This is he accep ed manusc ip o he a icle ha appea ed in inal o m in
In e na ional Business Re iew 28(1) : 48-59 (2019), which has been
published in inal o m a h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ibus e .2018.06.003.
© 2018 Else ie unde CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
1
In e na ionaliza ion and en ep eneu ial o ien a ion o amily SMEs: The
in luence o he amily cha ac e
Mikel Alayo, Amaia Maseda, Txomin I u alde, & Unai A zubiaga
Abs ac
In e na ionaliza ion is an impo an en ep eneu ial s a egy o p omo ing he long- e m
g ow h and su i abili y o small and medium-sized en e p ises (SMEs). Family in ol emen
in op managemen eams (TMTs) can explain he he e ogeneous beha io s o hese i ms’
in e na ional en ep eneu ship p ocess. This pape analyzes he mode a ing e ec s o he
amily’s in luence on he ela ionship be ween en ep eneu ial o ien a ion and
in e na ionaliza ion wi h wo TMT di e si ies ound only in amily i ms: he amily TMT a io
and gene a ional in ol emen . An analysis o 191 Spanish amily SMEs indica ed ha
en ep eneu ial o ien a ion plays a signi ican ole in explaining he deg ee o
in e na ionaliza ion in amily i ms and ha a di e sely o med TMT shapes his ela ionship.
A high concen a ion o amily membe s in manage ial posi ions hinde s he in e na ional
en ep eneu ship p ocess. This ac highligh s he impo ance o hi ing non- amily manage s
o p omo e in e na ionaliza ion. The esul s also e eal ha in ol ing mul iple gene a ions in
decision-making hampe s en ep eneu ial in e na ionaliza ion, gene a ing con ol and
coo dina ion p oblems.
Keywo ds: in e na ionaliza ion, en ep eneu ial o ien a ion, amily i ms, amily in ol emen ,
gene a ional in ol emen , op managemen eam
2
1. In oduc ion
En ep eneu ial o ien a ion (EO), he i m’s disposi ion o en ep eneu ship, is a key elemen
in businesses’ in e na ionaliza ion p ocess (Jan unen, Puumalainen, Saa enke o, & Kyläheiko,
2005; Ja algi & Todd, 2011; Liu, Li, & Xue, 2011; Ripollés-Meliá, Menguzza o-Boula d, &
Sánchez-Peinado, 2007). Howe e , ew s udies ha e analyzed ac o s a ec ing he ela ionship
be ween EO and in e na ional de elopmen in small and medium-sized en e p ises (SMEs),
and e en ewe ha e analyzed amily i ms (Calab ò, Campopiano, Basco, & Pukall, 2017;
He nández-Pe lines & Mancebo-Lozano 2016; He nández-Pe lines, Mo eno-Ga cía, & Yañez-
A aque, 2016), al hough such i ms ep esen he mos common o m o business o ganiza ion
in he wo ld (Hiebl, Quinn, C aig, & Moo es, 2018). The li e a u e has acknowledged ha
amily i ms di e in a i udes and beha io s when in e na ionalizing (G a es & Thomas,
2006) and in in e na ionaliza ion s a egies (e.g., Fe nández & Nie o, 2006; Boellis, Ma io i,
Minichilli, & Pisci ello, 2016). Family i ms may beha e di e en ly depending on he ex en
o amily in ol emen in he business (Ch isman, Chua, & S eie , 2005; Kelle mans,
Eddles on, Sa a hy, & Mu phy, 2012; Naldi, No dq is , Sjöbe g, & Wiklund, 2007).
Fu he mo e, amily in ol emen is a a iable used commonly o iden i y he amily’s powe
o shape a i m’s goals, s a egies, and beha io s (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013; Mille , Le
B e on-Mille , & Les e , 2013).
Decision make s’ cha ac e is ics and a i udes a e impo an de e minan s o amily SMEs’
in e na ionaliza ion (A egle, Naldi, No dq is , & Hi , 2012; Calab ò, To chia, Pukall, &
Mussolino, 2013; Ce a o & Pi a, 2012; Cla e , Rienda, & Que , 2008). Howe e , he
ele ance o indi idual manage ial le els o knowledge and expe ience emains la gely
unexplo ed in he in e na ional business li e a u e (Nielsen, 2010). In amily SMEs, he e is
o en an o e lap be ween owne ship, he boa d o di ec o s, and he op managemen eam
(TMT), wi h he same amily membe s in ol ed a all le els (Sega o, 2012). TMT membe s in
amily SMEs pa icipa e di ec ly in he design and day- o-day implemen a ion o i m s a egy
(Luba kin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006; Sánchez-Ma ín & Baixauli-Sole , 2015), and hey
ca y ou he en ep eneu ship p ocess (Sciascia, Mazzola, & Chi ico, 2013). Mo eo e , i is
common o SMEs o ha e amily membe s in TMT posi ions (Speckbache & Wen ges, 2012)
ha can sp ead he amily’s ideas and beha io s, di ec ly in luencing s a egic choices and
decisions. The e o e, he amily’s in ol emen in he i m o e s a unique en i onmen in
which o analyze whe he and o wha ex en a i m’s amily cha ac e a ec s he i m’s
in e na ionaliza ion (Fe nández-Olmos, Ga gallo-Cas el, & Gine -Bagües, 2016).
3
The amily business li e a u e has o e looked he impo ance o amily in ol emen in TMT
posi ions despi e i s ele ance (Minichilli, Co be a, & MacMillan, 2010). Following he uppe
echelon heo y (Ca pen e , Gele kanycz, & Sande s, 2004; Hamb ick, 2007; Hamb ick &
Mason, 1984), op manage s’ s a egic choices a e in luenced by manage s’ cogni i e base and
alues, which in luence he decision-making p ocess, shaping o ganiza ional ou comes.
O ganiza ions a e e lec ions o hei TMTs, and i m-le el decisions, including
in e na ionaliza ion, depend subs an ially on eam backg ound, expe ience, and alues (Hiebl,
2014; Tihanyi, Ells and, Daily, & Dal on, 2000). Thus, manage s should possess knowledge
ha allows hem o analyze and p ocess in o ma ion e icien ly in he complex and unce ain
in e na ionaliza ion p ocess (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2011; Ramón-LLo ens, Ga cía-Meca, &
Du éndez, 2017). P e ious esea ch has ecognized TMT as an impo an decision-making
g oup in o ganiza ions (Sánchez-Ma ín & Baixauli-Sole , 2015; Vandeke kho , S eij e s,
Hend iks, & Voo decke s, 2015) and has ocused on whe he demog aphic di e si y in
manage ial backg ounds is ad an ageous o i ms, bu he esul s ha e been inconsis en
(Cannella, Pa k, & Lee, 2008; Ri as, 2012).
The amily i m con ex ep esen s an in e es ing esea ch s eam because hese o ganiza ions’
singula i y esul s in speci ic TMT di e si ies and g ea e complexi y han non- amily i ms
(Ling & Kelle manns, 2010; Sciascia e al., 2013). To da e, amily i m-speci ic TMT
di e si ies ep esen unde - esea ched sou ces (K aiczy, Hack, & Kelle manns, 2014; Ling &
Kelle manns, 2010), and esea ch ega ding his aspec emains inconclusi e (Sciascia e al.,
2013). To shed ligh on his issue, we analyze he mode a ing e ec s on he EO-
in e na ionaliza ion ela ionship o he wo main o ms o TMT di e si ies c ea ed by he
amily’s in ol emen (A zubiaga, Maseda & I u alde, 2018a; K aiczy e al., 2014): he amily
TMT a io ( he di e si y be ween amily and non- amily manage s) and gene a ional
in ol emen ( he di e si y among gene a ions o amily membe s ha wo k oge he in he
TMT). We conside ha TMT di e si ies could ela e o he i m’s en ep eneu ial
in e na ionaliza ion, and a sepa a e analysis o hese wo amily in ol emen measu es
p o ides a be e unde s anding o he di e se e ec s o he amily’s in luence on amily SMEs’
in e na ional de elopmen .
Relying on a sample o Spanish amily i ms, ou esul s highligh he impo ance o TMT
composi ion in amily SMEs o shaping he ela ionship be ween EO and in e na ionaliza ion.
Ou s udy con ibu es in se e al ways o he esea ch and managemen p ac ice o amily
SMEs. Fi s , we inc ease ou knowledge o he uppe echelons heo y by p o iding a mo e ine-
4
g ained unde s anding o he consequences o wo amily i m-speci ic TMT di e si ies. We
add ess he call o p e ious s udies by p o iding new empi ical e idence o he amily’s
in ol emen in i ms’ manage ial posi ions, in e ms o in e na ionaliza ion (Ce a o & Pi a,
2012; Mi e , Dulle , Feldbaue -Du s mülle , & K aus, 2014; Sega o, La imo & Jones, 2014).
Exis ing s udies ha e o e looked he e ec o amily in ol emen in TMTs, e en hough a
signi ican body o esea ch li e a u e sugges s ha he TMT is an app op ia e es o he
amily’s in luence on businesses (K aiczy e al., 2014; Sciascia e al., 2013; Sega o e al., 2014).
This s udy o e s an enhanced heo e ical examina ion o uppe echelon heo y ha allows us
o sepa a e he bene i s and d awbacks o amily-speci ic TMT di e si ies (De Massis, Ko la ,
Campopiano, & Cassia, 2013) and p esen s a comp ehensi e pic u e o he con igu a ions o
amily in ol emen in managemen ha a e mos a o able o ad e se o u ning EO in o a
success ul in e na ionaliza ion p ocess. Second, his s udy ex ends he li e a u e on
in e na ionaliza ion and EO (e.g., B ou he s, Nakos & Dimi a os, 2015; Jan unen e al., 2005)
by adding o he small amoun o esea ch linking he en ep eneu ship and in e na ional
business ields in he amily i m con ex (Calab ò e al., 2017; He nández-Pe lines &
Mancebo-Lozano 2016; He nández-Pe lines e al., 2016). Ou s udy is appa en ly he i s ha
analyzes how en ep eneu ial beha io ’s e ec in a i m’s in e na ionaliza ion may be
mode a ed due o amily- ela ed ac o s. This s udy’s se ing is no ewo hy because Spain
ea u es a p edominance o amily-con olled i ms, which comp ise a ound 90% o Spain’s
ac i e businesses in 2015 acco ding o he Spanish Family Business Ins i u e (Casillas, López,
Me oño, Pons, & Baiges, 2016). Thi d, his esea ch con ibu es new insigh s o he eme gen
li e a u e on amily i m he e ogenei y (Chua, Ch isman, S eie , & Rau, 2012; Mille ,
Minichilli, & Co be a, 2013), showing ha amily in ol emen in TMTs can be a mo e
impo an d i e o a ia ion, in e ms o success, when u ning EO in o in e na ionaliza ion
among amily SMEs han was p e iously hough . By ocusing on amily i m-speci ic TMT
di e si y sou ces, his esea ch ex ends he knowledge o he amily business go e nance
dimensions’ e ec s, which we e iden i ied as majo ac o s in amily i ms´ he e ogenei y (Li
& Daspi , 2016; Pi ino, Ba oso-Ma ínez, Chi ico, & Sanguino-Gal án, 2018).
The pape is o ganized as ollows. In he nex sec ion, he heo e ical backg ound is p o ided,
and hypo heses a e de eloped. The hi d sec ion p o ides empi ical da a collec ed om Spanish
amily SMEs, and he ou h sec ion alida es he hypo heses h ough s uc u al equa ion
modeling. The i h sec ion hen p esen s he discussion. Finally, con ibu ions, limi a ions, and
ecommenda ions o u u e esea ch a e p o ided.
5
2. Theo e ical backg ound and hypo heses de elopmen
2.1. En ep eneu ial o ien a ion and in e na ionaliza ion
Fi ms’ inclina ion owa d en ep eneu ship is b oadly concep ualized as EO (Co in & Wales,
2012). Al hough he EO cons uc was de eloped o explain en ep eneu ial beha io s in
domes ic ma ke s (Co in & Sle in, 1991), i s use in an in e na ional con ex is jus i ied (Co in
& Mille , 2014). In e na ionaliza ion is an en ep eneu ial ac (Jan unen e al., 2005; Jones &
Co iello, 2005; Liu e al., 2011; Lu & Beamish, 2001) because i en ails iden i ying and
exploi ing new business oppo uni ies in new en i onmen s (Ripollés-Meliá e al., 2007) and
combines isk accep ance and he abili y o inno a e (Fle che , 2004).
P e ious s udies ha e demons a ed EO’s posi i e e ec on a i m’s deg ee o
in e na ionaliza ion (Jan unen a al., 2005; Ja algi & Todd, 2011; Liu e al., 2011; Ripollés-
Meliá e al., 2007). These s udies conclude ha i ms wi h highe EO a e mo e likely o
in oduce new p oduc s, di e si y ac i i ies, and p ospe in unknown en i onmen s (B ou he s
e al., 2015; Dimi a os, Lioukas, & Ca e , 2004). EO p o ides an impo an capabili y o build
compe i i e ad an age (B ou he s e al., 2015; Wiklund & Shephe d, 2003) because i
acili a es he iden i ica ion o new business oppo uni ies (Webb, Ke chen, & I eland, 2010)
and con ibu es o a i m’s con inui y and success (Kelle manns & Eddles on, 2006). Fi ms
wi h highe EO end o be mo e p oac i e and, hus, sea ch o oppo uni ies in new
in e na ional ma ke s (Jan unen e al., 2005). Acco ding o B ou he s e al. (2015, p. 1165),
SMEs wi h g ea e EO “will pe o m be e in o eign ma ke s because hey possess he
capabili ies needed o de elop inno a i e s a egies ha p o ide an ad an age in he o eign
ma ke , iden i y and use echnologies ha be e align wi h o eign ma ke cus ome needs, and
a e willing o ake business isks associa ed wi h adop ing new s a egies and echnologies in
o eign ma ke s.” Thus, he deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion is a condi ion caused by i ms’
en ep eneu ial a i udes.
Al hough amily i ms ep esen an in e es ing se ing due o hei cha ac e is ics and EO has
been iden i ied as a ele an ac o a ec ing amily i ms’ s a egic decision-making p ocesses
(Basco & Voo decke s, 2015; Mo eno & Casillas, 2008), he ela ionship be ween
en ep eneu ial beha io and in e na ionaliza ion in he amily i m con ex emains
inconclusi e, wi h e y li le esea ch in his espec (Calab ò e al., 2017; He nández-Pe lines
& Mancebo-Lozano 2016; He nández-Pe lines e al., 2016). Some au ho s a gue ha amily
i ms a e conse a i e, isk-a e se, and eluc an o change (Fe nández & Nie o, 2005; Mi e
6
e al., 2014), and, hus, a e he opposi e o en ep eneu ial (Naldi e al., 2007). Ne e heless,
amily i ms possess bene icial a ibu es such as he abili y o make as decisions, us ed
ela ionships, and a long- e m o ien a ion ha can make hem success ul in in e na ional
en i onmen s (Fe nández & Nie o, 2006; Kon inen & Ojala, 2010; Lumpkin, B igham, &
Moss, 2010; Mi e e al., 2014). This las a ibu e is especially impo an because i can ake
yea s o gene a e p o i s in in e na ional ma ke s (Zah a, 2003). These posi i e and nega i e
cha ac e is ics a e gene a ed by he amily’s in luence on i m managemen . Fu he mo e,
amily i ms a e no homogenous in e ms o s a egic beha io because, depending on he
deg ee o amily in ol emen , hey may beha e in di e en ways (Bo e o, Thomas, G a es, &
Fediuk, 2013). In his pape , we s udy he ole o he amily’s in ol emen in TMT posi ions,
since di e en measu es o he amily’s in luence could p o ide a be e unde s anding o how
and o wha ex en amilies mode a e EO’s e ec on in e na ionaliza ion.
2.2. Family in ol emen in he op managemen eam
He e ogenei y among amily i ms can be app ecia ed h ough a ious ac o s, such as i ms’
owne ship s uc u e, go e nance mechanisms, le els o p o essionaliza ion, and he gene a ion
in cha ge o he i m (Ch isman e al., 2005; Kelle manns e al., 2012; Sha ma, 2004). This
he e ogenei y can also be pe cei ed in amily i ms’ a i udes and beha io s when acing
in e na ionaliza ion (Sega o e al., 2014; Siebels & Knyphausen, 2012). Calab ò e al. (2013,
p. 511) asse ed ha “ amily in ol emen seems o be an impo an de e minan o he
in e na ionaliza ion p ocess”. This esea ch ocuses on he le el o amily in ol emen in
i ms’ TMT, which is ecognized as an impo an decision-making uni in o ganiza ions
(Sánchez-Ma ín & Baixauli-Sole , 2015; Vandeke kho e al., 2015). P e ious esea ch has
analyzed amily in ol emen in di e en go e nance bodies, such as he boa d o di ec o s,
ins ead o he TMT. Howe e , no all amily SMEs ha e a boa d because his is no always
compulso y. Al hough boa ds may be compulso y in some con ex s, he ole o he boa d o
di ec o s in SMEs may a y g ea ly, anging om a symbolic unc ion o ac i e in ol emen in
alue-c ea ing ac i i ies, such as s a egic decision-making and access o aluable esou ces
(Huse, 2007; McNul y and Pe ig ew, 1999; Wes phal and Zajac, 1998). This iew is
co obo a ed by e idence ha many amily SMEs do no make ull use o hei boa ds (Ins i u e
o Family Business, 2016), wi h he boa d o di ec o s ole usually eplaced by in o mal
con ols (De Massis, Ko la , Campopiano & Cassia, 2015). Con e sely, in SMEs TMT
manage s a e usually he indi iduals who pa icipa e mo e di ec ly in he daily design and
7
implemen a ion o a i m’s s a egy (Luba kin e al., 2006; Sánchez-Ma ín & Baixauli-Sole ,
2015), ca ying ou he en ep eneu ial p ocesses (Sciascia e al., 2013) and de e mining he
dep h and scope o in e na ionaliza ion and o he in e na ional s a egies (Aha oni, Tihanyi, &
Connelly, 2011). The e o e, he amily’s in luence o e manage ial posi ions is an impo an
explana ion o i m beha io (Kelle manns e al., 2012; S eie , 2003), and i s impo ance has
been o e looked (Minichilli e al., 2010).
The uppe echelon heo y no es ha i m ou comes e lec he TMT’s ac ions (Ca pen e e al.,
2004; Hamb ick, 2007; Hamb ick & Mason, 1984). This heo y posi s ha s a egic decisions
made in he i m a e associa ed wi h TMT membe s’ cogni ion and alues, because such
membe s a e among he mos powe ul ac o s in he o ganiza ion (Hamb ick, 2007). Decisions
a e in luenced by manage s’ cogni i e men al schemes, which a e ep esen ed by hei
educa ional and unc ional backg ounds, expe iences, pe spec i es, alues, and demog aphic
cha ac e is ics (Hiebl, 2014; Tihanyi e al., 2000). Si ua ions a e in e p e ed di e en ly,
di e en ac ions a e aken, and, hus, di e ences in i m ou comes eme ge om TMT
composi ion (Hamb ick, 2007). Resea ch on TMTs has analyzed how di e si y o manage s’
cha ac e is ics and backg ounds in luences i ms’ ou comes (Ri as, 2012), and, he e o e, i is
a gued ha he ideas and oppo uni ies pu sued a e shaped by TMT di e si y (Beckman, 2006).
Thus, he impo ance o ha ing di e si y among TMT membe s’ skills, knowledge, and
expe iences o imp o e p oblem-sol ing, acili a e new ideas, and ensu e p oac i e ac ions is
highligh ed (Talke, Salomo, & Kock, 2011). Fi ms can gain signi ican compe i i e ad an age
om di e sely o med TMTs (Bunde son, 2003), because a mo e di e se TMT p o ides
g ea e c ea i i y, supe io p oblem-sol ing capaci y, and he abili y o inno a e. A
cons uc i e dialogue exis s among membe s in a di e se TMT ha os e s he eme gence o
di e se ideas, knowledge, and pe spec i es, which a e no achie able in homogeneous TMT
g oups (Sciascia e al., 2013; Talke e al., 2011). Thus, di e se TMTs a e mo e likely han
homogeneous g oups o be en ep eneu ial and en e new ma ke s. Howe e , excessi e
di e si y can be ha m ul, as con ol and coo dina ion p oblems may a ise (Sciascia e al., 2013),
inc easing a TMT’s emo ional con lic s and making cogni i e in eg a ions in a i m’s
in e na ionaliza ion s a egy di icul (Jaw & Lin, 2009). Fo hese easons, as well as he
po en ial posi i e and nega i e ou comes (Dahlin, Weinga , & Hinds, 2005; Joshi & Roh,
2009; K aiczy e al., 2014; Ri as, 2012), TMT di e si y is conside ed a double-edged swo d
(Ling & Kelle manns, 2010).
8
Family i ms possess a unique sou ce o TMT di e si y no ound in o he o ganiza ions
because o amily in ol emen in managemen posi ions (Ling & Kelle manns, 2010).
Resea ching TMTs in amily i ms is impo an because a amily’s in luence can be mani es ed
in di e en o ms (K aiczy e al., 2014). Family i m-speci ic di e si ies can be bo h
ad an ageous and disad an ageous, because each sou ce o amily i m-speci ic TMT di e si y
can ha e a di e en e ec (K aiczy e al., 2014). The e o e, we mus conside hese di e si ies
sepa a ely o o m a be e unde s anding o amily-induced TMT di e si ies (K aiczy e al.,
2014). This pape analyzes he wo mos impo an amily i m-speci ic di e si ies c ea ed by
amily in ol emen in he TMT (A zubiaga e al., 2018a; K aiczy e al., 2014): he amily TMT
a io o di e si y p oduced by he p opo ion o amily membe s in ol ed in he TMT (C uz &
No dq is , 2012; Minichilli e al., 2010; Naldi e al., 2007) and he di e si y p oduced by
gene a ional in ol emen in he TMT (Kelle manns & Eddles on, 2006; Minichilli e al., 2010;
Sciascia e al., 2013) (see Figu e 1).
Figu e 1: The analysis model
2.2.1. The mode a ing e ec o he amily TMT a io
The amily TMT a io is he p opo ion o amily membe s holding TMT posi ions (Minichilli
e al., 2010). Family membe s o en sha e a common cul u e, alues, and no ms ansmi ed
om hei pa en s and ela i es (Chua, Ch isman, & Sha ma, 2003), which gi e hem a s ong
emo ional a achmen o he business ha p omo es hei le el o commi men and in ol emen
wi h he o ganiza ion (Minichilli e al., 2010). This highe commi men o amily membe s
may make in e ac ions among manage s mo e equen and di ec (Gup a, Smi h, & Shalley,
2006), which imp o es in o ma ion exchange and lea ning om o he i m membe s
(A zubiaga e al., 2018a; Liu, Chen, & Tao, 2015). Howe e , amily membe s usually possess
a common educa ional backg ound, expe ise, and expe ience acqui ed wi hin he amily i m
En ep eneu ial
O ien a ion
Deg ee o
In e na ionaliza ion
Family TMT
Ra io
Gene a ional
In ol emen in TMT
H1
H2
Con ols:
- Fi m Size
- Fi m Age
- Fi m Indus y
- FDI
15
3.3. Va iable measu emen
All a iables we e measu ed ollowing he p io li e a u e. Howe e , no b oadly accep ed
measu emen exis s o measu e he dependen a iable, he deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion
(DOI). The a io o expo sales is commonly used in SME esea ch as a ep esen a i e measu e
o i ms’ in e na ionaliza ion (Calab ò & Mussolino, 2013; G a es & Thomas, 2006; Lu &
Beamish, 2001). Expo ing is conside ed he mos common en y mode in his i m ype since
SMEs do no usually ha e subsidia ies ab oad. Howe e , in e na ionaliza ion cons i u es mo e
han expo s, and mo e comp ehensi e measu es should be used (Mi e e al., 2014).
Acco ding o Sulli an (1994), measu ing he deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion using mul iple
i ems is ecommended. The e o e, he DOI cons uc in his pape was measu ed using a
combina ion o wo i ems o o e come he limi a ions associa ed wi h he adop ion o a single
i em. We ollowed he indica ions o p e ious amily i m esea ch (A egle e al., 2012; Zah a,
2003), measu ing he deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion as ollows: (1) he a io o o eign sales o
o al sales, which e e s o he scale o i ms’ in e na ional sales, and (2) he numbe o o eign
coun ies in which i ms ope a e, which e e s o he scope o o eign ac i i ies.
The independen a iable, EO, can be measu ed using se e al scales (Co in & Wales, 2012).
The choice o measu emen mus be based on an unde s anding o he cons uc ’s heo e ical
na u e (Co in & Wales, 2012). We chose o measu e EO using Co in and Sle in’s (1989;
1991) h ee dimensions, because hey comp ise a b oadly accep ed and alida ed measu e (e.g.,
A zubiaga e al., 2018b; Casillas e al., 2011; C uz & No dq is , 2012; Sciascia e al., 2013).
This measu e was ini ially buil based on he meaning o “being en ep eneu ial” sugges ed by
heo y. EO was hus modeled as a second-o de e lec i e cons uc , o med by h ee i s -o de
e lec i e cons uc s named inno a i eness, p oac i eness, and isk- aking (A zubiaga e al.,
2018b; Co in & Wales, 2012). EO is a second-o de e lec i e cons uc ha exp esses changes
in he unde lying la en cons uc as e lec ed in changes o he indica o s (A zubiaga e al.,
2018b; Ja is e al., 2003). The e o e, he componen a iables o inno a i eness,
p oac i eness, and isk- aking we e i s assessed h ough hei co esponding measu es, each
wi h h ee i ems, and hen hese h ee componen s we e assessed as e lec i e indica o s o he
second-o de cons uc o EO (Co in & Wales, 2012). Thus, EO was measu ed using “Type I”
second-o de ac o speci ica ion (i.e., e lec i e i s -o de and e lec i e second-o de ) (Co in
& Wales, 2012). Responden s assessed nine i ems on an 11-poin Like scale o build all i s -
and second-o de cons uc s. The CEO’s pe spec i e comp ises an accep ed app oach o
16
ope a ionalizing i m-le el EO in he li e a u e, especially when analyzing SMEs (C uz &
No dq is , 2012; Wiklund & Shephe d, 2003).
This s udy analyzes wo mode a ing a iables. The amily TMT a io is cons uc ed om
esponden s’ indica ions o he numbe o amily membe s holding manage ial posi ions and
he o al numbe o TMT membe s. The amily TMT a io is ob ained by di iding he numbe
o amily manage s by he o al numbe o TMT membe s (K aiczy e al., 2014; Minichilli e
al., 2010). This a io can assume alues o ze o o one. Howe e , gene a ional in ol emen was
measu ed by he numbe o gene a ions simul aneously holding TMT posi ions (Chi ico e al.,
2011; Kelle manns & Eddles on, 2006; K aiczy e al., 2014). One, wo, o h ee gene a ions
can be simul aneously in ol ed in manage ial posi ions, depending on he gene a ions in ol ed
in he TMT. The e o e, his a iable can assume alues om one o h ee.
The con ol a iables used in his s udy a e i m size, age, indus y, and o eign di ec
in es men (FDI). Fi m size is a p oxy o he amoun o esou ces a ailable o he
in e na ionaliza ion p ocess; la ge i ms should ha e a g ea e amoun o manage ial,
p oduc i e, and inancial esou ces ha con ibu e o inc easing hei p esence in o eign
ma ke s (Ce a o & Pi a, 2012). As in p e ious SME s udies, size was a con inuous a iable
measu ed as a loga i hmic ans o ma ion o he i m’s numbe o employees (Calab ò &
Mussolino, 2013; Ce a o & Pi a, 2012; Chen, Hsu, & Chang, 2014; Fe nández & Nie o, 2005;
2006). Fi m age is a commonly used con ol a iable in in e na ionaliza ion s udies (Ce a o
& Pi a, 2012; Fe nández & Nie o, 2006; Mi e e al., 2014). Age is p ima ily used o con ol
o a i m’s business expe ience, because i ms wi h mo e yea s o pe o mance ha e ga he ed
mo e expe ience and knowledge (Ce a o & Pi a, 2012). Fi m age is a con inuous a iable
measu ed as a loga i hmic ans o ma ion o he yea s a i m has been in exis ence (Chen e al.,
2014). Fi m indus y is also assumed o a ec he deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion (Sega o e al.,
2014). Fi ms we e ca ego ized in o six di e en indus ies—chemical, ood, s eel, elec ic,
u ni u e, and ex iles—and con olled using dummy a iables (Sega o e al., 2014; Singla,
Veliya h, & Geo ge, 2014). The FDI a iable is used o con ol o o eign di ec in es men
o asse s ha i ms con ol ab oad. P e ious amily i m esea ch s udies ha e used he o eign
asse s o o al asse s a io o measu e FDI (Bhaumik e al., 2010; Singla e al., 2017). Al hough
ou sample i ms a e amily SMEs and hei main ac i i y in o eign ma ke s is expo ing, he
le el o FDI migh also in luence he deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion.
17
4. Analyses and esul s
4.1. Validi y and eliabili y
The p oposed model has been analyzed using s uc u al equa ion modeling based on a pa ial
leas squa es me hod (PLS). The PLS app oach is app op ia e o in es iga ing complex
ela ionships wi h mode a ing a iables (Chin, 1998). The Sma PLS e sion 2 so wa e was
applied in he empi ical analyses (Ko mann, 2015). The analysis used a wo-s age p ocess: (1)
assessmen o he measu emen model’s eliabili y and alidi y and (2) app aisal o he
p oposed s uc u al model (Acedo & Galán, 2011; Ba clay, Higgins, & Thompsom, 1995).
Th ee di e en es s we e conduc ed o analyze he eliabili y and alidi y o he e lec i e
cons uc s’ measu emen scales (Acedo & Galán, 2011; Hulland, 1999; Ko mann, 2015):
indi idual i em eliabili ies, he con e gen alidi y o measu es ela ed o indi idual
cons uc s, and disc iminan alidi y. Fi s , indi idual i em eliabili y examines each i em’s
loading o e lec i e cons uc s. The i ems’ loadings should be g ea e han 0.7, because he
i em and cons uc ’s sha ed a iance mus be g ea e han he a iance be ween he cons uc
and i s e o (Ca mines & Zelle , 1979; Hulland, 1999). Table 2 illus a es he esul s. No e ha
one i em loads below he 0.7 cu -o . Thus, i em 6 o he EO included in he p oac i eness
cons uc was emo ed. The model also includes a second-o de cons uc , EO. The s uc u al
coe icien s, in his case, can be aken as ac o loadings (Doll, Xia, & To kzadeh, 1994). The
h ee s uc u al coe icien s o he EO cons uc in he p oposed model a e g ea e han 0.7,
and, hus, no p oblems exis wi h he second-o de cons uc s.
Second, con e gen alidi y is analyzed o de e mine in e nal consis ency h ough composi e
eliabili y (CR) and C onbach’s alpha (Ko mann, 2015); bo h s a is ics mus be g ea e han
0.7 (Hulland, 1999; Nunnally, 1978). The a e age a iance ex ac ed (AVE) mus also be
analyzed, and i s ecommended alue is g ea e han 0.5 (Acedo & Galán, 2011; Fo nell &
La cke , 1981). The second-o de cons uc ’s AVE was calcula ed ollowing he wo k o Hai ,
Hul , Ringle, and Sa s ed (2014). As Table 2 e eals, con e gen alidi y is ul illed in he
p oposed model, as all pa ame e s a e abo e he cu -o poin s.
Thi d, disc iminan alidi y is e alua ed h ough he AVE (Fo nell & La cke , 1981). A
cons uc mus sha e mo e a iance wi h i s indica o s han wi h o he model cons uc s. Thus,
he wo cons uc s’ indi idual AVEs should be g ea e han he squa ed co ela ion be ween
he wo cons uc s. This condi ion mus be ul illed in he p esen model be ween DOI and EO.
18
Table 3 p esen s he co ela ion ma ix, wi h alues o he AVE’s squa e oo on he diagonal.
No e ha he equi ed condi ion is me .
Table 2. Cons uc eliabili y and con e gen alidi y
Table 3. Co ela ion ma ix and disc iminan alidi y
4.2. Assessmen o he s uc u al model
Once he measu emen model has been e i ied, he s uc u al model can be assessed by
examining he ela ionships be ween cons uc s and he model’s p edic i e capaci y. Va ious
es s a e hen conduc ed o alida e he o e all s uc u al model, because he PLS does no
supply a speci ic index (Chin, 1998; Ko mann, 2015). Following Hai e al. (2014), we used
19
“boo s apping” wi h 5,000 subsamples o calcula e he p oposed ela ionships’ -s a is ics.
Table 4 illus a es he esul s.
The di ec e ec o EO on amily i ms’ deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion is posi i e and
s a is ically signi ican (β = 0.234; = 3.728; p < 0.001). The esul s sugges ha i ms wi h
highe en ep eneu ial o ien a ion a e mo e in e na ionalized. Howe e , esul s pa ially
suppo he hypo heses ega ding amily in ol emen . The mode a ing e ec p oduced by he
amily TMT a io is nega i e and signi ican , as expec ed (β = -0.183; = 3.306; p < 0.001);
hus, Hypo hesis 1 is co obo a ed. I is sugges ed ha EO’s e ec on he le el o
in e na ionaliza ion is lowe in i ms wi h a highe p opo ion o amily membe s in he
manage ial eam. Howe e , he mode a ing e ec p oduced by gene a ional in ol emen is
nega i e and s a is ically signi ican (β = -0.145; = 2.651; p < 0.01) and no posi i e, as
hypo hesized. Thus, Hypo hesis 2 is ejec ed.
The deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion’s explana o y powe (R2 = 0.298) exceeds he ecommended
alue p oposed by Falk and Mille (1992), in which R2 should be g ea e han 0.1. A Q2 es
was conduc ed o e alua e he cons uc s’ p edic i e ele ance (Chin, 1998) using a
blind olding p ocedu e (Hensele , Ringle, & Sinko ics, 2009); as he co esponding Q2 alues
a e posi i e, he hypo hesized model has a s ong p edic i e capaci y o e all (Hensele e al.,
2009; Ko mann, 2015).
20
Table 4: Resul s o s uc u al equa ion modeling
Figu e 2: Resul s o s uc u al equa ion modeling
We sepa a ely analyzed he mode a ing e ec gene a ed by i ms wi h only one gene a ion in
he TMT o inc ease ou unde s anding o gene a ional in ol emen . Thus, we c ea ed a
dummy a iable ha assumes a alue o one when a i m only has membe s om one
gene a ion, and ze o when mul iple gene a ions hold manage ial posi ions. The esul s indica e
ha i ms wi h membe s om only one gene a ion p oduce a posi i e mode a ion (β = 0.127;
= 2.067; p < 0.025). Thus, when only one gene a ion manages a i m, EO’s e ec on he deg ee
o in e na ionaliza ion imp o es. Al e na i ely, as es ed in Hypo hesis 2, when mul iple
gene a ions simul aneously hold manage ial posi ions, his gene a es a nega i e mode a ing
e ec .
4.3. Robus ness check
To examine ou esul s’ obus ness, we es ima ed s uc u al models wi h some subsamples o
i m cha ac e is ics (G ube , Heinemann, B e el, & Hunling, 2010). Fi s , we di ided he
sample by age (olde and younge i ms), aking he mean as a e e ence. Fi ms wi h 32.9 o
mo e yea s we e classi ied as olde i ms, ob aining a subsample o 101 i ms. Con e sely,
i ms wi h less han 32.9 yea s we e classi ied as younge i ms, ob aining a subsample o 90
En ep eneu ial
O ien a ion
Deg ee o
In e na ionaliza ion
Family TMT
Ra io
Gene a ional
In ol emen in TMT
H1: -0.183***
0.234***
H2: -0.145**
R2 = 0.298
21
i ms. The esul s in he olde i ms subsample indica e ha he EO–in e na ionaliza ion
ela ionship is signi ican (β = 0.265; = 2.599; p < 0.005), he mode a ing e ec o he amily
TMT a io is signi ican (β = -0.280; = 3.628; p < 0.001), and he mode a ing e ec o
gene a ional in ol emen is signi ican (β = -0.232; = 2.130; p < 0.025). The esul s in he
younge i ms subsample indica e ha he EO–in e na ionaliza ion ela ionship is signi ican
(β = 0.225; = 2.535; p < 0.01), he mode a ing e ec o he amily TMT a io is signi ican (β
= -0.193; = 2.111; p < 0.025), and he mode a ing e ec o gene a ional in ol emen is
signi ican (β = -0.187; = 2.150; p < 0.025). Analyzing he esul s ob ained, which p oduced
only minimal di e ences in he pa h coe icien s o he wo subsamples, we can conclude ha
he obus ness es ca ied ou is consis en .
Second, he o iginal sample was di ided in o wo g oups by indus y (low echnology and high
echnology sec o s). Low echnology sec o s include ex ile, s eel, and u ni u e indus ies, and
he subsample included 96 i ms. High echnology sec o s include chemis y, elec ic, and ood
indus ies, and he subsample included 95 i ms. The esul s o he subsample o low
echnology sec o s indica e ha he EO–in e na ionaliza ion ela ionship is signi ican (β =
0.286; = 2.779; p < 0.005), he mode a ing e ec o he amily TMT a io is signi ican (β =
-0.169; = 2.255; p < 0.025), and he mode a ing e ec o gene a ional in ol emen is
signi ican (β = -0.156; = 1.924; p < 0.05). The esul s o he subsample o high echnology
sec o s indica e ha he EO–in e na ionaliza ion ela ionship is signi ican (β = 0.275; =
3.043; p < 0.005), he mode a ing e ec o he amily TMT a io is signi ican (β = -0.266; =
3.357; p < 0.001), and he mode a ing e ec o gene a ional in ol emen is signi ican (β = -
0.176; = 2.132; p < 0.025). Analyzing he esul s ob ained, which also p oduced minimal
di e ences in he pa h coe icien s o he wo subsamples, we can conclude ha he obus ness
es ca ied ou is consis en .
To sum up, gi en ha he analysis o di e en subsamples e eals ha subsamples a e also
signi ican and wi h minimal di e ences in he pa h coe icien s, we can asse ha ou esul s
a e obus .
5. Discussion
This s udy a emp s o shed new ligh on he deba e ega ding he ex en o which amily TMT
in ol emen in luences he ela ionship be ween EO and he in e na ionaliza ion o amily
SMEs. We analyzed amily in ol emen in and in luence on he i m by ocusing on wo amily
22
i m-speci ic di e si ies in he TMT (i.e., he amily TMT a io and gene a ional in ol emen
in he TMT). As a gued du ing hypo heses de elopmen , he uppe echelon heo y (Ca pen e
e al., 2004; Hamb ick, 2007; Hamb ick & Mason, 1984) suppo s he idea ha i m ou comes
can be p edic ed by TMT composi ion. Di e sely o med TMT g oups may possess a wide
pool o skills, knowledge, expe iences, and alues, which may posi i ely in luence business
ou comes such as in e na ionaliza ion. Ou esul s pa ially suppo he p oposed hypo heses
and e eal unexpec ed and in e es ing indings, ex ending ou unde s a ing o amily i ms’
en ep eneu ial beha io and in e na ionaliza ion.
Ou esul s indica e ha EO plays a signi ican ole in explaining amily i ms’ deg ee o
in e na ionaliza ion, as p e ious s udies indica ed (Calab ò e al., 2017; He nández-Pe lines &
Mancebo-Lozano 2016; Jan unen e al., 2005; Ja algi & Todd, 2011; Liu e al., 2011; Ripollés-
Meliá e al., 2007). Fu he mo e, amily i m-speci ic TMT di e si ies shape he e ec s o he
amily i m’s en ep eneu ial o ien a ion on he deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion. The amily TMT
a io nega i ely mode a es he ela ionship be ween EO and deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion, as
he ela ionship is weake when a highe p opo ion o amily membe s hold posi ions in he
TMT. Thus, an excessi e le el o amily in ol emen in he TMT could limi di e si y in
knowledge and mul iple pe spec i es abou in e na ionaliza ion s a egies. The amily may no
possess su icien human esou ces o TMT posi ions, and, he e o e, non- amily membe s’
pa icipa ion in he TMT, b inging di e en expe ise and backg ounds, migh help amily
i ms o e come his sho age (Calab ò e al., 2013; Sega o e al., 2014). Thus, SMEs ha wish
o in e na ionalize may need o conside he inclusion o ex e nal manage s’ skills and
backg ound o enhance EO’s e ec on in e na ionaliza ion.
Highe gene a ional in ol emen was expec ed o posi i ely mode a e EO’s e ec on
in e na ionaliza ion. Gene a ional in ol emen inc eases he knowledge and di e si y o
expe iences in he TMT (Kelle manns & Eddles on, 2006; Ling & Kelle manns, 2010).
Howe e , he opposi e e ec was e ealed; a highe numbe o gene a ions in ol ed gene a ed
a nega i e mode a ing e ec . Consequen ly, gene a ional in ol emen does no always ac as
a ca alys in he ela ionship be ween EO and deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion. Se e al easons
may explain his si ua ion. One explana ion is ha ision, in e es s, and expec a ions o
business ou comes can di e be ween gene a ions, leading o p oblems in con ol and powe
(Bammens, Voo decke s, & Van Gils, 2008; Ling & Kelle manns, 2010; Son ield & Lussie ,
2004). Con lic s be ween gene a ions can hampe he cons uc i e deba e p omo ed by a
di e se TMT, hinde ing he assessmen , accep ance, and inco po a ion o o he s’ ideas
23
(Sciascia e al., 2013). Jaw and Lin (2009) asse ed ha a he e ogeneous TMT may be mo e
c ea i e in sol ing p oblems ela ed o o eign ma ke s, bu when mul iple gene a ions a e
in ol ed in he decision-making eam, his can impede g oup coope a ion and cogni i e
in eg a ion owa d a i m’s global s a egy. Thus, Chi ico e al. (2011) indica ed ha pe sis en
con lic a ec s amily i ms’ en ep eneu ial e o s, and, consequen ly, a pa icipa i e s a egy
is c ucial o ensu e alue-c ea ing co-alignmen among indi iduals ac oss gene a ions.
Ano he explana ion o gene a ional in ol emen ’s nega i e e ec may ely on manage s’
di e en isions and pe spec i es esul ing om hei age. Fi ms wi h mo e han one gene a ion
in ol ed in managemen posi ions may no ha e gone h ough a succession p ocess ye , and,
hus, senio manage s in hese i ms a e likely o be olde . Con e sely, i ms wi h only one
gene a ion migh ha e al eady gone h ough a succession p ocess, and, hus, i is expec ed ha
hese i ms’ manage s will be younge . P e ious esea ch indica es ha manage s’ age
in luences s a egic decision-making (He mann & Da a, 2005; Tihanyi e al. 2000). Age can
indica e he ex en o expe ience, bu i can also signal manage s’ p opensi y o isk- aking
(He mann & Da a, 2005). TMT membe s’ age has been nega i ely associa ed wi h high- isk
decision-making and wi h he capaci y o analyze new in o ma ion (Suá ez-O ega & Álamo-
Ve a, 2005). Howe e , younge di ec o s a e mo e likely o adop iskie s a egies (Hamb ick
& Mason, 1984). Empi ical e idence sugges s ha a lowe age o manage s is posi i ely ela ed
o in e na ionaliza ion s a egies (Fe nández-O íz & Fuen es-Lomba do, 2009; He mann &
Da a, 2005; Tihanyi e al., 2000). Thus, i is expec ed ha i ms wi h manage s om di e en
gene a ions will ha e olde manage s ha a e likely o be mo e a e se o implemen isky
s a egies such as in e na ionaliza ion. The e o e, gene a ional in ol emen could nega i ely
a ec he ela ionship be ween EO and a i m’s in e na ionaliza ion.
6. Con ibu ions, limi a ions, and u u e esea ch
This s udy con ibu es o he li e a u e on amily i ms and managemen p ac ices in se e al
ways. Fi s , we con ibu e heo e ically o inc easing ou knowledge o he uppe echelons
heo y by inc easing ou unde s anding o wo amily i m-speci ic TMT di e si ies induced
by amily in luence. Al hough he TMT ep esen s a good way o es ing amily in ol emen
in he business, p e ious esea ch has la gely o e looked he in luence o amily in ol emen
in he TMT (K aiczy e al., 2014; Sciascia e al., 2013; Sega o e al., 2014). We ha e ocused
on he amily TMT a io and gene a ional in ol emen as wo impo an TMT di e si ies ound
24
only in amily i ms. These wo amily i m-speci ic di e si ies we e p e iously used o analyze
inno a ion issues in amily i ms (A zubiaga e al., 2018a; K aiczy e al., 2014), bu no in he
ela ionship be ween EO and in e na ionaliza ion. Acco dingly, we ha e con ibu ed o
enhancing ou knowledge o uppe echelons heo y, dis inguishing be ween he bene i s and
d awbacks o amily i m-speci ic TMT di e si ies (De Massis e al., 2013). The amily’s
in luence plays an impo an ole in s a egic decision-making and shapes he exis ing posi i e
ela ionship be ween EO and he i m’s deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion. The di e se o ma ion
o TMTs wi h di e en expe ise, expe ience, and knowledge may no esul always bene icial,
as in he case o gene a ional in ol emen . The expec ed posi i e e ec was nega i e. This is
an example o how di e si y in he TMT can be a double-edged swo d. Mo e esea ch is needed
o add ess gene a ional in ol emen ’s di e en implica ions in s a egic decision-making, such
as in e na ionaliza ion.
Second, ou s udy con ibu es o he in e na ional business and en ep eneu ship li e a u e by
inc easing knowledge in his join esea ch ield. The e has been e y li le esea ch linking
i ms’ en ep eneu ial beha io s and he in e na ionaliza ion o amily i ms (Calab ò e al.,
2017; He nández-Pe lines e al., 2016). Howe e , hese s udies do no analyze how he e ec
o en ep eneu ial o ien a ion in in e na ionaliza ion may a y because o amily in luence. Due
o he o e lap o owne s and manage s in amily SMEs, hese o ganiza ions ep esen an
in e es ing se ing, because hey can beha e di e en ly when making an en ep eneu ial
s a egic decision, such as in e na ionaliza ion. The e o e, u u e esea ch should ex end ou
knowledge o he en ep eneu ial in e na ionaliza ion o amily i ms.
Thi d, ou esea ch con ibu es o he eme gen esea ch s eam o amily i m he e ogenei y
(Chua e al., 2012; Mille e al., 2013). Family in ol emen in he TMT can be an impo an
de e minan explaining he he e ogeneous beha io s o amily i ms. Ou s udy adds e idence
o he signi ican ole o he TMT in impo an go e nance dimensions o amily i ms, which
ha e been p e iously iden i ied as he mos impo an ac o s in amily i ms’ he e ogenei y
(Li & Daspi , 2016; Pi ino e al., 2018).
Fou h, ou s udy con ibu es o he esea ch on amily SMEs. Family SMEs a e he mos
common ype o business, bu hei p ocess o in e na ionaliza ion has no been deeply
de eloped despi e i s impo ance (Mi e e al., 2014; Sega o e al., 2014). We es ou
hypo heses wi h a sample o i ms om Spain, a coun y whe e almos 90% o i ms a e
conside ed amily i ms (Casillas e al., 2016). I should also be in e es ing o analyze he
31
Ling, Y., & Kelle manns, F. W. (2010). The e ec s o amily i m speci ic sou ces o TMT
di e si y: The mode a ing ole o in o ma ion exchange equency. Jou nal o
Managemen S udies, 47(2), 322-344.
Liu, J., Chen, J., & Tao, Y. (2015). Inno a ion pe o mance in new p oduc de elopmen eams
in China’s echnology en u es: The ole o beha io al in eg a ion dimensions and
collec i e e icacy. Jou nal o P oduc Inno a ion Managemen , 32(1), 29-44.
Liu, Y., Li, Y., & Xue, J. (2011). Owne ship, s a egic o ien a ion and in e na ionaliza ion in
eme ging ma ke s. Jou nal o Wo ld Business, 46 (3), 381-393.
Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2001). The in e na ionaliza ion and pe o mance o SMEs.
S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 22(6-7), 565-586.
Luba kin, M., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidex e i y and pe o mance in
small- o medium-sized i ms: The pi o al ole o op managemen eam beha io al
in eg a ion. Jou nal o Managemen , 32(5), 646–672.
Lumpkin, G. T., B igham, K., & Moss, T. (2010). Long- e m o ien a ion: implica ions o he
en ep eneu ial o ien a ion and pe o mance o amily business. En ep eneu ship and
Regional De elopmen , 22(3), 241-264.
McNul y, T., & Pe ig ew, A. (1999). S a egis s on he boa d. O ganiza ion S udies, 20(1), 47-
74.
Michie, S., Dooley, R. S., & F yxell, G. E. (2006). Uni ied di e si y in op-le el eams:
Enhancing collabo a ion and quali y in s a egic decision making. In e na ional Jou nal
o O ganiza ional Analysis, 14(2), 130-149.
Mille , D., Le B e on-Mille , I, & Les e , R. H. (2013). Family i m go e nance, s a egic
con o mi y, and pe o mance : Ins i u ional s. s a egic pe spec i es. O ganiza ion
Science, 24(1), 189-209.
Mille , D., Minichilli, A., & Co be a, G. (2013). Is amily leade ship always bene icial?
S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 34(5), 553-571.
Minichilli, A., Co be a, G., & MacMillan, I. C. (2010). Top managemen eams in amily-
con olled companies: " amiliness", " aul lines", and hei impac on inancial
pe o mance. Jou nal o Managemen S udies, 47(2), 205-222.
Mi e , C., Dulle , C., Feldbaue -Du s mülle , B., & K aus, S. (2014). In e na ionaliza ion o
amily i ms: The e ec o owne ship and go e nance. Re iew o Manage ial Science,
8(1), 1-28.
Mo eno, A. M., & Casillas, J. C. (2008). En ep eneu ial O ien a ion and G ow h o SMEs: A
Causal Model. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 32(3), 507-528.
Muñoz-Bullón, F., & Sánchez-Bueno, M. J. (2012). Do amily ies shape he pe o mance
consequences o di e si ica ion? E idence om he Eu opean Union. Jou nal o Wo ld
Business, 47(3), 469-77.
Naldi, L., No dq is , M., Sjöbe g, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). En ep eneu ial o ien a ion, isk
aking, and pe o mance in amily i ms. Family Business Re iew, 20(1), 33-47.
Nielsen, S. (2010). Top managemen em in e na ionaliza ion and i m pe o mance. The
media ing ole o o eign ma ke en y. Managemen In e na ional Re iew, 50(2), 185-
206.
Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. (2011). The ole o op managemen eam in e na ional o ien a ion
in in e na ional s a egic decision-making: The choice o o eign en y mode. Jou nal o
Wo ld Business, 46(2), 185-193.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychome ic heo y. New Yo k: McG aw-Hill.
32
Pi ino, D., Ba oso-Ma ínez, A., Chi ico, F., & Sanguino-Gal án, R. (2018). Psychological
owne ship, knowledge sha ing and en ep eneu ial o ien a ion in amily i ms: The
mode a ing ole o go e nance he e ogenei y. Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 84, 312-326.
Podsako P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsako , N. P. (2003). Common me hod
biases in beha io al esea ch: A c i ical e iew o he li e a u e and ecommended
emedies. Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Podsako , P. M., & O gan, D. W. (1986). Sel - epo s in o ganiza ional esea ch: P oblems
and p ospec s. Jou nal o Managemen , 12(4), 531–544.
Ramón-Llo ens, M. C., Ga cía-Meca, E., & Du éndez, A. (2017). In luence o CEO
cha ac e is ics in amily i ms in e na ionaliza ion. In e na ional Business Re iew, 26(4),
786-799.
Ripollés-Meliá, M., Menguzza o-Boula d, M., & Sánchez-Peinado, L. (2007). En ep eneu ial
o ien a ion and in e na ional commi men . Jou nal o In e na ional En ep eneu ship,
5(3-4), 65-83.
Ri as, J. L. (2012). Di e si y & in e na ionaliza ion: The case o boa ds and TMT’s.
In e na ional Business Re iew, 21(1), 1-12.
Sánchez-Ma ín, G., & Baixauli-Sole , J. S. (2015). TMT pay dispe sion and i m pe o mance:
The mode a ing ole o o ganiza ional go e nance e ec i eness. Jou nal o Managemen
& O ganiza ion, 21(4), 436–459.
Sciascia, S., Mazzola, P., & Chi ico, F. (2013). Gene a ional in ol emen in he op
managemen eam o amily i ms: Explo ing nonlinea e ec s on en ep eneu ial
o ien a ion. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 37(1), 69-85.
Sega o, E. (2012). In e na ionaliza ion o amily SMEs: The impac o owne ship, go e nance,
and op managemen eam. Jou nal o Managemen and Go e nance, 16(1), 147-169.
Sega o, E. L., La imo, J., & Jones, M. V. (2014). In e na ionalisa ion o amily small and
medium sized en e p ises: The ole o s ewa dship o ien a ion, amily commi men cul u e
and op managemen eam. In e na ional Business Re iew, 23(2), 381-95.
Sha ma, P. (2004). An o e iew o he ield o amily business s udies: Cu en s a us and
di ec ions o he u u e. Family Business Re iew, 17(1), 1-36.
Siebels, J. F., & Knyphausen, D. (2012). A e iew o heo y in amily business esea ch: The
implica ions o co po a e go e nance. In e na ional Jou nal o Managemen Re iews,
14(3), 280-304.
Singla, C., Geo ge, R., & Veliya h, R. (2017). Owne ship s uc u e and in e na ionaliza ion o
Indian i ms. Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 81, 130-143.
Singla, C., Veliya h, R., & Geo ge, R. (2014). Family i ms and in e na ionaliza ion-
go e nance ela ionships: E idence o seconda y agency issues. S a egic Managemen
Jou nal, 35(4), 606-616.
Son ield, M. C., & Lussie , R. N. (2004). Fi s -, second-, and hi d-gene a ion amily i ms: A
compa ison. Family Business Re iew, 17(3), 189-201.
Speckbache , G., & Wen ges, P. (2012). The impac o amily con ol on he use o
pe o mance measu es in s a egic a ge se ing and incen i e compensa ion: A esea ch
no e. Managemen Accoun ing Resea ch, 23(1), 34-46.
S eie , L. (2003). Va ian s o agency con ac s in amily inanced en u es as a con inuum o
amilial al uis ic and ma ke a ionali ies. Jou nal o Business Ven u ing, 18(5), 597-618.
33
Suá ez-O ega, S. M., & Álamo-Ve a, F. R. (2005). SMEs’ in e na ionaliza ion: i ms and
manage ial ac o s. In e na ional Jou nal o En ep eneu ial Beha io & Resea ch, 11(4),
258-279.
Sulli an, D. (1994). Measu ing he deg ee o in e na ionaliza ion o a i m. Jou nal o
In e na ional Business S udies, 25(2), 325-342.
Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Kock, A. (2011). Top managemen eam di e si y and s a egic
inno a ion o ien a ion: The ela ionship and consequences o inno a i eness and
pe o mance. Jou nal o P oduc Inno a ion Managemen , 28(6), 819-832.
Tihanyi, L., Ells and, A. E., Daily, C. M., & Dal on, D. R. (2000). Composi ion o he op
managemen eam and i m in e na ional di e si ica ion. Jou nal o Managemen , 26(6),
1157-1177.
Vandeke kho , P., S eij e s, T., Hend iks, W., & Voo decke s, W. (2015). The e ec o
o ganiza ional cha ac e is ics on he appoin men o non amily manage s in p i a e amily
i ms: The mode a ing ole o socioemo ional weal h. Family Business Re iew, 28(2), 104-
122.
Webb, J. W., Ke chen J . D. J., & I eland, R. D. (2010). S a egic en ep eneu ship wi hin
amily-con olled i ms: Oppo uni ies and challenges. Jou nal o Family Business
S a egy, 1(2), 67-77.
Wes phal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1998). The symbolic managemen o s ockholde s: Co po a e
go e nance e o ms and sha eholde eac ions. Adminis a i e Science Qua e ly, 127-
153.
Wiklund, J., & Shephe d, D. (2003). Knowledge-based esou ces, en ep eneu ial o ien a ion,
and he pe o mance o small and medium-sized businesses. S a egic Managemen
Jou nal, 24(13), 1307-1314.
Zah a, S. A. (2003). In e na ional expansion o U.S. manu ac u ing amily businesses: The
e ec o owne ship and in ol emen . Jou nal o Business Ven u ing, 18(4), 495-512.
34
Appendix A. Ha man’s Single-Fac o Tes
Appendix B. Common Me hod Bias Analysis
