managerial characteristics and export performance in ...the strategic choice perspective (child,...

[191]

76506

september · december 2006 · esic market

Managerial characteristics and exportperformance in spanish SMEsMaría Luisa del Río AraújoMaría Concepción Varela NeiraUniversidad de Santiago de Compostela

AbstractResearch on exporting frecuently analyses the role of managerial charac-teristics as influences on the choice and degree of internationalisation insmall firms. Nevertheless, the empirical findings are, sometimes, conflic-ting, except for attributes of a subjective nature.This study, based on managerial theory and on the literature from exportdevelopment analyses the relationship between several attributes of deci-sion-makers –training characteristics, such as their international experien-ce, level of education and language skills; and personality traits, such asrisk taking or aggressiveness- and their export attitude, and of the latterwith the firm’s export performance. Using causal analysis of structuralequations, we examine empirically the relationships proposed. The resultsreveal that some personality traits of decision-makers affect the firm’sexport intensity and the export intensity growth indirectly, through theexport attitude.

Keywords: Management, decision-maker, export performance, exportattitude, internationalisation, international marketing.


managerial characteristics and export performance in spanish smes

IntroductionAharoni’s behavioural theory of direct foreign investment (1966) has pla-yed a essential role in conceptualising internationalisation, which Welchand Luostarinen (1988, p. 36) define as “the process of increasing com-mitment in international operations”. Although much recent research hascentred on the globalisation of business strategy, this approach is not themost appropiate to the smallest firms, given their limitation of resources(de Chiara and Minguzzi 2002), difficulty in acquiring information, andweak formal planning systems (Burpitt and Rondinelli, 2000). In smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), exporting is still the best availableinternationalisation choice (Deng et al.,1996; Mittelstaedt et al., 2003).

The importance of exporting for the growth and profitability of SMEshas stimulated many scholars to investigate this topic, and several direc-tions can be distinguished (Leonidou et al. 1998; Madsen 1987; Miesen-bock 1988; Zou and Stan 1998): identification of managerial characteris-tics that facilitate or inhibit exporting, recognition of export barriers,analysis of marketing strategies, establishment of export developmentmodels, or evaluation of export promotion programmes. This study isfocused on the first of these lines.

For most organizational researchers, the key decision-maker(s), whet-her a team or an individual, play/s a determining role in firms’ strategicchoices and in their performance. The strategic choice perspective (Child,1974) has generated a large body of research examining the influence oftop managers on business performance (Gupta and Govindarajan 1984;Miller et al.,1982). Empirical research demonstrates strong associationsbetween the managerial factors and strategy/performance (Finkelstein andHambrick 1996; Hambrick and Mason 1984; Miller and Toulouse 1986).The question can thus be posed to what extent do the characteristics andattitudes of the managers responsible for international activity in SMEsaffect export performance?

To answer this question, this study proposes a model that relates thecharacteristics of the general manager (owner/top manager) to his export

[192]

766 06



attitude, and the latter to export performance. This model allows us tomake more specific the aim of this research, which is to respond, using asample of Spanish SMEs, to the following two questions:

1. How do particular training and personality characteristics of thetop manager responsible for taking export decisions influence hisexport attitude?

2. How does the export attitude of the top manager responsible forexports influence the firm’s export performance?

The answer to these questions can provide a dual benefit (1) from theresearcher’s point of view, it helps to advance the theory of exports; and(2) from the managers’ point of view, it guides the selection and trainingof the most suitable management personnel to lead the firm towards achie-ving higher international performance.

To make these contributions, the present study starts from the limita-tions, identified by Leonidou et al. (1998), in their review of the empiricalliterature written between 1960 and 1995 on the effect of managementcharacteristics on their firms’ exports, and follows some of their recom-mendations: (1) to base the propositions to a greater extent on theory; (2)to verify the metric qualities of the measurement scales better; (3) to exa-mine the problems of causality among the variables investigated; (4) tomonitor the effect of the industry on export performance, by selectingfirms only from the food industry; and (5) to carry out empirical tests indifferent economic, socio-cultural, political and legal environments, in thiscase in Spanish SMEs.

The paper begins by describing briefly the personal characteristics oftop management which potentially influence the export performance oftheir firms through their export attitude; it then sets out the relevantaspects of the empirical study carried out on a sample of 101 exportingSMEs in the food sector, such as the characteristics of the sample and themeasurement model; there follows a discussion of the results and it con-

[193]

76706



cludes with a brief exposition of the limitations and future lines of re-search.

Managerial characteristics, export attitude and export performanceThe strategic choice paradigm (Child, 1974) postulates that key decision-makers have considerable control over an organization’s future direction.The upper echelon perspective articulated by Hambrick and Mason(1984) provides a framework to interpret the way in which the top mana-ger influences business outcomes.

In their prominent study, these authors develop a model based on theresearch of behavioural theorists (Cyert and March 1963; March andSimon 1958) to explain the link between managerial characteristics andstrategy. They describe the process of strategic choice as a perceptual onethat occurs in a series of sequential steps. This model suggests that mana-gerial choices reflect the attributes of these managers. Specifically, they sta-te that “organizational performance – strategic choices and levels ofresults- are partly determined by the characteristics and background ofmanagers” (p. 193).

In the empirical literature on exporting, we find some pioneering stu-dies that already considered various diferent managferial factors. Forexample, Simmonds and Smith (1968) highlighted the influence of mana-gers’ demographic characteristics on the decision to export, while Mayerand Flynn (1973) observed that among the managers of exporting firmsthere was a high proportion of people who were born abroad, with aknowledge of languages and with a university education. The reviews ofthe literature (Aaby and Slater 1989; Chetty and Hamilton 1993; Leoni-dou et al., 1998; Miesenbock, 1988; Zou and Stan 1998) highlight theidea that the key decision-maker(s) play(s) a decisive role in the iniciation,development and success of the firm’s export effort.

Several dimensions of the export phenomenon may be facilitated orinhibited by managerial factors of a demographical, experiential and atti-

[194]

768 06



tudinal nature. The empirical literature has examined the following: (1)the firm exports / does not export; (2) certain exporting-related activities,e.g. gathering foreign market information; (3) implementing marketingstrategies; (4) specifically managerial behaviour, e.g. aggressive/passive; (5)firm’s progression from one stage to another on the export developmentpath; and (6) business performance in overseas markets – export perfor-mance.

According to the model, export performance is influenced by theexport attitude of the key decision-makers. In order to follow a commonconceptual framework, we preferred the term “attitude” over others like“orientation”, “comminment” or “outlook”. Leonidou et al. (1998)affirm that one problem of the literature on managerial characteristics ari-ses from the semantic confusion due to using several terms to mean thesame.

For the theorists of the Carnegie School (March and Simon, 1958;Cyert and March, 1963) complex decisions depend on cognitive factors ofthe managers responsible. When they are exposed to stimulus, their per-ception will be conditioned by: (1) the limits of their field of vision, becau-se the decision-maker is not able to detect all aspects of the organisationand of the environment; (2) selective nature of perception – the decision-maker only perceives a part of the phenomena contained in his field ofvision; and (3) the subjective character of the interpretation of the infor-mation received.

The more complex the decisions, the more they will be affected by thedecision-maker’s cognitive model, by his “construed reality» (Finkelsteinand Hambrick, 1996), that includes the specific subjective factors – atti-tudes towards exporting –. This managerial reality is built on psychologi-cal factors and experiences of development, represented by their functio-nal background, education, age, length of service with the firm, etc.

From the empirical studies that have examined the relationships bet-ween various specific subjective characteristics – perceptions and attitudes– of top managers and their firms’ export performance (Dichtl et al., 1986;

[195]

76906



Francis and Collins-Dodd, 2000; Harveston, et al., 2000; Harveston et al.,2001; Louter et al., 1991; Manolova et al., 2002; Moini, 1995; Morganand Katsikeas, 1998; Wood and Robertson, 1997) we can conclude that:(1) managers have perceptions and/or attitudes towards exporting; (2) the-se perceptions and attitudes can influence the export performance of theirfirms, and (3) these perceptions and attitudes are influenced by their trai-ning and by general factors of their personality. The proposed model isrepresented in figure 1.

[196]

770 06

Figure 1

Demographiccharacteristics/ Educationalexperiences

Personalitytraits

Export attitudeExport

Performance

TrainingThree measures of managers’ training relevant to export performance are:their educational level, their knowledge of other languages and their inter-national experience. The first is a general characteristic, while the othertwo are specific to the international area.

One basic dimension of the training of the decision-maker is his levelof formal education. Most of the studies that capture this variable affirmthat it reflects the manager’s cognitive abilities. A higher level of formaleducation is associated with a greater capacity to process information, gre-ater tolerance of ambiguity and greater capacity to deal with complex



situations (Dollinger, 1985). The higher the educational level of the TOPMANAGER, then, the better will be the firm’s export performance (Holz-müller and Stöttinger, 1996; Nakos et al., 1998; Obben and Magagula,2003).

The idea can also be put forward that the training of the top MANA-GER indirectly influences the export performance of the firm through itseffect on export attitude, as the higher his educational level the more open-minded he will be, more interested in international affairs and more capa-ble of valuing the benefits of exporting for the growth and profitability ofthe firm; in other words, it can be expected that the more highly qualifiedMANAGERs will have a more favourable attitude to exporting. This doesnot mean that a manager with better education will make more appro-priate decisions, but simply that he will consider foreign growth as somet-hing feasible, and even desirable.

We therefore propose:

H1: In SMEs, the higher the educational level of the TOP MANAGER,the more favourable his export attitude.

Another indicator of the manager’s training that has been analysedparticularly in relation to export performance is linguistic ability. The-re are various ways in which a knowledge of foreign languages caninfluence export performance: (1) by helping to establish contacts abro-ad; (2) by improving interaction with foreign customers; and (3) by hel-ping to understand other cultures and the commercial regulations ofother countries.

Some recent researchs found a relationship between knowledge of lan-guales and export performance (Holzmüller and Stöttinger, 1996; Nakoset al., 1998; Obben and Magagula, 2003). The causal model proposed byHolzmüller and Stöttinger (1996) posits that knowledge of languagesaffects export performance measured by means of a construct that inte-grates the export intensity and export dynamism both directly, and indi-

[197]

77106



rectly – through its effect on the manager’s tolerance of psychologicalstress and his support for export activities.

We therefore propose:

H2: In SMEs, the more foreign languages spoken by the TOP MANA-GER the more favourable will be his export attitude.

Longer international professional experience exposes the decision-maker to international information and contacts (Reid, 1981), which con-tribute to improving organizational performance.

The most complete study is that by Eriksson et al. (1997), who iden-tify three components in the decision-maker’s international experience: (1)knowledge of internationalisation, understood as the set of resources andcapacities necessary to undertake international operations; (2) knowledgeof foreign business, referring to possession of information on the foreignmarket, customers and competitors; and (3) knowledge of foreign institu-tions, including information on the structure of institutions and govern-ment, as well as the rules, norms and values that govern behaviour. Theauthors posit that the possession of knowledge of any of the types definedwill have an effect on the perceived cost of export operations. To test thisproposal, they put forward a structural equations model with latent varia-bles which includes data from 362 Swedish exporting firms. From thisanalysis they conclude that the resources and capacities consisting ofknowledge of internationalisation facilitate the obtaining of informationon the market and this favours more optimistic perceptions of the costsinvolved in international activity. This result supports the idea that expor-ting is a question of practical learning, which is associated with the per-ceptions that lead to better export performance.

Bloodgood et al. (1996) and Reuber and Fischer (1997) offer a newperspective on the influence of international experience on the internatio-nalisation of firms, as they consider the international experience of themanagement team as a whole as an antecedent of the degree of interna-

[198]

772 06



tionalisation. The first group of authors corroborate the existence of directrelationship between the two variables, while the second group posits thatthe international experience of the team does not influence the degree ofinternationalisation directly, but indirectly through the behaviour of thedecision-makers. Their results show that: (1) the international experienceof the team favours the making of strategic alliances with internationalpartners; (2) the international experience of the team leads to earlier entryof the firm into the international market; and (3) both strategic behavioursintervene in the relationship between the international experience of themanagement team and the firms’ degree of internationalisation.

We consider that the top manager’s experience can be indicative of hisknowledge of the different aspects of international business and marketsand have a positive effect on his attitude towards exporting. We thus pro-pose:

H3: In SMEs, the greater the international experience of the top MANA-GER, the more favourable his attitude towards exporting.

Personality factorsThe empirical literature that has examined the effect of the decision-maker’s subjective general characteristics on export performance has emp-hasised the following: risk taking, innovativeness, flexibility, commitment,and quality and dynamism (Leonidou et al., 1998). Some of these charac-teristics suggest the applicability of the dimensions characteristic of entre-preneurs to the context of decisions on internationalisation. Some of the-se dimensions are included in the studies by Dichtl et al. (1984), Dichtl etal. (1986, 1990), Holzmüller and Kasper (1990), Holzmüller and Stöttin-ger (1999), Shrader et al. (2002), and Yeoh and Jeong (1995).

According to various researchers (Covin and Slevin, 1988; Miller,1983; Yeoh and Jeong, 1995), the entrepreneurship can be characterisedby three underlying dimensions: risk taking, innovativeness (flexibility)and proactiveness. These three dimensions have been incorporated into

[199]

77306



the literature on international marketing (Sadler-Smith et al., 2003) andhave been associated with objectives of profitability and growth (Hodgettsand Kuratko, 2001).

Exporting carries higher risks than domestic sales, because: (1) themacro-environment is less well known; (2) more actors, and unknownactors, participate; and (3) interactions tend to be more dynamic.

Thus, risk taking is an important characteristic in exporting. When thedecision-makers are highly risk-tolerant, they are more likely to valuefavourably the entry into new markets or increased trade with foreign cus-tomers; on the other hand when they are risk-adverse, they will valueinternational activities negatively (Axinn et al., 2000; Zahra and Garvis,2000). We consequently propose:

H4: In SMEs, the greater the risk-taking of the TOP MANAGER, themore favourable his export attitude.

The literature on exporting assumes that international markets requireflexible, open-minded and receptive decision-makers. The flexibility of thedecision-maker is closely related to innovation.

In our model, the decision-makers characterised by a rigid personalityare more bound by organizational routines and, in their decisions, arecarried along to a greater extent by inertia. It is therefore probable that therigidity of the MANAGER will inhibit favourable consideration of newmarkets or new customers. WE therefore posit:

H5: In SMEs, the more rigid the TOP MANAGER, the less favourable hisexport attitude.

Aggressiveness, understood as the capacity to anticipate (proactivity), isa concept widely used in international marketing literature. The degree ofaggressiveness reflects, to some extent, the decision-maker’s desire, capacityand determination to promote the firm’s exports (da Rocha et al., 1990).

[200]

774 06



The most proactive MANAGERs will perceive international marketsas natural markets for firms in open economies, which will be reinforcedby the observation of the movements of international competitors in thenational market. This will result in a more favourable attitude towardsexporting. We propose, then:

H6: In SMEs, the more aggressive the TOP MANAGER, the more favou-rable his export attitude.

Export attitude The attitude towards exporting forms part of the set of subjective charac-teristics specific to decision-makers (Leonidou et al. 1998), which includethose factors that are subjective by nature and relate specifically to exportactivity. In the context of international sales, a favourable valuation bymanagers in relation to commercial operations abroad, their volume ortheir future consequences, may guide decisions, so that a favourable atti-tude to exporting can lead to consistent behaviour. For this reason, theexport attitude is considered in many of the studies that analyse the inter-nal antecedents of organisations’ export performance (Crick, 2002; Dichtlet al., 1986, 1990; Eshghi, 1992; Ganitsky, 1989; Harveston et al., 2000;Harveston et al., 2001; Holzmüller and Kasper, 1990; Ibeh and Young,2001; Johnston and Czinkota, 1985; Knigth, 2000; Louter et al., 1991,Manolova et al., 2002; Moini, 1995).

The most conclusive work on the relationship between attitude andresults in the international context is that of Louter et al. (1991) whoobtain negative and significant cause-effect relations between the unfa-vourable attitude to exporting of the MANAGERs of 165 exporting SMEsand: (1) the intensity; and (2) the profitability of their export operations.These relations are confirmed by a structural equations analysis whichshows the direction of the causality to be as proposed and that it is not thepropensity to export and the profitability of exports that generate a morefavourable attitude.

[201]

77506



In line with these results, we propose:

H7: In SMEs, the more favourable the export attitude of the top MANA-GER, the greater:

H7.1: the firm’s export intensity H7.2: the firm’s export dynamism

Empirical study

SampleTo test these hypotheses an empirical study was carried out among smalland medium sized industrial exporting firms belonging to the food sector.The population under analysis consisted of exporting firms dedicated totransformation activities in the food sector, with fewer than 250 employe-es, with no foreign shareholders and located in Galicia (Spain). The sam-ple framework was obtained from the Catálogo de Exportadores de Gali-cia, drawn up by the Plan de Fomento de las Exportaciones Gallegas(FOEXGA). This database contains information on 149 exporting firmsthat meet the requirements: to be a manufacturer in the food sector, tohave up to 250 employees and and to be entirely Spanish-owned. Theselection of a sample of manufacturing firms from the same sector andarea of activity, and of similar size, is due to the desire to eliminate the pos-sible effect these variables on the export results. The firms constituting thetarget population have an average size of 45,6 employees.

Researchers in the area of business management generally base theirwork on the executives as “key informants” (Venkatraman, 1989). Alt-hough organisations may contain many types of “key informants”(Kumar et al., 1993), the general manager and the highest-rankingMANAGERs are the primary source of information on the strategic pro-cesses and may be the only source of information on the firm as a whole(Norburn, 1989), particularly in the smallest organisations (Cycyotra andHarrison, 2002).

[202]

776 06



In this study, given the nature of the theoretical model – relationshipbetween characteristics of the MANAGER responsible for export deci-sions and export performance –, a single key decision-maker is assumed.In this framework, the choice of an unsuitable manager would lead towrong conclusions. The person interviewed had to be the one responsible,currently and in the past, for finally approving the export decisions in hisfirm.

To guarantee the suitability of the MANAGER interviewed, personaland/or telephone contact was first made in order to identify the person res-ponsible for taking strategic export decisions. This stage enabled us toverify that in 83,9% (125) of the SMEs forming the population, the gene-ral manager (owner/manager) was the appropriate persona, while in theremaining firms it was the export manager.

The identification phase was not the only fundamental one; it was alsonecessary to contact the manager responsible for the strategic export deci-sions and ask him directly, as only he was the “expert” (Chen et al., 1993)on his personal characteristics, who could provide reliable data on himself.

Before presenting the final questionnaire to the MANAGERs, it waspre-tested with the aim of assessing its suitability for the context of theanalysis. For this purpose personal interviews were carried out with fivemanagers of firms of the sample framework. These interviews led to smallmodifications in the wording of some of the questions.

The new questionnaire was then presented by post, fax or personally.In the first two cases the questionnaire was accompanied by a personali-sed letter in which it was emphasised that it should only be answered bythe person to whom it had been sent (Nunnaly, 1978). To improve the res-ponse ratio we followed the recommendations of Dillman (1978) relatingto the management of postal surveys, such as: prior notification, persona-lisation, sending of stamped addressed envelopes, professional appearan-ce, etc. This resulted in 101 duly completed questionnaires. This numbermeans a response rate of 67,8%, higher than the average of 35% obtainedin the 46 studies reviewed by Leonidou et al. (1998).

[203]

77706



In the questionnaire the respondent was asked about: (1) his education(5 levels); (2) his knowledge of foreign languages (number of languages heunderstands and speaks, fluency in English and French); (3) number ofyears of experience in international operations; (4) a series of twelve ques-tions relating to personality dimensions and export attitude, adapted fromDichtl et al. (1984); and (5) the export intensity of the firm and its exportdynamism (increase of the esport intensity in the last year).

The food SMEs of the sample, on average, had a size of 50 employeesand sold in three foreign markets, two of which were European; they hadbeen exporting for 13 years and had a propensity to export of 26%, afigure which had grown 18% in the last year.

With regard to the qualification of the MANAGER responsible forexports, most of those interviewed had secondary education (27,7%) orhigher (26,7%); only 12,9% had only primary education and 10,9% post-graduate or masters degrees. 43,6% spoke English and 35% French; a fewspoke no foreign language. The average experience of the decision-makerresponsible for the development of international activities was eight and ahalf years.

Table 1 presents the indicators of the constructs of personality andexport attitude, together with their mean values and standard deviations.These constructs were measured by means of seven-point Likert scales, inwhich 1 signified total disagreement and 7 total agreement with the state-ment made.

[204]

778 06



Measurement modelOnce the information had been obtained from the MANAGERs consulted,measurement models were constructed for the latent variables that. Wefollowed the procedure proposed by Churchill (1979). After refining the sca-les by consulting experts, their internal consistency was assessed by calcula-ting the alpha coefficient and seeking to optimise them through the item-total correlations. The convergent validity was tested by a confirmatory

[205]

77906

Variable Items Mean Standard SourceDeviation

Risk tolerance I think that riskly proyects are associated whit 4,76 1,97high rentabilities

I think that, in this environment, riskly actions are 4,17 1,95necessary to reach the organization goals

Rigidity I use to be the last one to leave a try 5,66 1,67

I think that there is an unique way to solve each 3,32 2,15problem

I preffer to think befote to act, even in not 5,79 1,36important questions

I have taken a lot of good decissions whithout 4,43 1,98reflection (negative item)

I preffer to do my job whith my own routine 3,85 2,20

No aggressivity I preffer to avoid direct competitive actions. I opt 5,09 1,88for “live and let they live”

In an uncertain environtment “wait and see” 4,20 2,04is better than “act”

I thik that is more sensitive to do the job in the 4,24 1,80most convenctional way

Intenational I thik that firms must try to sell in another conuntries 6,39 1,20Attitude

In the future, the nacional market will be 5,30 1,94insuficient, even for the SMEs

Table 1. Personality and Intentional Attitude Items

Adapted fromDichtl, Leibold,

Köglmayr y Müller(1984)

Adapted fromDichtl, Leibold,

Köglmayr y Müller(1984)

Self-elaboration since Dichtl,

Leibold, Köglmayry Müller (1984)

items

Self-elaboration since Dichtl,

Leibold, Köglmayr yMüller (1984) items



factor analysis, as was the discriminant validity. Analysis of the criterionvalidity was postponed to the phase of causal analysis of the relationships.

Reliability of the scalesThe reliability – or internal consistency – of the scales was examinedthrough various criteria. The alpha coefficient, the composite reliabilityand the extracted variance were estimated. The scale used to measure“rigidity”, translated and adapted from the work of Dichtl, et al. (1984),did not prove reliable when subjected to a Cronbach alpha analysis ofreliability, either in its initial version or after correction by calculation ofthe item-total correlations and of the alpha resulting from the eliminationof each item. The correlations between the indicators of “rigidity” areobserved to be significant (p<0,05) but very weak (all below 0,3). Conse-quently, hypothesis 5, in relation to this variable, could not be verified.

The reliability of the remaining constructs was measured by the Cron-bach alpha, the extracted variance and the compound reliability1. Theresults are presented in table 2.

(1) Although the valueof the Cronbach alpha isfar below those recommended for areliable scale, the valuesobtained for the extracted variance andthe compound reliabilityindicate that this is areliable measurement ifno parallelism is assumed between theindicators (assumptionimplied in the Cronbachalpha).

[206]

780 06

Variable Cronbach alpha Extracted variance Compound Reliability

Risk tolerance 0,89 0,90 0,90

No aggressiveness 0,62 0,57 0,64

Export Attitude 0,47 0,67 0,57

Table 2. Reliability of the scales

Convergent validity, causal analysis and resultsThe study of the causal relationships put forward as hypotheses was limi-ted to the indicators of qualification and to the constructs that survivedthe analysis of the reliability and validity of the scales: risk taking, aggres-sivenes and export attitude.



First, we examined the explanatory model of export performance mea-sured by export intensity. As proposed, the two levels of causality obser-ved in figure 2 were considered. The estimations fitted the data – the errorvariance of the second indicator of aggressivenes having previously beenset at 0,05 – although most of the relationships proposed did not reach thesignificance required (p<0,05).

[207]

78106

Figure 2. Causal model



Specifically, no indicator of education/training was shown to affectsignificantly to export attitude. Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3, relating to therelationship between the manager’s educational level, knowledge oflanguages and export experience, and attitude to exporting could the-refore not be verified. This led us to study the modification indicesprovided by the statistical program, to assess the possibility that therelationships between the indicators of education/training and propen-sity to export were direct. The values of the indices did not recommendthe inclusion of such relationships. The starting assumption of thepositive influence of training on export attitude could not therefore beverified.

As a consequence of the lack of significance of some of the rela-tionships, we posited a new causal model (figure 3), this time withoutconsidering the indicators of training as antecedents. In the new modelsignificant relations were observed between risk taking and the absen-ce of aggressivenes and export attitude. The first relationship, betwe-en risk taking and attitude, had the expected sign: risk taking influen-ced export attitude significantly and positively, as posited inhypothesis 4.

[208]

782 06



The relationship between absence of aggressivenes and export attitudewas the opposite of that posited in hypothesis 6: the less aggressiveMANAGERs had a more favourable attitude to exporting. This surprisingresult contradicts the theories that consider the aggressiveness of theMANAGER as the driver of the firm’s exporting activity, and requiresinterpretation.

The parameters obtained also indicated that, as posited in hypothesis7.1, a favourable attitude to exporting results in a greater export intensity.

The model presented in figure 4 confirms the convergent validity of thelatent constructs, as all the loadings can be considered substantial, exceptthat of the first indicator of absence of aggressiveness.

The existence of discriminant validity between the first order antece-dents is once again verified by calculating the confidence interval of theircorrelation (0.123+-0.126) which does not contain the value one. We also

[209]

78306

Figure 3. Export Intensity Antecedents



observe the nomological validity of the constructs involved in the analysis,which behave as significant antecedents of the variables proposed2.

We next examined the same structural model taking export dynamismas the measure of performance. To test the hypotheses the same procedu-re was used3. The estimations resulting from the model in figure 4 corro-borate the convergent validity of the constructs involved, except, onceagain, for the first indicator of the aggressiveness cosntruct. The existenceof discriminant validity between the first order antecedents was verifiedonce again. We also observe the nomological validity of the constructs.

(2) To confirm thedirection of the causalityinvolved in hypothesis7.1: To verify that theexport attitude doesindeed antecede theexport intensity and notthe reverse – as couldalso be argued –, weresorted to the strategyof rival models (Hair et

[210]

784 06

Figure 4. Export Dinamism Antecedents

To sum up, of all the antecedents of export attitude analysed, only thedecision-maker’s risk-aversion has the expected effect on it. The absence ofaggressiveness, contrary to what was posited, has positive effects and no sig-nificant effects of any of the dimensions of training considered are observed.



The relationship between export attitude and international performan-ce is positive and significant irrespective of the measure of performanceused: both the export intensity and the export dynamism of organisationsare favoured by this attitude.

Discussion and conclusionsFor the majority of business analysts, top MANAGERs have a determi-ning role in the strategic choices of firms and in their performance. So,when firms’ export activities are examined, the question arises of to whatextent the characteristics and attitudes of the Managers responsible forinternational activity affect their firms’ export results.

With data for a sample of SMEs, exporters in the food sector, our studyshows that the educational level and knowledge of languages of the mana-gers responsible for export decisions do not have a significant influence ontheir export attitude. Nor do we see a direct influence on the measure-ments of performance analysed (export intensity and export dynamism).It may be thought that the absence of significance of the relationshipsdeduced in our study is due to the homogeneity of education and trainingof the managers of the sample: the training of the Managers is probablyinfluenced by variables like size or the presence of foreign capital. Theresults of Nicholls-Nixon, et al. (2000) corroborate this idea, as no cha-racteristic of training is found to be a significant antecedent of the exportintensity of firms of similar size when introduced into models with controlvariables relating to industry.

Nor do we see the expected effect of the internacional experience of theresponsible MANAGER. Contrary to Eriksson et al. (1997), the decision-maker’s international experience does not influence the measures of exportperformance through the formation of a more favourable attitude towardsexports. The indirect influence on performance demonstrated by theseauthors takes place through the obtaining of market information – outsi-de the scope of the present study –. The results of Bloodgood et al. (1996)and Reuber and Fischer (1997), which corroborate the existence of a cau-

al., 1999). We comparedthis causal model with arival model, the only difference between thembeing the direction of thecausality posited: Theexport attitude was considered to be dependent on the exportintensity. The fit of therival model was slightlyworse and, more importantly, the relationship between thexport intensity and theexport attitude was notsignificant. These resultsconfirm the direction ofcausality proposed inhypothesis 7.1.(3) Again, to confirm thedirection of the causality implicit inhypothesis 7.2, we compared the model witha rival in which exportattitude was made todepend on dynamism.The model’s fit wasappreciably less and anon-significant coefficient was obtainedfor the regression ofexport dynamism againstexport attitude. Theseresults enable us to confirm the proposalmade in hypothesis 7.2.

[211]

78506



sal relation between managers’ experience and their firms’ export perfor-mance, consider the international experience of the whole of the manage-ment team and not, as in our case, of the decision-maker responsible forexports.

Two personality factors of the decision-maker that influence his exportattitude have been identified: risk taking and aggressiveness. Significantcausal relationships are obtained between these generic personality factorsand the responsible decision-maker’s export attitude, and between the lat-ter and (1) export intensity and (2) export dynamism. Risk taking affectsexport attitude positively, whereas the aggressiveness of the decision-maker shows a negative influence. The coefficient of determination of theregressions against attitude is high (0,316) if we take into account that thedependent variable is explained by only two variables however, the regres-sions against export intensity and dynamism have very low coefficients ofdetermination, indicating that the corresponding models include a smallpart of the variables that explain it.

The positive relation between the decision-maker’s risk taking and hisfavourable attitude towards international business, which has as an indirectconsequence a higher export intensity and greater export dynamism, is con-sistent with the results of other empirical studies quoted. However, thenegative relation between the aggressiveness of the decision-maker and hispositive attitude towards exports, resulting in an indirect negative effect onexport propensity and export dynamism, go against our expectations andthe results of other studies. To be sure, the latter centre on the exporting ornon-exporting behaviour of the firm, not on export intensity and dyna-mism. Perhaps, then, aggressivenes favours the organisation’s probabilityof exporting, but when the firm already exports, a character more reflexi-ve than aggressive will favour a more positive attitude towards exports,which would explain the negative sign of the relationship obtained.

From the perspective of the management of firms, our results show theimportance of recruiting and having risk-tolerant and non-aggressivemanagers in order to increase export intensity and dynamism. From the

[212]

786 06



perspective of the public authorities, the research suggests that export pro-motion programmes will only be effective to the extent that the firms atwhich they are aimed are run by managers favourably predisposedtowards exporting.

The differences between the results of the studies may possibly be aconsequence of different situations. This argument poses the need to usemodels of a contingent nature: the effect of the characteristics of the res-ponsible MANAGER on export performance will then depend on the stra-tegic and organizational context (Carpenter, 2002).

In the field of internationalisation, Yeoh and Jeong (1995) posit theinfluence of the fit between strategic orientation, structure and environ-ment on the international performance obtained, better performancesbeing expected from firms with an enterprising orientation (measuredthrough the variables of risk aversion, innovation and anticipation) whooperate in hostile environments with organic structures. This theoreticalproposal was tested, in part, by Zahra and Garvis (2000), who observedthat international entrepreneurship (risk taking, anticipation and innova-tion) improves the national and international growth and profitability oforganisations, particularly when they operate in hostile environments,characterised by drastic changes, strong competition and heavy regulation.These results help to understand the associations between the characteris-tics of managers and international performance, and contribute to explai-ning the relationship found between the absence of aggressiveness and theattitude favourable to exports in our sample, consisting entirely of indus-trial firms in the food industry: a traditional industry with firms that ope-rate mostly in the European Union, in which commercial and regulatorychanges have been of little relevance in recent years.

Altogether, in firms of similar size that operate in the same businessenvironment, the personal characteristics of managers affect the interna-tional activity of their firms (measured by means of the export intensityand export dynamism) through their export attitude. Furthermore, theanalysis performed allows us to affirm that the direction of the causality

[213]

78706



is as supposed, and it is not, as could be argued, the relative volume ofinternational activity of the firm that conditions the attitude of its Mana-gers towards foreign markets.

Limitations and future lines of researchThe empirical results reflect the effect of some characteristics of theMANAGER responsible on the export performance of his firm in a singleindustrial industry the food industry, which may have idiosyncratic cha-racteristics. The results will probably be different in industries characteri-sed by different levels of technological turbulence, market change andcompetitive hostility, like high-tech industries, in which the study of bornglobals has generated the most aboundant literature on internationalentrepreneurship (Autio and Sapienza, 2000; Harveston et al., 2000;Oviatt and McDougall, 1999). So, given the specific properties of the foodindustry, the generalisation of the results may be limited.

A first line of future research will consist of reiterating the model ofdecision-makers’ characteristics in other industries, so that the generalisa-tion of the results will be improved.

Another limitation of the study is associated with the variables inclu-ded in the model. Although we incorporated constructs reviewed in theliterature and used in empirical research, the desire to simplify the ques-tionnaire obliged us to take into consideration only some personality traitsand to measure them with reduced scales which, in some cases, led us toabandon the construct following an analysis of its psychometric proper-ties. Thus the inclusion of other characteristics of the MANAGER res-ponsible, of the strategic and operational behaviour of the firm, and ofdimensions of the environment, may improve the results. Of particularinterest would be the incorporation of the various aspects of risk analysedby Sitkin and Pablo (1992) and Forlani and Mullins (2000). Likewise itwould be valuable to add business behaviours – relative quality of the pro-duct, price, promotional intensity, etc. – when explaining the performan-ce of exports. IN the same way interactions among the explanatory varia-

[214]

788 06



bles must be analysed; for example, between the characteristics of theenvironment and personality traits in their effect on export attitude.

In summary, although somewhat limited in its amplitude, the researchpresented here clearly identifies some significant relationships betweenpersonality traits of the manager responsible, export attitude and exportperformance, and therefore contributes to the knowledge of the factorsdetermining the international effectiveness of firms.

BibliographyAABY, N.E. and SLATER, F.S. (1989) “Managerial Influences on Export

Performance: A Review of the Empirical Literature 1978-88”, Interna-tional Marketing Review, 6, 4, pp. 7-26.

AHARONI, Y. (1966) The Foreing Investment Decision Process, HarvardUniversity Press, Boston.

AUTIO, E. Y SAPIENZA, H. (2000) “Comparing Process and Born Glo-bal perspectivas in the internacional Growth of Technology-Based NewFirms”, Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of Strategy andInternational Business, Working Paper Series 2000/2.

AXINN, C.N., SAVITT, R.; SINKULA, J.M. and THATCH, S.V. (1995)“Export Intention, Beliefs and Behaviors in Smaller Industrial Firms”,Journal of Business Research, 32, pp. 49-55.

BLOODGOOD, J.M., SAPIENZA, H.J. and ALMEIDA, J.G. (1996) “TheInternationalization of New High-Potential U.S. Ventures: Antecedentsand Outcomes”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, verano, pp.61-76.

BURPITT, W.J. and RONDINELLI, D.A. (2000) “Small Firms’ Motiva-tions for Exporting: To Earn and Learn”, Journal of Small BusinessManagement, 38, 4, pp. 1-14.

CARPENTER, M. (2002) “The Implications of Strategy and Social Con-text for the Relationship between Top Management Team Heteroge-neity and Firm Performance” Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp.739-746

[215]

78906



CHEN, M.J., FARH, J.L. and MACMILLAN, I.C. (1993) “An explora-tion of expertness of outside informants” Academy of ManagementJournal, 36 (6), pp. 1614-1632.

CHETTY, S.K. and HAMILTON, R.T. (1993) “Firm-Level Determinantsof Export Performance: A Metaanalysis”, International MarketingReview, 10, 3, pp. 26-34.

CHIARA, DE A. and MINGUZZI, A. (2002) “Success Factors in SMEs’Internationalization Processes: An Italian Investigation.” Journal ofSmall Business Management, 40, 2, pp. 144-154.

CHILD, J.(1974) “Managerial and Organizational Factors Associatedwith Company Performance”, Journal of Management Studies, 11, pp.13-27.

CHURCHILL, G.A. (1979) “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures ofMarketing Constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, pp. 64-73.

CRICK, D. (2002) “The Decision to Discontinue Exporting: SMEs in TwoU.K. Trade Sectors”.Journal of Small Business Management, 40, 1, pp.66-78.

COVIN, J.G. and SLEVIN, D.P. (1989) “Strategic Management of SmallFirms in Hostile and Benign Environments”, Strategic ManagementJournal, 10, pp. 75-87.

CYCYOTA, C.S. and HARRISON, D.A. (2002) “Enhancing Survey Res-ponse Rates at the Executive Level: Are Employee- or Consumer-LevelTechniques Effective? Journal of Management, 28, pp. 151-176.

CYERT, R.M. and MARCH, J.G. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of theFirm, Englewood Cliffs- Prentice Hall, Nueva York.

DICHTL, E., KÖGLMAYR, G. and MÜLLER, S. (1986) “IdentifyingExport Potential: A Comparative Analysis of German and JapaneseFirms”. En Advances in International Marketing, Cavusgil, S.T., ed.,vol.1, Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, pp. 233-254.

DICHTL, E., KÖGLMAYR, G. and MÜLLER, S. (1990) “InternacionalOrientation as Precondition for Export Success”, Journal of Interna-cional Business Studies, 21, 1, pp. 23-40.

[216]

790 06



DICHTL, E., LEIBOLD, M., KÖGLMAYR, G. and MULLER, S. (1984)“The Foreing Orientation of Management as a Central Construct inExport Centered Decision-Making Processes”. En Marketing Aspectsof International Business, Hampton, G.M. y Van Gent, A., eds., Klu-wer-Nijhoff Publishing, pp. 119-141.

DILLMAN, D.A. (1978) Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total DesignMethod. Wiley, New York.

DOLLINGER, M. J. (1985) “Environmental Contacts and Financial Per-formance Of The Small Firm”. Journal of Small Business Management,23, 1, pp. 24-33.

ERIKSSON, K., JOHANSON, J., MAJKGARD, A. and SHARMA, D.D.(1997) “Experiential Knowledge and Costs in the Internationaliza-tion Process”, Journal of International Business Studies, 28, 2, pp.337-360.

ESHGHI, A. (1992) “Attitude-Behavior Inconsistency In Exporting”,International Marketing Review, 9, 3, pp.40-61.

FINKELSTEIN, S. and HAMBRICK, D. (1996) “Top Management TeamTenure and Organizational Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Mana-gerial Discretion” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 484-503.

FORLANI, D. and MULLINS, J.W. (2000) “Perceived Risks and Choicesin Entrepreneurs’ New Venture Decisions”, Journal of Business Ventu-ring, 15, pp. 305-322.

FRANCIS, J. and COLLINS-DODD, C. (2000) “The Impact of Firm’sExport Orientation on the Export Performance of High-Tech Smalland Medium-Sized Business”, Journal of International Marketing, 8, 3,pp. 84-103.

GANITSKY, J. (1989) “Estrategies for Innate and Adoptive Exporters:Lessons from Israel’s Case”, International Marketing Review, 6, 5, pp.50-65.

GUPTA, A.K., GOVINDARAJAN, V. (1984) “Business Unit Strategy,Managerial Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at StrategyImplementation”. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 1, pp. 25-42.

[217]

79106



HAIR, J.F., ANDERSON, R.E., TATHAN, R.L. and BLACK, W.C. (1999)Análisis Multivariante, Prentice Hall, Madrid.

HAMBRICK, D.C. and MASON, P.A. (1984) “Upper Schelons: TheOrganization as a Reflection of its Top Management”, Academy ofManagement Review, 9, 2, pp. 193-206.

HARVESTON, P.D., KEDIA, B.L. and DAVIS, P.S. (2000) Internationali-zation of Born Global and gradual Globalizing Firms: The Impact ofthe Manager, Advances in Competitiveness Research, 8, 1, pp. 92-99.

HARVESTON, P.D., KEDIA, B.L., DAVIS, P.S. and SCOTTER, J.V.(2001) “Synoptic Versus Incremental Internationalization: An Exami-nation of Born Global and Gradual Globalizing Firms”, Frontiers ofEntrepreneurship Research, Edición Electrónica.

HOLZMÜLLER, H.H. and KASPER, H. (1990) “The Decision-Makerand Export Activity: A Cross-National Comparison of the ForeningOrientation of Austrian Managers”, Management InternationalReview, 30, 3, pp. 217-230.

HOLZMÜLLER, H.H. and STÖTTINGER, B. (1996) “Structural Mode-ling of Success Factors in Exporting: Cross-Validation and FurtherDevelopment of an Export Performance Model”, Journal of Interna-tional Marketing, 4, 2, pp. 29-55.

IBEH, K.I.N. and YOUNG, S. (2001) “Exporting As An EntrepreneurialAct. An Empirical Study of Nigerian Firms”, European Journal ofMarketing, 35, 5/6, pp. 566-586.

JOHNSTON, W.J. and CZINKOTA, W.J. (1982) “Managerial Motiva-tions as Determinants of Industrial Export Behavior”. En ExportManagement: An International Context, Czinkota, M.R. y Tesar, G.,eds, Praeger Publishers, pp. 3-17.

KNIGHT, G. (2000) “Entrepreneurship and Marketing Strategy: TheSME Under Globalization”, Journal of International Marketing, 8, 2,pp. 12-32.

KUMAR, N., STERN, L.W. and ANDERSON, J.C. (1993) “ConductingInterorganizational Research Using Key Informants” Academy ofManagement Journal, 36 (6), pp. 1633-1651.

[218]

792 06



LEONIDOU, L,C., KATSIKEAS, C,S. and PIERCY, N.F. (1998) “Identif-ying Managerial Influences on Exporting: Past Research and FutureDirections”, Journal of International Marketing, 6, 2, pp. 74-102.

LOUTER, P.J., OUWERKERK, C. and BAKKER, B.A. (1991) “A Inquiryinto Succesful Exporting”, European Journal of Marketing, 25, 6, pp.7-23.

MADSEN, T.K. (1987) “Successful Export Marketing Management: SomeEmpirical Evidence”, International Marketing Review, 6 (4), pp. 41-57.

MANOLOVA, T.S., BRUSH, C.G., EDELMAN L.F. and GREENE, P.G.(2002) “Internationalization of Small Firms”, International SmallBusiness Journal, 20, 1, pp. 9-31.

MARCH, J.G. and SIMON, H.A. (1958) Organizations, Wiley, Nueva York.MAYER, C. and FLYNN, J. (1973) “Canadian Small Business Abroad:

Opportunities, Aids and Experiences”, The Business Quaterly, invier-no, pp. 33-45.

MIESENBOCK, K.J. (1988) “Small Business and Exporting: A LiteratureReview”, International Small Business Journal, 6, enero/marzo, pp. 42-61.

MILLER, D. (1983) “The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Typesof Firms”, Management Science, 29, pp. 770-791.

MILLER, D. and TOULOUSE, J.M. (1986) “Chief Executive Personalityand Corporate Strategy and Structure in Small Firms”, ManagementScience, 32, 11, pp. 1389-1409.

MILLER, D., KETS DE VRIES, M.F.R. and TOULOUSE, J.M. (1982)“Top Executive Locus of Control and his Relationship to StrategyMaking, Structure and Environment”, Academy of Management Jour-nal, 25, pp. 237-253.

MOINI, A.H. (1995) “A Inquiry into Succesful Exporting: An EmpiricalInvestigation Using a Three-Stage Model”, Journal of Small BusinessManagement, 33, 3, pp. 9-25.

MORGAN, R. E. and KATSIKEAS, C.S. (1998) “Exporting Problems ofIndustrial Manufacturers”, Industrial Marketing Management, 27,161-176.

[219]

79306



NAKOS, G., BROUTHERS, K.D. and BROUTHERS, L.E. (1998) “TheImpact of Firm and Managerial Characteristics on Small and Medium-Sized Greek Firms’ Export Performance”, Journal of Global Marke-ting, 11, 4, pp. 23-47.

NORBURN, D. (1980) “The Chief Executive: A Breed Apart” StrategicManagement Journal, 10, pp. 1-15.

NUNNALY, J.C. (1978) Psychomtric Theory, McGraw Hill, Nueva York.OBBEN, J. and MAGAGULA, P. (2003) “Firm and Managerial Determi-

nants of the Export Propensity of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprisesin Swaziland”, International Small Business Journal, 21, 1, pp. 73-91.

OVIATT, B.M. Y MCDOUGALL, P.P. (1999) “A Framework for Unders-tanding Accelerated International Entrepreneurship”, en Wright, R.,ed., Research in Global Strategic Management, 7, pp. 23-42.

REID, S. (1981) “The Decision-Maker and Export Entry and Expansion”,Journal of International Business Studies, otoño, pp. 101-112.

REUBER, A.R. and FISCHER, E. (1997) “The Influence of the Manage-ment Team’s International Experience on the InternationalizationBehaviors of SMEs”, Journal of International Business Studies, 28, 4,pp. 807-825.

ROCHA, A. DA, CHRISTENSEN, C.H. and DA CUNHA, C.E. (1990)“Agressive and Passive Exporters: A Study in the Brazilian FurnitureIndustry”, International Marketing Review, 7, 5, pp. 6-16.

SADLER–SMITH, E., HAMPSON, Y., CHASTON, I. and BADGER, B.(1993) “Managerial Behavior, Entrepreneurial Style, and Small Firm Per-formance”. Journal of Small Business Management, 41, 1, pp. 47-68.

SIMMONDS, K. and SMITH, H. (1968) “The First Export Order: A Mar-keting Innovation”, British Journal of Marketing, Verano, pp. 93-100.

SIMON, (1956) “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice”, QuaterlyJournal of Economics, 69, pp. 99-118.

SITKIN, S.B. and PABLO, A. (1992) “Reconceptualizing the Determi-nants of Risk Behavior”, Academy of Management Review, 17, 1, pp.9-38.

[220]

794 06



SCHRADER, R.C., MCDOUGALL, P.P. Y OVIATT, B.M. (2002) “EarlyInternationalization of U.S. Based New Ventures: A Comparison ofInternational and Domestic Ventures”, http://rcbweb.qsu.edu.

URSIC, M. and CZINKOTA, M.R. (1984) “An Experience Curve Expla-nation on Export Expansion”, Journal of Business Research, 12, 2, pp.159-168.

VENKATRAMAN, N. (1989) “Strategic Orientation and Business Enter-prises: The Construct, Dimensionality and Measurement”, Manage-ment Science, 35, 8, pp. 942-962.

WELCH, L.S. and LUOSTARINEN, R. (1988) “Internationalization: Evo-lution of a Concept”, en The Internacionalization of the Firm. A Reader,Buckley, P.J. y Ghauri, P., eds., Academic Press, 1993, pp. 155-171.

WOOD, V.R. and ROBERTSON, K.R. (1997) “Strategic Orientation andExport Success: An Empirical Study”, International MarketingReview, 14, 6, pp. 425-444.

YEOH, P.L. and JEONG, I. (1995) “Contingency Relationships betweenEntrepreneurship, Export Channel Structure and Environment. A Pro-posed Conceptual Mode of Export Performance”, European Journal ofMarketing, 29, 8, pp. 95-115.

ZAHRA, S.A. and GARVIS, D.M. (2000) “International Corporate Entre-preneurship and Firm Performance: The Moderating Effect of Interna-tional Environmental Hostility”, Journal of Business Venturing, 15,pp. 469-492.

ZOU, S. and STAN, S. (1998) “The determinants of export performance:A review of the empirical literature between 1987 and 1997.” Interna-tional Marketing Review, 15, 5, pp. 333-357.

[221]

79506

managerial characteristics and export performance in ...the strategic choice perspective (child,...

Documents