Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:05:54.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Micro-Foundation of Ambidextrous Foreign Direct Investment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2021

Xinli Huang ,
Di Fan ,
Xiaoming He  and
Yiyi Su
Xinli Huang
Affiliation:
The University of Western Australia, Australia
Di Fan
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Xiaoming He*
Affiliation:
East China University of Science and Technology, China
Yiyi Su*
Affiliation:
Tongji University, China
*
Corresponding authors: Xiaoming He ([email protected]) and Yiyi Su ([email protected])
Corresponding authors: Xiaoming He ([email protected]) and Yiyi Su ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pursuing ambidextrous foreign direct investment (FDI) has been suggested as a desirable strategic choice of emerging economy (EE) firms in their internationalization. Yet, reconciling explorative and exploitative activities overseas is complicated due to their conflicting and tensional nature. This study explores why some EE firms can achieve high levels of ambidextrous FDI while others cannot. Drawing on upper echelons theory, we propose a micro-foundation perspective of ambidextrous FDI by studying top management teams’ (TMTs) attributes. Applying a configurational approach to a sample of 294 EE firms’ FDI observations (of which 43 are ambidextrous FDI in nature) from 2011 to 2015, we not only confirm the equal importance of both TMT incentive and cognitive factors as causal conditions to achieve a high degree of ambidextrous FDI, but also provide original evidence on the interactive configurations of those factors that lead to ambidextrous FDI.

摘要

摘要

双元型对外直接投资被认为是新兴经济体企业在国际化过程中的理想战略选择。然而，利用型与探索型海外活动的冲突矛盾本质，使得双元型海外扩张困难重重。本文旨在回答为何一些新兴经济体企业能够实现高水平的双元型对外直接投资，而其他企业却无能为力。基于高阶理论，本文从企业高管团队的特征入手，进一步提出了双元型对外直接投资的微观视角。通过2011至2015年间294例新兴经济体企业对外直接投资（其中，43例为双元型）的组态分析，本文不但证明了高管团队中激励和认知因素作为前因条件在双元型对外直接投资中的同等重要性，并且基于这些因素提出了企业实现双元型对外直接投资的互动组态。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

Привлечение двусторонних прямых иностранных инвестиций (ПИИ) предположительно является оптимальным стратегическим решением для компаний из стран с развивающейся экономикой в процессе интернационализации. Тем не менее, совмещение разных видов деятельности по исследованию и эксплуатации за границей затруднено по причине противоречивых и напряженных отношений между ними. В этом исследовании изучается, почему одни компании из стран с развивающейся экономикой могут добиться высокого уровня двусторонних прямых иностранных инвестиций, а другие – нет. Опираясь на теорию высших эшелонов, мы рассматриваем двусторонние прямые иностранные инвестиции с точки зрения микроосновы, с помощью изучения особенностей руководства высшего звена. На основании конфигурационного подхода к выборке из 294 примеров ПИИ в компаниях из стран с развивающейся экономикой (из которых 43 примера по сути являются двусторонними ПИИ) в период с 2011 по 2015 гг., мы не только подтверждаем одинаковое значение как мотивационных, так и когнитивных факторов в руководстве высшего звена в качестве основных условий для достижения высокого уровня двусторонних прямых иностранных инвестиций, но также предоставляем подлинные примеры интерактивных конфигураций этих факторов, которые способствуют двусторонним прямым иностранным инвестициям (ПИИ).

Resumen

RESUMEN

La búsqueda de la inversión extranjera directa (IED) ambidiestra ha sido sugerida como una elección estratégica deseable en la internalización de las empresas de economías emergentes (EE). Pero, reconciliar las actividades en el extranjero exploratorias con las de explotación es complicado debido a su naturaleza conflictiva y tensional. Este estudio explora por qué algunas empresas de economías emergentes pueden conseguir altos niveles de IED ambidiestra mientras que otras no. Besándonos en la teoría de escalones superiores, proponemos que la perspectiva micro-fundacional de la IED ambidiestra al estudiar los atributos de los equipos de alta dirección (TMTs por sus iniciales en inglés). Aplicando un enfoque configuracional a una muestra de observaciones de IED de 294 empresas economías emergentes (de las cuales 43 son IED ambidiestra en naturaleza) desde el 2011 al 2015, no solamente confirmamos tanto la importancia de los incentivos a los equipos de alta dirección y los factores cognitivos como condiciones causales para conseguir un alto nivel de IED ambidiestra, y también proporcionamos evidencia original de las configuraciones interactivas de aquellos factores que pueden llevar a la IED ambidiestra.

Keywords

ambidextrous FDIemerging economy (EE) firmsfuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA)micro-foundation微观基础双元型对外直接投资新兴经济体企业模糊集定性比较分析двусторонние ПИИкомпании из стран с развивающейся экономикойкачественный сравнительный анализ нечетких множеств (fsQCA)микроосноваIED ambidiestraempresas de economía emergente (EE)análisis cualitativo de conjuntos difusosmicro-fundamentos
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 551 - 582
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

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

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Lin Cui

References

REFERENCES

Backes-Gellner, U., & Veen, S. 2013. Positive effects of ageing and age diversity in innovative companies–Large-scale empirical evidence on company productivity. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(3): 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(1S): 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkema, H. G., & Shvyrkov, O. 2007. Does top management team diversity promote or hamper foreign expansion? Strategic Management Journal, 28(7): 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, C. M., & Haunschild, P. R. 2002. Network learning: The effects of partners’ heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1): 92–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. London, UK: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Schijven, M. 2016. Fuzzy logic and the market: A configurational approach to investor perceptions of acquisition announcements. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1): 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannella, A. A., Park, J., & Lee, H. 2008. Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4): 768–784.Google Scholar
Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. 2009. How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2): 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. 2004. The effects of top management team pay and firm internationalization on MNC performance. Journal of Management, 30(4): 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, L., Li, Y., & Fan, D. 2018. How do emerging multinationals configure political connections across institutional contexts? Global Strategy Journal, 8(3): 447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chittoor, R., Aulakh, P. S., & Ray, S. 2019. Microfoundations of firm internationalization: The owner CEO effect. Global Strategy Journal, 9(1): 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y., Cui, L., Li, Y., & Tian, X. 2020. Focused and ambidextrous catch-up strategies of emerging economy multinationals. International Business Review, 29(6): 101567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, W., & Alcácer, J. 2002. Knowledge seeking and location choice of foreign direct investment in the United States. Management Science, 48(12): 1534–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffee, J. C. J. 1998. Future as history: The prospects for global convergence in corporate governance and its implications. Northwestern University Law Review, 93(3): 641–707.Google Scholar
Coviello, N., Kano, L., & Liesch, P. W. 2017. Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: Macro-context and microfoundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1151–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, L., Fan, D., Liu, X., & Li, Y. 2017. Where to seek strategic assets for competitive catch-up? A configurational study of emerging multinational enterprises expanding into foreign strategic factor markets. Organization Studies, 38(8): 1059–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, P. 2004. The impact of insider power on fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Management, 30(3): 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwivedi, P., Joshi, A., & Misangyi, V. F. 2018. Gender-inclusive gatekeeping: How (mostly male) predecessors influence the success of female CEOs. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2): 379–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, D., Cui, L., Li, Y., & Zhu, C. J. 2016. Localized learning by emerging multinational enterprises in developed host countries: A fuzzy-set analysis of Chinese foreign direct investment in Australia. International Business Review, 25(1): 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. 2015. The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1): 575–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3): 484–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiss, P. C. 2011. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. 2019. Microfoundations in international management research: The case of knowledge sharing in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 50: 1594–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-García, R., García-Canal, E., & Guillén, M. F. 2017. Rapid internationalization and long-term performance: The knowledge link. Journal of World Business, 52(1): 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Granero, A., Fernández-Mesa, A., Jansen, J. J. P., & Vega-Jurado, J. 2018. Top management team diversity and ambidexterity: The contingent role of shared responsibility and CEO cognitive trust. Long Range Planning, 51(6): 881–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavetti, G. 2012. PERSPECTIVE–Toward a behavioral theory of strategy. Organization Science, 23(1): 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209–226.Google Scholar
Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. A. 2005. The relationships between top management demographic characteristics, rational decision making, environmental munificence, and firm performance. Organization Studies, 26(7): 999–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 334–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M.-J. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 659–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., Humphrey, S. E., & Gupta, A. 2015. Structural interdependence within top management teams: A key moderator of upper echelons predictions. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3): 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyden, M. L. M., Oehmichen, J., Nichting, S., & Volberda, H. W. 2015. Board background heterogeneity and exploration-exploitation: The role of the institutionally adopted board model. Global Strategy Journal, 5(2): 154–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, C. W., Lien, Y. C., & Chen, H. 2013. International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48(1): 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymer, S. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. 2007. A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2): 482–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4): 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ji, J., & Dimitratos, P. 2013. Confucian dynamism and Dunning's framework: Direct and moderation associations in internationalized Chinese private firms. Journal of Business Research, 66(12): 2375–2382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. L., Daily, C. M., & Ellstrand, A. E. 1996. Boards of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(3): 409–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, R., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A. 2014. CEO duality. Journal of Management, 40(1): 256–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larcker, D. F. 1983. The association between performance plan adoption and corporate capital investment. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Li, Y., & Shapiro, D. 2012. Knowledge seeking and outward FDI of emerging market firms: The moderating effect of inward FDI. Global Strategy Journal, 2(4): 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., & Cui, L. 2018. The influence of top management team on Chinese firms’ FDI ambidexterity. Management and Organization Review, 14(3): 513–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., Sarala, R. M., Xing, Y., & Cooper, S. C. L. 2017. Human side of collaborative partnerships. Group & Organization Management, 42(2): 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. 2008. Perspective–making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6): 907–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorsch, J. W. 1989. Pawns or potentates: The reality of America's boards. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Lu, J., Liu, X., & Wang, H. 2011. Motives for outward FDI of Chinese private firms firm resources, industry dynamics, and government policies. Management and Organization Review, 7(2): 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y., & Rui, H. 2009. An ambidexterity perspective toward multinational enterprises from emerging economies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4): 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyles, M., Li, D., & Yan, H. 2014. Chinese outward foreign direct investment performance: The role of learning. Management and Organization Review, 10(3): 411–437.Google Scholar
Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. 2015. Managerial cognition and internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(7): 733–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menguc, B., & Auh, S. 2008. The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity–firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(4): 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. E. 2015. What is “strategic asset seeking FDI”? Multinational Business Review, 23(1): 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1175–1195.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. E., Wright, M., & Pruthi, S. 2009. Managing knowledge in foreign entry strategies: A resource-based analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(5): 557–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misangyi, V. F., & Acharya, A. G. 2014. Substitutes or compliments? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 1681–1705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. 2017. Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1): 255–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narula, R., & Zanfei, A. 2004. Globalization of innovation: The role of multinational enterprises. In Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of innovation: 318–345. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. 2011. The role of top management team international orientation in international strategic decision-making: The choice of foreign entry mode. Journal of World Business, 46(2): 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuruzzaman, N., Gaur, A. S., & Sambharya, R. B. 2019. A microfoundations approach to studying innovation in multinational subsidiaries. Global Strategy Journal, 9(1): 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxelheim, L., Gregorič, A., Randøy, T., & Thomsen, S. 2013. On the internationalization of corporate boards: The case of Nordic firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(3): 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, M. W. 2012. The global strategy of emerging multinationals from China. Global Strategy Journal, 2(2): 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, C., Cao, Q., & Takeuchi, R. 2013. Top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 34(1): 110–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, O. C., & Shelor, R. M. 2002. Linking top management team age heterogeneity to firm performance: Juxtaposing two mid-range theories. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(6): 958–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. 2014. A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25(6): 1860–1877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambharya, R. B. 1996. Foreign experience of top management teams and international diversification strategies of U.S. multinational corporations.Strategic Management Journal, 17(9): 739–746.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, W., & Cannella, A. A. 2002. Power dynamics within top management and their impacts on CEO dismissal followed by inside succession. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1195–1206.Google Scholar
Shen, W., & Cho, T. S. 2005. Exploring involuntary executive turnover through a managerial discretion framework. Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 843–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, A., Gamache, D. L., & Johnson, R. E. 2018. Don't get it misconstrued: Construal level shifts and flexibility in the upper Eechelons. Academy of Management Review, 44(4): 871–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, Y., Fan, D., & Rao-Nicholson, R. 2019. Internationalization of Chinese banking and financial institutions: A fuzzy-set analysis of the leader-TMT dynamics. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(14): 2137–2165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. E. 2009. Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4): 718–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tihanyi, L., Ellstrand, A. E., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. 2000. Composition of the top management team and firm international diversification. Journal of Management, 26(6): 1157–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 91–121.Google Scholar
Yan, Z. J., Zhu, J. C., Fan, D., & Kalfadellis, P. 2018. An institutional work view toward the internationalization of emerging market firms. Journal of World Business, 53(5): 682–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahra, S. A. 1996. Technology strategy and financial performance: Examining the moderating role of the firm's competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(3): 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, W., Shen, R., Zhong, W., & Lu, J. 2020. CEO Values, firm long-term orientation, and firm innovation: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Management and Organization Review, 16(1): 69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, H., & Zhu, Q. 2016. Mergers and acquisitions by Chinese firms: A review and comparison with other mergers and acquisitions research in the leading journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(4): 1107–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S., & Cardinal, L. B. 2018. Managing persistent tensions on the frontline: A configurational perspective on ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5): 739–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar