growth only and rarely takes appropriately into account companies that fare less well; for instance, accounting for survivor bias would require that scholars carefully acknowledge firms that go out of business for one reason or another. Observations from a longitudinal, multiple-case study research on the de-internationalisation of small high-technology firms is used to exemplify the structure of our framework.

show abstract

Section: Constructing the Research Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating theoretical and coverage biases in the design of theory-building research: an example from international entrepreneurship

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another important dimension of internationalization, one which recently has attracted much attention, especially in the international entrepreneurship area, is the speed of internationalization. Like other dimensions, there is no consensus on its definition (Hurmerinta-PeltomÄki, 2003) and it is always mixed with other factors (Acedo & Jones, 2007). The speed of internationalization is typically measured in terms of the time (number of years) between a firm's initial inception and its first international activity (Musteen et al, 2010;Ripolles et al, 2007).…”

Section: Research Variables and Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Internationalization of SMEs: An Interactive Perspective of Firm-Level Entrepreneurship and Network Structure

Hosseini¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The positive relationship of firm-level entrepreneurship and performance has received much attention in recent years and has become an attractive title in the entrepreneurship literature. This popularity encourages researchers to study the role played by the phenomenon on other organizational outputs such as internationalization. Until now, the majority of international studies have put their attention on the conceptual explanation of the interaction, and the number of empirical studies on the subject is few. Furthermore, almost all the empirical studies have been performed in developed and emerging markets, and developing areas such as the Middle East are nearly ignored. In the real context of Iranian business, policymakers support entrepreneurship as a proven way to improve the internationalization of smaller companies. Following this assumption, several supportive plans have been designed and executed which aim to increase the entrepreneurial status of SMEs as a way to enhance their internationalization. A question worth answering here is: Does having a better entrepreneurial stature mean better internationalization for Iranian SMEs? To answer this question and to fill the gap in the literature on the subject, this research explains the relationship of firm-level entrepreneurship and the internationalization of Iranian SMEs. To resolve the current conceptualization problem of firm-level entrepreneurship and to respect a broad conceptualization of entrepreneurship, a profile measurement model was employed in which companies are classified into four different groups: non-entrepreneurial, forced entrepreneurial, latent entrepreneurial, and actual entrepreneurial. This profile model incorporates the two popular constructs of entrepreneurial orientation and corporate entrepreneurship to determine the entrepreneurial stature of a company. Surprisingly, while the literature predicted the highest level of internationalization for actual entrepreneurial companies, the forced entrepreneurial firms showed the best internationalization in reality. The only exception was when the environments became very hostile, in which the actual entrepreneurial SMEs suppressed the forced entrepreneurial, showing better internationalization. These unexpected conclusions led the researcher to consider the complementary role of business networks. A case study approach was applied. The results revealed the importance of actor type in the decision to enter a foreign market, structural holes in identifying international opportunities, and network closure in realizing the opportunities. In simpler words, the forced entrepreneurial company held a better position to receive the information about international markets because most actors who dealt with them where international companies. In addition, it enjoyed an external network rich of structural holes and a dense internal network, which respectively facilitated the exploration and exploitation of subsequent international opportunities. All in all, however, firm-level entrepreneurship seems a...

show abstract