www.socscinet.com/bam/jwb

Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252

Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition:

Insights and a comparison between international new ventures,

exporters and domestic firms

Francisco J. Acedo a,1, Marian V. Jones b,*a Departamento de Administracion de Empresas y Marketing, Universidad de Sevilla, Ramon y Cajal 1, Sevilla 41018, Spain

b Centre for Internationalization and Enterprise Research (CIER), Department of Management, University of Glasgow,

Gilbert Scott Building (Western Quadrangle, L5), University Avenue, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, UK

Abstract

This paper examines four aspects of managerial cognition among firms, as differentiated by speed of market entry. Aspects are:

risk perception, proactivity, tolerance for ambiguity and international orientation. Internationalization speed is indicated by

rapidity of first market entry resulting in three groups of firms: international new ventures, traditional exporters and domestic firms.

For all groups, proactivity is the basic premise for risk perception, which in turn is the key variable in relation to internationalization

speed. Risk perception is the element that may prevent a firm from internationalizing at all, in a timely manner, or fast enough to

capture available opportunities.

# 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The increasing speed of internationalization among

SMEs, particularly international new ventures (INVs),

is arguably the factor that has attracted most attention

in international entrepreneurship, and together with

cognitive factors relating to international entrepreneur-

ial behavior, among the least researched. One of the

defining characteristics of the INV, sometimes known as

the born-global firm, is the rapidity with which it enters

international markets following inception. Entrepre-

neurial characteristics, such as innovative, proactive and

risk-seeking behavior, suggest that a particular mindset

or cognition may play a part in internationalization and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 141 330 3316;

fax: +44 141 330 5669.

E-mail addresses: fjacedo@us.es (F.J. Acedo),

m.v.jones@lbss.gla.ac.uk (M.V. Jones).1 Tel.: +95 455 44 32; fax: +95 455 69 89.

1090-9516/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.012

its speed. The purpose of this paper is to develop

understanding on how selected aspects of cognition, i.e.

elements of the owner/manager’s mindset relate to

internationalization and specifically, its speed. Following

calls for further integration of concepts from antecedent

disciplines to international entrepreneurship (Coviello &

Jones, 2004; Jones & Coviello, 2005; McDougall, Oviatt,

& Shrader, 2003; Rialp, Rialp, & Knight, 2004; Zahra &

George, 2002), this paper draws on constructs from the

psychology and strategic management literatures on

cognition, and insights from international entrepreneur-

ship on internationalization speed.

The study is drawn from a larger project on cognition

and firm performance. Speed of internationalization

therefore is indicated by classifying the sample firms

into three groups based on speed of market entry: INVs,

exporters and domestic firms. The paper contributes

to knowledge on international entrepreneurship by

viewing cognition through the disciplinary lenses of

psychology and strategic management. The emergent

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252 237

constructs, proactivity, international orientation and

tolerance ambiguity, with risk perception and the three

specified classifications of internationalization speed,

are explored by means of structural equation modeling.

Tentative hypotheses are advanced and tested on a

sample of Spanish firms. Finally, an exploratory

analysis to determine whether the three different

internationalization paths, as indicated by speed

categories, correspond to different patterns of the

cognitive constructs is reported.

2. Theoretical background

The international entrepreneurship field to date has

seen much interest placed on the process of inter-

nationalization, particularly the early stages of a firm’s

internationalization process, and in particular, on the

distinct characteristics of firms that internationalize

rather rapidly. The born-global, or INV is a significant

focus for researchers because its internationalization

behavior may be described as entrepreneurial (McDou-

gall & Oviatt, 2000), in that it is innovative, proactive

and risk seeking (Covin & Slevin, 1991), and is

characterized by the speed and scope of the firm’s

international endeavors from the outset (Knight &

Cavusgil, 1996; Madsen & Servais, 1997; Rennie,

1993). Entrepreneurial behavior and the speed of

internationalization are generally considered to be the

defining characteristics of INVs, also variously referred

to as born-globals, global start-ups and rapid inter-

nationalizers.

The notion of ‘‘speed’’ in internationalization is one

that to date is not well understood. Hurmerinta-

Peltomaki (2003) established that there is little

agreement or exact measure of rapidity, and often the

notion of speed is accompanied by other determining

factors in definitions of rapidly internationalizing firms.

Oviatt and McDougall (1994, 1997), Knight and

Cavusgil (1996) and Madsen and Servais (1997),

describe INVs as being involved in international

business at or immediately after founding. Others, for

example, Preece, Miles, and Baetz (1998) describe

instant internationals as those with international

business interests in their formative stages of business

development. In some definitions speed of internatio-

nalization is accompanied by a specified level of export

ratio, and a range of measures from 20% of total

turnover in 2 years to around 80% within 6 years have

been advanced. Bell, McNaughton, and Young (2001)

suggest that rapid internationalization is not necessarily

a new firm phenomenon and identify ‘‘born-again

global firms’’ as those that commence internationaliza-

tion after an extensive period of domestic development,

but whose international expansion is rapid once started.

What is interesting about speed is that it is a time-

based measure. It is indicative of how much time has

passed, for example, in order to achieve a specific target,

or specified level of performance (Hurmerinta-Pelto-

maki, 2003; Jones & Coviello, 2005). Very few

empirical studies in the international entrepreneurship

field to date are designed specifically to capture and

interpret elements of time (Coviello & Jones, 2004),

although several conceptualizations have been

advanced (e.g. Jones & Coviello, 2005; Oviatt &

McDougall, 2000a, 2000b).

Speed of international market entry is interesting

because it tends to be used as a proxy for international

entrepreneurial behavior. Firms that pursue innovative

strategies and enter potentially global niches in

response to opportunities from a rapidly globalizing

and often technologically complex environment are

generally associated with rapid internationalization.

Rapid internationalization, in addition to favorable

environmental conditions, may also rely on the ability

and willingness of entrepreneurs or managers to extend

their business activities beyond national borders with-

out the benefit of an extended period of domestic

growth. Rapid internationalization is associated with a

global mindset or orientation (Harveston, Kedia, &

Davis, 2000; Nummela, Saarenketo, & Puumalainen,

2004), or an entrepreneurial orientation (Covin &

Slevin, 1991). In general, there is a paucity of empirical

work that examines the relationship between the speed

of internationalization and the mindset, or cognition, of

entrepreneurs or managers involved in the process.

Most empirical work on mindset or cognition in the

international entrepreneurship literature has tended to

be at the level of the firm (Coviello & Jones, 2004),

leading to calls for the inclusion of more individual or

team-oriented approaches (Reuber & Fischer, 1997).

Similarly, Nummela et al. (2004) and Zahra, Korri, and

Yu (2004) call for attention to be placed on the

entrepreneur and his/her mental models. The latter

authors suggest that an individual’s ‘‘cognitive sys-

tems’’ are likely to ‘‘influence entrepreneurs’ decision

rules, decision horizons, and risk preferences’’ (p. 137),

and as such may influence the entrepreneurial behavior

of the internationalizing firm.

Oviatt and McDougall (1994) posit that the back-

ground of the individual owner/manager influences

the evolution of the born global firm. Yet few studies in

the nascent international entrepreneurship field have

focused on the individual far less analyzed the

psychological traits of the owner/manager (Rialp

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252238

et al., 2004). Perhaps the most recent definition of

international entrepreneurship as ‘‘. . . the discovery,

enactment, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities

across national borders to create future goods and

services’’ (Oviatt & McDougall, 2005a, 2005b) may

shift the perspective of researchers towards the

conditions that foster opportunity recognition, and in

particular, the mindsets and orientations held by

managers that might influence that process.

Understanding the reasons that make some indivi-

duals rather than others recognize and, therefore,

exploit opportunities has been an important research

question in the entrepreneurship literature (Bhave,

1994; Hills, Lumpkin, & Singh, 1997), that to date, has

not found correspondence in the field of international

entrepreneurship. It is unclear why the internationaliza-

tion literature has underplayed elements that contribute

to cognitive influences on internationalization decisions

and processes (cognitive style, psychological traits,

personality aspects, etc.). Managerial knowledge

(experiential, market and technical), on the other hand

has played an important role in explaining internatio-

nalization (e.g. Eriksson, Johanson, Majkgard, &

Sharma, 2000; Forsgren, 2002; Ibeh & Young, 2001;

Knight & Leisch, 2002; Manalova, Brush, Edelmal, &

Greene, 2002; Mehran & Moini, 1999; Yli-Renko,

Autio, & Tontti, 2002), and is well researched.

A richer approach to understanding the role of the

individual is afforded by studies that recognize

perception as key to internationalization processes

and decisions (inter alia, Cavusgil & Naor, 1987;

Eriksson, Johanson, & Majkgard, 1997; Jaffe &

Pasternak, 1994; Moon & Lee, 1990; Robertson &

Chetty, 2000; Simpson & Kujawa, 1974; Wiedersheim-

Paul, Olson, & Welch, 1978). International orientation

(Dichtl, Koeglmayr, & Mueller, 1990) in particular, has

endured as an influential variable in the establishment of

an internationalization process. Where the internatio-

nalization literature is relatively deficient in respect of

cognitive variables and measurements, the entrepre-

neurship literature is replete and usefully, proactivity

(Crant, 1996) and tolerance to ambiguity (Westerberg,

Singh, & Hackner, 1997), reflect McDougall and

Oviatt’s (2000, p. 903) perspective of international

entrepreneurships as ‘‘. . . innovative, proactive and

risk-seeking behavior’’. Linking them to the process of

knowledge acquisition (Bilkey & Tesar, 1977; Johanson

& Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975) and international risk

perception (Cavusgil & Naor, 1987; Wiedersheim-Paul

et al., 1978), these factors may collectively be presented

as determining factors for the rapid, i.e. entrepreneurial,

internationalization process of SMEs.

3. Conceptual framework

From the premise that the CEO, the top management

team or the owner plays a fundamental role in creating

and implementing a firm’s strategy (Westphal &

Fredrickson, 2001), understanding what makes entre-

preneurs act in the way that they do has been one of the

aims of studies regarding entrepreneurial behavior

(Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). In the international

entrepreneurship literature, Oviatt, Shrader, and

McDougall (2004) identify the entrepreneur’s person-

ality as a determinant of internationalization. In a later

study, Oviatt and McDougall (2005a, 2005b) identify

the individual as a mediating force in relation to

internationalization speed. Zahra and George (2002)

place more importance on the individual who, in their

model, is placed at the start of the process and is shown

as being moderated and mediated by environmental and

strategic factors.

Understanding the entrepreneurial process and

behavior are complex as many factors exert their

influences on it (Baron & Ward, 2004; Krueger, 2003;

Mitchell, Smith, & Seawright, 2000). Some mental

processes are always present in the decision-making

process while others are not. Because ventures with

similar resources competing in the same environments

make different choices when it comes to strategy

(Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990), it is likely that the

individual’s perceptions are determinant in identifying

opportunities (Simon, Houghton, & Aquino, 2000).

However, perceptions are conditioned and modified by

individual cognitive biases (Baron, 1998; Busenitz &

Barney, 1997). Baron (2004a, 2004b) points out that

cognition might be useful for understanding, inter alia,

why some persons become entrepreneurs, and why

some are more successful than others.

Interest in psychological aspects can be observed in

the earliest studies of the internationalization process

(e.g. Bilkey & Tesar, 1977; Cavusgil & Nevin, 1981;

Wiedersheim-Paul et al., 1978). Simpson and Kujawa

(1974) claimed the need for linking the proper stimuli

with the right perceptions in order to trigger firms’

involvement in the internationalization process. Never-

theless, little attention has been paid to the cognitive

underpinnings of the different behaviors observed. The

cognitive approach to the internationalization of firms to

date is rather limited to the inclusion of a few perceptions.

In reference to the INV phenomenon, Harveston

et al. (2000) performed a study on 224 firms with the

aim of differentiating between born-globals and gradual

globalizing firms from an individual perspective. Their

results show that the managers of born global firms have

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252 239

global mindsets, higher international experience and

higher levels of risk tolerance than those of gradually

internationalized firms. Nummela et al. (2004) associate

global mindset with better internationalization perfor-

mance. However, these are not the only variables

identified as potential influences on internationalization

speed.

The decision to internationalize has been described

as a simple procedure surrounded by great uncertainty

(Kulkarni, 2001; Milliken, 1990). Lim, Sharkey, and

Kim (1991) reflect that idea when considering the

decision process from first consciousness until the

decision is made. The cognition underpinning inter-

nationalization decisions and processes is relatively

unresearched although some ideas can be gathered from

the extant literature. In a review, Leonidou, Katsikeas,

and Piercy (1998), were able to identify, apart from

demographical variables, the importance of perception

(of aspects such as risk, cost, profit and growth), and

other more generic aspects such as risk tolerance,

innovativeness, flexibility, commitment and dynamism.

An interesting question with regard to INVs, is whether

such perceptions are as influential with them, as with

firms that internationalize more slowly, or not at all.

The premise for most studies examining the role of

perception is that exporting activity carries a higher risk

than domestic operations (Wiedersheim-Paul et al.,

1978). In this sense, differences in risk perception

have been found when comparing international to

domestic firms. Cavusgil and Naor (1987) observed that

perception of risk decreases as firms advance in

the internationalization process (Jaffe, Nebenzahl, &

Pasternak, 1988). Therefore, knowledge, and in

particular experiential knowledge influences differ-

ences in risk perception longitudinally along the

internationalization process (Bilkey & Tesar, 1977;

Johanson & Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975). As knowledge

increases, perception of risk is likely to fall. However,

knowledge without intention may lead nowhere. Jaffe

and Pasternak (1994) premise that intention is a

combination of attitude, situation and motivation and

assess that export intention is a function of beliefs, as

well as awareness and readiness. Thus, it is the decision-

maker who determines the perception of the environ-

ment and the way of doing business (Morgan &

Katsikeas, 1997).

Several studies focus on how personal characteristics

affect international behavior (Halikias & Panayotopou-

lou, 2003). The assumption is that internationalization

is a process of strategic change (Samiee, Walters, &

DuBois, 1993). As such, individual characteristics are

expected to play a key role throughout the decision

process (Wally & Baum, 1994). An innovative or

conservative attitude (Robertson & Chetty, 2000),

interest in obtaining information from the environment

(Lim, Sharkey, and Kim, 1996), risk tolerance (Gomez-

Mejia, 1988), innovativeness (Dichtl et al., 1990;

Holzmuller & Kasper, 1991), flexibility (Dichtl et al.,

1990; Holzmuller & Kasper, 1991) and dynamism

(Axinn, Savitt, Sinkula, & Thach, 1994; Holzmuller &

Kasper, 1991), are, as well as other factors (Halikias &

Panayotopoulou, 2003), influential on managerial

decisions (Fletcher, 2001).

Jointly with international orientation, entrepreneurial

personality is worth considering. Generally, entrepre-

neurial personality is considered a multi-construct

composite of attitudes and behavior (proactive, innova-

tive and risk seeking) (Dess, Lumpkin, & Covin, 1997).

Regarding internationalization, the entrepreneur’s inter-

est in changing things for better advantage (Crant, 2000)

is intuitively of interest as a construct in international

entrepreneurship research since it relates to the process of

opportunity recognition. The early internationalization

decision may or may not be innovative. Innovativeness

may also be present in a mature exporting industry.

Managers may not consider themselves as risk seeking

due to possible biases (Kahneman & Lovallo, 1994).

These premises originated the inclusion tolerance to

ambiguity, as, on many occasions, the ambiguous

situation that the firm faces in international markets is

the determinant of the risk perceived. This construct is

defined as the extent to which an individual is able to

make decisions in risky environments or situations filled

with uncertainty (Westerberg et al., 1997). Furthermore,

tolerance to ambiguity has been found to have a positive

relationship with entrepreneurial behavior (Becherer &

Maurer, 1999; Entrialgo, Fernandez, & Vazquez, 2000;

Gupta & Govindarajan, 1984).

In respect of proactivity, this construct is observed in

internationalization studies (Bateman & Crant, 1993;

Crant, 1996, 2000; Crant & Bateman, 2000), not

individually but included in the classification of stimuli

that motivate export behavior (Caughey & Chetty, 1993;

Morgan & Katsikeas, 1997). Aggregate levels of

analysis do not advance understanding of why different

people under the same stimuli, other variables remain-

ing equal, react in different ways. This shows that the

existence of a certain stimulus is a necessary, but not

sufficient, condition for behavior to be carried out

(Genturk & Kotabe, 2001; Leonidou et al., 1998).

In our conceptual framework, we focus on risk

perception derived from the international operations as

the main determinant for the speed of accessing

international markets. A structural equation model is

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252240

used to test the relationships on a sample of CEOs from

small and medium size Spanish firms in a variety of

industries with export potential. Respondents were

evaluated in terms of their tolerance for ambiguity,

international orientation and proactive dispositions, as

well as their perceptions of risk regarding international

expansion.

4. Model development and construction ofhypotheses

Barr, Stimpert, and Huff (1992) suggest that mental

models are better predictors of strategic choice than

education or experience. The inclusion of psychological

factors within this group of variables may help to

improve the understanding of perception. Our model

attempts to do that by relating international risk

perception with cognitive related constructs (Fig. 1).

Entrepreneurial behavior is linked to the way

managers process and use information, the more

intuitive being considered entrepreneurial in compar-

ison to the rest (Allinson, Chell, & Hayes, 2000).

Similarly, Crant (2000) observes the proactive nature

displayed by entrepreneurs. Proactive individuals scan

the environment for opportunities, show initiative, and

persevere in order to change things and take advantage

from such change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Following

the ‘‘upper echelons’’ perspective, these managerial

capabilities can be observed from the individual

demographic profile (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).

Although some criticisms have been posed against

the employment of demographical variables rather than

psychological scales, the international management

literature offers a wide range of examples illustrating

the importance of the international orientation of

managers (Leonidou et al., 1998). International back-

ground is linked in the literature to a greater knowledge

Fig. 1. Proposed structural model.

and predisposition to acting internationally (Andersen

& Rynning, 1994), despite the indirect rather than direct

influence exerted on this kind of decision (Holzmuller

& Kasper, 1991). Therefore, we propose that:

Hypothesis 1. In considering internationalization,

those managers with an international orientation will

present higher levels of proactivity.

Tolerance to ambiguity has been defined as the extent

to which an individual is able to make decisions in

risky environments or situations filled with uncertainty

(Westerberg et al., 1997). Moreover, the absence of

knowledge has been identified as one of the main sources

for uncertainty and risk perception (Johanson & Vahlne,

1990, 1977). Also, tolerance for ambiguity has been

observed to play a crucial role in the manager’s ability to

face uncertainty (Gupta & Govindarajan, 1984), and is

also related to the planning ability of the manager

(Westerberg et al., 1997), and is therefore associated with

the presence of an international orientation that helps the

processing and use of information. Hence:

Hypothesis 2. CEOs with an international orientation

will exhibit a higher tolerance for ambiguity when

confronted with internationalization decisions than

those with a lower international orientation.

Leonidou et al. (1998) in their literature review note

that some psychological characteristics are associated

with the perception managers have of success or failure

in international activities. Knight and Leisch (2002),

remark on the importance of information gathering and

its use during various phases of the internationalization

process of firms, and also cited results noting the

influence that this process has on the individual’s

perceptions (Vallaster, 2000). This may be taken to

imply that risky strategies will be more attached to

rationally oriented individuals who have an interna-

tional background. Thus:

Hypothesis 3. CEOs with an international orientation

will exhibit a lower perception of risk when confronted

with internationalization than CEOs without an inter-

national orientation.

Empirical studies regarding tolerance to ambiguity

have found a strong relationship in respect to the

proactive behavior of entrepreneurs (Becherer &

Maurer, 1999; Entrialgo et al., 2000; Gupta &

Govindarajan, 1984). For these reasons, we extend

these findings by including in our model a causal

relationship between tolerance for ambiguity and

proactive disposition of leaders considering an inter-

national expansion:

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252 241

Hypothesis 4. CEOs with a higher tolerance for ambi-

guity will exhibit a proactive disposition towards inter-

nationalization.

Tolerance for ambiguity is related to the ability to

make decisions in uncertain situations (Westerberg

et al., 1997). Furthermore, a relationship between

individual factors and perceptions has been clearly

established in the literature (Wood & Banudra, 1989).

Consequently, there will be a relationship between the

manager’s tolerance to ambiguity and the perceptions of

risk derived from international operations, so that:

Hypothesis 5. CEOs with a higher tolerance for ambi-

guity will perceive lower levels of risk associated with

internationalization than CEOs with a low tolerance of

ambiguity.

Crick and Chaudhry (2001) and Ibeh and Young

(2001), associate the internationalization decision with

an entrepreneurial act. This assertion links managers’

proactive disposition to a higher orientation towards

international markets (Caughey & Chetty, 1993; Lim

et al., 1996; Morgan & Katsikeas, 1997). Thus, we

include in our model the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6. CEOs with a higher proactive disposi-

tion will perceive lower levels of risk associated with

internationalization than CEOs with a lower proactive

disposition.

Finally, and assuming the proposal established by the

sequential approach we assume that the risk perceived

will influence negatively the speed of international

market access. Harveston et al. (2000, p. 94) identify

‘‘managers of gradual globalizing firms to be more risk-

averse’’, and conversely, citing Knight and Cavusgil

(1996) found managers of INVs to exhibit higher levels

of risk tolerance in ambiguous situations such as those

found in internationalization. Therefore, we can

propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7. CEOs with perceptions of lower levels

of risk associated with internationalization will access

to international markets faster than CEOs with high

perceptions of risk.

5. Methodology

5.1. Sample selection and data collection

To understand how different psychological profiles

affect the internationalization decision, we selected

firms in which the individual plays a major decision-

making role. Data were gathered via personal inter-

views with questionnaires with the top manager (CEO,

owner, president, etc.) of each SME in the sample

(Calori, Johnson, & Sarnin, 1994; Eriksson et al., 2000;

Gray, 1997; Westerberg et al., 1997). To obtain a

representative sample of firms and individuals with and

without international experience, we needed a sample in

which the propensity for international activity was

around 50%. To that end, we analyzed data about firms’

exporting activity obtained from two different data-

bases, the S.A.B.I. database (compiled by Bureau Van

Dijk) and the information provided by the Andalusian

Export Promotion Agency (Extenda). A random sample

of 216 firms was selected from the population of small

and medium sized firms located in a southern region in

Spain. A regional sample is recommended to minimize

the influence of environmental factors and uncontrolled

external influences. The survey was supported by a

grant from Extenda.

The overall sample presented a mean of 45.5

employees (S.D. 156.62), an average age of 23.01

years (S.D. 24.18) and belonging to seven different

industries. A total of 112 firms had no international

activity, the remaining 104 showed an average age of

24.8 (S.D. 25.02). The mean of international to total

sales ratio for those with international activity was

33.36% (S.D. .331556). This group was divided into

two categories: exporters (53 firms) with an interna-

tional sales ratio of 44.40% (S.D. .35), and international

entrepreneurs (51 firms) with an international sales ratio

of 21.88% (S.D. .27).

5.2. Measurements of constructs

Generally, proactivity in individuals is measured

according to the situation in which the behavior is

observed (Crant, 2000). Crant and Bateman (2000)

proposed a 17-item questionnaire to measure the

proactivity variable. Previously, Seibert, Crant, and

Kraimer (1999) used a reduced version with similar

characteristics but only 10 items. Although there are

other proposals to measure proactive orientation (Wood

& Robertson, 1997), we decided that Seibert et al.’s

(1999) proposal was the most appropriate, given its

proven reliability and validity in other studies.

It is widely acknowledged that information use is a

crucial factor in determining readiness to commit to

international ventures. In respect of SMEs, this

information is centralized, to a certain extent, in the

owner/manager. Liesch and Knight (1999) observed this

readiness in terms of ‘‘state of informedness on targeted

foreign market(s) and the means for entering them’’ (p.

386). Notwithstanding, this information may come not

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252242

only from the business environment, but may incorpo-

rate some personal experience that links the individual

with those markets. Among the different specifications

of managerial characteristics, psychological traits

excluded, there is no agreement about what should

be included in consideration of the manager’s profile as

regards readiness to internationalize. In this case, we

have considered educational level (Dichtl et al., 1990;

Holzmuller & Kasper, 1991; Koh, 1991; Simpson &

Kujawa, 1974; inter alia), languages spoken (for

example, Cavusgil & Naor, 1987; Lautanen, 2000),

likeliness to travel (Naor & Punj, 1984) and experience

abroad (Caughey & Chetty, 1993). All of these

constructs are widely considered (Leonidou et al.,

1998). In order to reflect a single scale we created a

formative construct for international orientation.

Experience was measured on a 1–5 scale, ranging

from no formal education ‘‘1’’ to master or Ph.D. ‘‘5’’.

Languages spoken reflected the number of languages

understood by the manager, their likeliness to travel and

their experience abroad were both implemented by

dichotomous variables reflecting whether or not they

had those tendencies.

The measure for tolerance to ambiguity is relatively

uncontroversial in the literature. The majority of studies

we consulted (Entrialgo et al., 2000; Gupta &

Govindarajan, 1984; Westerberg et al., 1997) used

the scale proposed by Lorsch and Morse (1974). We use

the adaptation by Westerberg et al. (1997), since the

object of our study is similar to theirs.

The concept of risk perception is studied in many

different ways. For this study, we adapt the scale

proposed by Sitkin and Weingart (1995) who define it as

the decision maker’s evaluation of the level of risk

inherent in a situation, associated with its uncertainty

and the control that individuals perceive they have over

such uncertainty. In our case, the scale is adapted to

the internationalization of the firm and its operations

abroad. Appendix A presents the questionnaire items.

As regards international activity, information about

the level of internationalization and the timing of this

process was gathered in order to allow posterior

comparisons.

Internationalization speed is widely discussed as a

characteristic of the INV, and is generally associated

with entrepreneurial behavior. INVs are often described

as born-global firms, i.e. those that are international

from their inception (McDougall et al., 2003). We use

this characteristic to distinguish INVs from other firms

as being particularly entrepreneurial. For this reason,

and drawing on Coviello and Jones’ (2004) observation

that age at entry into international markets for INVs

averages 6 years across studies, we constructed a

categorical variable which assigned a value of 1 to non-

exporters, 2 to exporters that took more than 5 years to

become international and 3 to firms that most closely

resemble INVs by commencing internationalization in

5 or less years since foundation—these we call

international entrepreneurs. Finally, following Kundu

and Katz (2003), the logarithm of the number of

employees is used as a control variable, to determine

whether the size of the firm (as a proxy for firm

resources) affects the dependent variable.

5.3. Analytical approach

A Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach,

specifically Partial Least Squares (PLS), was

employed to assess the relationships between con-

structs and to determine the predictive power of the

research model for the 216 firms. We used the PLS-

Graph software (Chin & Frye, 2003). Previous use of

this methodology is demonstrated in the international

management literature (Holzmuller & Kasper, 1991;

Holzmuller & Stottinger, 1996; Naor & Punj, 1984;

Stottinger & Holzmuller, 2001). The PLS technique

is justified where theory is insufficiently grounded

and the variables or measures do not conform to a

rigorously specified measurement model, or fit a

certain distribution (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982, p.

311). For these reasons, PLS procedures have recently

gained acceptance in the management field (Chin and

Gopal, 1995; Hulland, 1999; Julien & Ramanujam,

2003). The stability of the estimates was tested via

a bootstrap re-sampling procedure with 1000 sub-

samples.

The analysis and interpretation of a PLS model is a

two-stage process: first, the reliability and validity of the

measurement model are evaluated and next, the

assessment of the structural model itself. This sequence

ensures that the constructs’ measures are valid and

reliable before attempting to draw conclusions regard-

ing relationships among constructs (Barclay, Higgins, &

Thompson, 1995). Thus, the measurement model in

PLS is assessed in terms of individual item reliability,

construct reliability, convergent validity and discrimi-

nant validity.

In order to evaluate formative constructs, it is not

recommended to depurate their items (Bollen &

Lennox, 1991) as interesting information may be lost.

Therefore, the main concern regarding formative

constructs is that of multicollinearity (Diamantopoulos

& Winkelhofer, 2001). For this purpose, the variance

inflation factors (VIF) are calculated, recommending

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252 243

Table 1

Construct reliability

CONSTRUCT/dimension/indicator Initial

loading

Final

loading

Composite

reliability (CR)

Average variance

extracted (AVE)

INTERNATIONAL ORIENTATION ( formative)

[the values shown are weights and not loading]

n.a. n.a.

Educational level �.0723 .1857

Languages spoken .5463 .5874

Likeness to traveling .3087 .2203

Experience abroad .5898 .4402

TOLERANCE TO AMBIGUITY (reflective) .764 .623

I enjoy working in uncertain situations �.4769 –

The uncertainty surrounding my firm prevents

me from doing my best

.5007 .6643

I often get irritated when unexpected events ruin my plans .7713 .8970

I enjoy the challenges of uncertain situations �.5250 –

PROACTIVITY (reflective) .858 .503

I am always at the lookout for things that will improve my life .6658 .7395

At any situation I have always been an important factor

for constructive change

.6575 .6299

Nothing is more exiting than seeing my ideas turn into reality .7871 .8296

If I see something I don’t like, I fix it .6220 .6341

No matter the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen .4973 –

I love it when my ideas win, even when opposing other views .6748 .6903

I am very good at identifying opportunities .6136 –

I always look for better ways of doing things .6476 .7131

If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me

from implementing it

.5514 –

I can see opportunities way before others do .5050 –

RISK PERCEPTION (reflective) .955 .877

Selling products in foreign markets implies high risk .0596 –

Exports are an important opportunity for my firm .9301 .9318

International activity is a positive thing in my business .9489 .9494

My firm has a high probability of success in foreign markets .9295 .9287

INTERNATIONALIZATION SPEED (reflective) 1 1

Internationalization speed 1

SIZE (reflective) 1 1

Log number of employees 1

values lower than 5 to consider the construct for the

model (Belsley, 1990).

For those constructs with reflective measures (latent

constructs), the loadings for depurating the scales are

examined. Individual reflective item reliability is

considered adequate when an item has a factor loading

that is greater than .7 on its respective construct

(Carmines & Zeller, 1979). However, various research-

ers argue that this rule of thumb should not be so

inflexible (Barclay et al., 1995; Chin, 1998). To assure

reliability in all the used scales, items that did not fulfill

the aforementioned threshold were left in the model

only if the rest of the reliability criteria (composite

reliability and average variance extracted) were

fulfilled. Thus, proactivity items numbers 5, 7, 9 and

10, tolerance to ambiguity items 1 and 4, and risk

perception item 1 were eliminated from the final model

(Appendix A).

Construct reliability is assessed using the composite

reliability (CR) (Werts, Linn, & Joreskog, 1974).

Nunally (1978) suggests a cut-off value of .7 as

appropriate for modest construct reliability, applicable

in initial stages of research, and .8 for basic research. In

our study, after the depuration of items was carried out,

all of the multi-item constructs appeared reliable, as can

be observed in Table 1.

To assess convergent validity, we examined the

average variance extracted (AVE) measure (Fornell &

Larcker, 1981). AVE values obtained presented values

greater than the minimum value of .5 recommended by

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252244

Fig. 2. Structural model results. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05,yp < .1 (based on t(999), one-tailed test).

Fornell and Larcker (1981), supporting the convergent

validity of all constructs.

Finally, to assess discriminant validity, i.e. that the

constructs analyzed are different—AVE should be

greater than the variance shared between the construct

and other constructs in the model (the squared

correlation between the two constructs). For adequate

discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be

significantly greater than the off-diagonal elements in

the corresponding rows and columns (Barclay et al.,

1995). As can be observed in Table 1, all constructs

fulfill this condition.

Fig. 2 presents, a graphical representation of the path

coefficients (b), the significance level of each of the

hypothesized relationships, and the variance explained

(R2). A bootstrap (1000 sub-samples) was used to

generate standard errors and t-statistics. Support for

each general hypothesis was determined by examining

the sign and statistical significance of the t-values for

each corresponding path.

6. Results

6.1. Initial analysis

We observed that the three cognitive constructs

appear very interrelated. Notwithstanding, results

indicate that international orientation is not a clear

precedent for all other cognitive elements. Thus,

although it appears as a clear determinant of the

willingness to act (H1, p < .01), it is not indicative of

the individual’s tolerance to ambiguity. The use of a

general scale for tolerance to ambiguity may not reflect

those capabilities that are specific to internationaliza-

tion, and therefore future research might usefully

develop a new scale for measurement of tolerance to

international ambiguity.

The variance inflation factor for the components of

the international orientation scale do trespass the

aforementioned threshold of 5 (values of 1.246,

1.258, 1.297 and 1.056 for its four items, respectively).

Regarding the values obtained by these items the

importance of languages and experience abroad can be

addressed as determinants of the influence of the

international orientation construct.

Also, it can be seen that the tolerance to ambiguity

construct appears to have some influence on proactivity

(H4, p < .001) but not in the expected direction.

However, the model enhances the central importance of

the individual’s proactivity in the internationalization

process, in general, and in entrepreneurial internatio-

nalization in particular. The three former constructs

present significant effects in relation to risk perception

when considering international activities (H3, p < .05;

H5, p < .001; H6, p < .001). This leads us to think

about the multiple sources, origins and types of risk.

Moreover, risk perception emerges as a clear determi-

nant of the speed of accessing international markets

(H7, p < .001) and emerges as a crucial variable

in relation to the speed of the internationalization

process.

Almost all of the proposed relationships appear

significant. Thus, the link between international

orientation and tolerance to ambiguity (H2), which

does not reach the significance threshold, and the nexus

of the latter to proactivity (H4), which shows a negative

relationship instead of the expected positive effect, are

non-significant. However, internationally oriented

individuals appear to have a lesser risk perception

derived from international operations (H3). It seems,

therefore, that the risk is not just a matter of behavior. It

is possible to reduce risk perception whether or not

the manager is tolerant to uncertain situations or has the

will to change things. These statements reinforce the

need for obtaining international information, perform-

ing scanning, etc., in order to implement better

decisions.

This model (Fig. 2) was proposed under the premise

of an internal structure among the different psycholo-

gical constructs, with one of those constructs acting as a

catalyst to the behavior. These results support the

central role played by the individual when explaining

risk perception in the internationalization process. It

must be also emphasized that the high R2 level obtained

for the dependent variable (R2 = .36), offers information

about the need for considering risk when studying the

speed of international market access.

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252 245

Table 2

Average variance explained, construct reliability, variance explained and predictive relevance

AVE C.R. R2

International

entrepreneur

Exporter Non-

exporter

International

entrepreneur

Exporter Non-

exporter

International

entrepreneur

Exporter Non-

exporter

International orientation n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Tolerance to ambiguity .679 .781 .587 .806 .877 .728 .0119 .0654 .0307

Proactivity .563 .515 .529 .792 .881 .870 .2210 .1121 .2950

Risk perception .747 .766 .847 .898 .907 .943 .1367 .2556 .0644

Table 3

Structural model results

b t

International

entrepreneur

Exporter Non-

exporter

International

entrepreneur

Exporter Non-

exporter

International orientation! proactivity .0100 .2610 .1500 .0424 1.5404 1.5745

International orientation! tolerance to ambiguity .4140 .1610 .2330 2.2273* .7949 .2045

International orientation! risk perception �.0140 �.2880 �.0660 �.0691 �1.9496* �1.3358

Tolerance to ambiguity! proactivity .1420 .2500 .4880 .7092 1.7628y,* 3.3176***

Tolerance to ambiguity! risk perception .0450 �.2220 �.2150 .3048 �1.3872 �1.3900

Proactivity! risk perception �.4750 �.2910 .2850 �3.0982** �2.1208* 1.7151*

y p < .1 (based on t(999), one-tailed test).* p < .05 (based on t(999), one-tailed test).

** p < .01 (based on t(999), one-tailed test).*** p < .001 (based on t(999), one-tailed test).

6.2. Further exploratory analysis

The model (Fig. 2) suggests that cognitive traits do

exert an influence on the internationalization path

followed by firms. Further exploratory analysis to

determine whether the three groups of firms, identified

by their speed of internationalization, present different

relationships between the proposed constructs was

attempted. The resulting models are not illustrated but

results are presented in Tables 3–6. In order to analyze

the differences between firms based on their speed of

internationalization, the general sample was divided

into three sub-groups according to the dependent

variable, this is the firm’s age when they entered in

the international markets, i.e. the number of years

between the firm’s foundation and its first export, as

detailed in the previous section. The proposed model

was calculated for each of the sub-samples and the

results are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The patterns

of behavior of each of the three sub-samples reveal

some interesting differences.

The relationship between proactivity and risk

perception is significant for all three sub-samples.

However, proactivity is determined to a greater extent

by tolerance to ambiguity in the exporters and non-

exporters sub-samples. This may indicate that the firms

in these groups are more experience dependent, rely on

known routines and need to find a certain level of

knowledge to reduce ambiguity in order to become

proactive. This procedure was also implemented in

order to determine possible statistically significant

differences. Following the indications proposed by Chin

(2000) for multi-group analysis, a t-test is calculated

following Eq. (1), that presents a t distribution with

m + n � 2 degrees of freedom, and where Sp (Eq. (2)) is

the pooled estimator for the variance, m and n the

sample sizes, and S.E. is the standard error for each path

within the structural model.

t-Statistic with m + n � 2 degrees of freedom:

t ¼bExporter � bNon-exporter

Sp

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffið1=mÞ þ ð1=n

pÞ

(1)

Variance pooled estimation:

Sp ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

m� 1

mþ n� 2S:E:2Exporter

þ n� 1

mþ n� 2S:E:2Non-exporter

vuuuuut(2)

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252246

Table 4

t-Statistic for multi-group analysis

H0 Standard error (S.E.) Sp bExporter � bNon-exporter t-Value Confirm H0

International entrepreneur Exporter

International orientation! proactivity .23280 .16940 1.46290 �.25100 �.87472

International orientation

! tolerance to ambiguity

.18500 .20250 1.38288 .25300 .93270

International orientation! risk perception .20140 .14770 1.26885 .27400 1.10090

Tolerance to ambiguity! proactivity .20080 .14180 1.24969 �.10800 �.44058

Tolerance to ambiguity! risk perception .14770 .16000 1.09808 .26700 1.23961

Proactivity! risk perception .15190 .13720 1.03588 �.18400 �.90556

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed t(102) test).

Table 5

t-Statistic for multi-group analysis

H0 Standard error (S.E.) Sp bExporter � bNon-exporter t-Value Confirm H0

International

entrepreneur

Non-exporter

International orientation! proactivity .23280 .10990 1.31634 .18300 .70874

International orientation

! tolerance to ambiguity

.18500 .14670 1.19782 .38400 1.63435y Confirm

International orientation! risk perception .20140 .14150 1.25141 �.20300 �.82699

Tolerance to ambiguity! proactivity .20080 .07240 1.09424 .67200 3.13085** Confirm

Tolerance to ambiguity! risk perception .14770 .12520 .98108 .21900 1.13801

Proactivity! risk perception .15190 .12710 1.00380 �.25700 �1.30524

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; yp < .1 (two-tailed t(164) test).

Results for the different sample comparisons are

presented in Tables 4–6. Even though fewer differences

than expected emerged, some interesting insights can be

obtained from these results. Importantly differences in

managers’ cognitive profiles and their influence on risk

perception were expected among the three groups.

However, there were no significant differences between

international entrepreneurs and the other internationa-

lising firms. However, the significant hypotheses differ

from one model to another.

If these results are compared with those in Table 3, it

can be observed that tolerance to ambiguity appears as a

determinant of proactivity in the exporter sub-sample,

Table 6

t-Statistic for multi-group analysis

H0 Standard error (S.E.)

Exporter Non-expor

International orientation! proactivity .16940 .10990

International orientation! tolerance to ambiguity .20250 .14670

International orientation! risk perception .14770 .14150

Tolerance to ambiguity! proactivity .14180 .07240

Tolerance to ambiguity! risk perception .16000 .12520

Proactivity! risk perception .13720 .12710

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed t(162) test).

while, this path is not necessary significant for the

international entrepreneurs presenting the aforemen-

tioned ambivalence between the tolerance to ambiguity

and proactivity.

Looking at the non-exporter sub-sample, differences

related to tolerance to ambiguity–proactivity linkage

are identified when compared to any of the international

sub-samples, indeed the non-exporters do not associate

their ability of confronting ambiguity with the

opportunity of engaging their business in a new market.

The international entrepreneurs are also different to

non-exporters in the hypothesis that connects interna-

tional orientation to tolerance ambiguity, and may help

Sp bExporter � bNon-exporter t-Value Confirm H0

ter

1.02799 .43400 2.15232** Confirm

1.27065 .13100 .52560

1.03395 �.47700 �2.35193** Confirm

.81333 .78000 4.88913*** Confirm

1.03094 �.04800 �.23736

.94602 �.07300 �.39339

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252 247

in understanding their dissociation of ambiguity with

opportunity recognition and subsequent action. What

this implies is that while non-exporters demonstrate a

stronger relationship between tolerance to ambiguity

and proactivity, in their case it is not linked to

internationalization.

When comparing exporters to non-exporters, the

links between international orientation and proactivity

and risk perception are significant. Thus, the only way

of reducing the risk from foreign markets in the non-

exporters samples appears to be having a greater

tolerance to ambiguity.

7. Conclusions

The purpose of this paper was to examine cognition

in relation to the speed of internationalization as

relevant to international entrepreneurship. Several

psychologically oriented elements as validated in the

management literature were incorporated to explicate

the importance of cognitive and psychological

approaches in the field of international entrepreneur-

ship. The three cognitive elements, proactivity,

international orientation and tolerance to ambiguity

together with risk perception, when managers are

confronted with internationalization, were examined in

relation to internationalization speed. Internationaliza-

tion speed was indicated by three groups of firms,

international entrepreneurs, exporters and non-expor-

ters. In the first instance, hypotheses were determined as

applicable to the whole sample of firms and did not

distinguish between groups. Results are summarized in

the table of hypotheses (Table 7). In summary, for all

firms international orientation was found to lead to

higher levels of proactivity and a lower perception of

risk, however international orientation was not found to

be significant in relation to tolerance of ambiguity.

These findings reflect Hedlund and Kverneland’s

(1985) contention that the increasing internationaliza-

tion of economic activity increases market knowledge

thus making internationalization for firms less uncer-

Table 7

Hypotheses confirmed

Hypothesis

H1 International orientation will present higher levels of proactivit

H2 International orientation will exhibit a higher tolerance for amb

H3 International orientation will exhibit a lower perception of risk

H4 A higher tolerance for ambiguity will exhibit a proactive dispo

H5 A higher tolerance for ambiguity will perceive lower levels of

H6 A higher proactive disposition will perceive lower levels of ris

H7 Lower levels of risk associated to internationalization will pres

tain. From this perspective, a non-significant result for

tolerance to ambiguity could be anticipated. Interna-

tional orientation, as measured in our study, is indicative

of a deeper and broader education, language ability,

enjoyment of travel and international experience. It is

likely, and supported in our results, that internationally

oriented individuals are generally better informed and

therefore more likely to behave proactively and be less

concerned, or at least better informed about risk in

relation to international opportunities.

Although we found no significant positive effect of

international orientation on tolerance to ambiguity, we

did find that individuals who are more tolerant of

ambiguity are less perceptive of risk, but are not

proactive. In turn, a higher proactive disposition leads to

lower levels of risk perception. Overall, those with

lower levels of risk perception are more likely to

internationalize more quickly. Implications are that

perception of risk is the key cognitive factor as regards

rapid internationalization, and that risk perception may

be lowered in several ways.

Firstly, increasing the international orientation of the

individuals involved may lower the perception of risk.

Firms might instantly acquire international orientation

by hiring managers, known to have international

experience, high levels of education and language

abilities. Alternatively, language training, travel and

opportunities to gain experiential knowledge in inter-

national settings may help increase international

orientation and thus reduce perceptions of risk. As

Moen and Servais (2002) suggest, what happens in the

firm in the period between foundation and the

commencement of internationalization has some

importance. Potentially, attention paid to the cognition

of individuals towards internationalization, may posi-

tively affect the speed with which it commences and

ultimately successful performance.

Secondly, increasing individuals’ tolerance to ambi-

guity may lower perception of risk. At firm level this

might call for clear organizational goals and strategies

for internationalization and the adoption of policies that

Confirmed, p

y <.05

iguity n.s.

<.01

sition n.s.

risk <.001

k <.001

ent a faster access to the international markets <.001

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252248

encourage entrepreneurial behavior and reward pursuit

of new challenges. From a policy perspective uncer-

tainty in internationalization may be reduced by the

provision of information, opportunities to acquire

knowledge and training for internationalization.

Thirdly, the scale for proactivity used in this study

reflects positive responses of individuals to work-based

situations. Cultivating a can-do, will-do philosophy

within the firm may help to increase proactivity, reduce

risk and accelerate internationalization. Looking at the

other side of the coin, high perceptions of risk may

slow internationalization or prevent it altogether thus

reducing the firm’s ability to respond to opportunities

emerging from the international marketplace.

Summarizing differences between firms based on

their speed of internationalization, significant differ-

ences were found between international entrepreneurs

and non-exporters as regards the relationship between

international orientation and tolerance to ambiguity,

and between tolerance to ambiguity and proactivity.

While non-exporters’ level of proactivity is increased

by their tolerance to ambiguity, it is not extended to

internationalization suggesting that other factors than

cognition may be of more significance to this group as

regards their reluctance to internationalize. Interna-

tional entrepreneurs on the other hand experience

greater tolerance of uncertainty due to having an

international orientation.

International orientation appears to provide added

knowledge or insights that render individuals less risk

averse towards internationalization. These results

corroborate those of Moen and Servais (2002) who

found that early exporters scored more highly on global

orientation measures than those who took longer to

commence internationalization. Comparing exporters

(who take longer to enter international markets then

international entrepreneurs), to non-exporters (who

have not internationalized at all), the latter group are

much less internationally oriented and thus do not

benefit from the positive effects of that cognition on

proactivity and risk perception. In the absence of

international orientation, the only way to increase their

speed of internationalization would be to reduce the

perceptions of uncertainty towards international mar-

kets perhaps through policy provision of information,

training and knowledge development.

8. Limitations and future directions

Although the results are interesting, this study is far

from conclusive, and has some limitations. Further

samples from different countries would increase the

generalizability of the results and the potential to

include situational variables in the model. The cognitive

scales used in this study were limited to international

orientation, tolerance to ambiguity, proactivity and risk

perception, other scales may be introduced in order to

increase the level of variance explained. In particular

there is a need to develop scales specific to the

internationalization context especially as regards

proactivity and tolerance to ambiguity. Nonetheless,

these limitations may be understood as future research

lines in an incipient field.

This study was not in the first instance designed to

measure internationalization speed, and results should

be interpreted with caution, none-the-less, important

insights were gained by classifying firms according to

generally understood classification of the born-global/

INV wherein rapid international market entry following

foundation is the key defining characteristic. Richer and

deeper measures of internationalization speed as a time-

based measure of entrepreneurial behavior are impor-

tant developments for future research (Hurmerinta-

Peltomaki, 2003; Jones & Coviello, 2005). Speed of

internationalization may be indicative of an entrepre-

neurial mindset towards international opportunity but it

has not been established here as a causal factor. External

factors may influence the speed with which inter-

nationalization is commenced and the cognition of

managers may alter in response to the rapidity of the

process. An entrepreneurial mindset may emerge post

hoc rather than as an ex ante condition for rapid

internationalization. There is still a great need for

longitudinal studies and studies that measure the

interactive relationships between internationalization

speed, cognition and performance over time. Finally,

the importance of explicit measures for time in any

analysis of speed cannot be over emphasized.

Appendix A

Tolerance for ambiguity

1. I

enjoy working in uncertain situations.

2. T

he uncertainty surrounding my firm prevents me

from doing my best.

3. I

often get irritated when unexpected events ruin my

plans.

4. I

enjoy the challenges of uncertain situations.

Proactivity

1. I

am always at the lookout for things that will

improve my life.

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252 249

2. A

t any situation I have always been an important

factor for constructive change.

3. N

othing is more exiting than seeing my ideas turn

into reality.

4. I

f I see something I don’t like, I fix it.

5. N

o matter the odds, if I believe in something I will

make it happen.

6. I

love it when my ideas win, even when opposing

other views.

7. I

am very good at identifying opportunities.

8. I

always look for better ways of doing things.

9. I

f I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me

from implementing it.

10. I

can see opportunities way before others do.

Risk perception

1. S

elling products in foreign markets implies high risk.

2. E

xports are an important opportunity for my firm.

3. I

nternational activity is a positive thing in my

business.

4. M

y firm has a high probability of success in foreign

markets.

International activity

1. H

ow many years has your firm been operating?

2. W

hen did your firm start operating abroad?

Individual background

1. E

ducational level.

2. L

anguages spoken (apart from Spanish).

3. H

ave you worked, lived or studied abroad?

4. D

o you like traveling?

References

Allinson, C. W., Chell, E., & Hayes, J. (2000). Intuition and entre-

preneurial behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organiza-

tional Psychology, 9(1): 31–43.

Andersen, O., & Rynning, M. R. (1994). Structural and behavioural

predictors of export adoption: A Norwegian study. Journal of

International Marketing, 2(1): 73–90.

Axinn, C. N., Savitt, R., Sinkula, J. M., & Thach, S. V. (1994). Export

intention, beliefs and behaviors in smaller industrial firms. Journal

of Business Research, 32(1): 39–55.

Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least

squares (PLS). Approach to causal modelling: Personal computer

adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2): 285–

309.

Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why

and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people.

Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4): 275–294.

Baron, R. A. (2004a). The cognitive perspective: A valuable tool for

answering entrepreneurship’s basic ‘‘why’’ questions. Journal of

Business Venturing, 19(2): 221–240.

Baron, R. A. (2004b). Potential benefits of the cognitive perspective:

Expanding entrepreneurship’s array of conceptual tools. Journal

of Business Venturing, 19(2): 169–172.

Baron, R. A., & Ward, T. A. (2004). Expanding entrepreneurial cogni-

tion’s toolbox: Potential contributions from the filed of cognitive

science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(6): 553–574.

Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change,

strategic action and organizational renewal. Strategic Manage-

ment Journal, 13(5): 15–36.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of

organizational behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,

14(2): 103–118.

Becherer, R. C., & Maurer, J. G. (1999). The proactive personality

disposition and entrepreneurial behavior among small company

presidents. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(1): 28–36.

Bell, J., McNaughton, R., & Young, S. (2001). ‘‘Born-again global’’

firms: An extension to the ‘‘born global’’ phenomenon. Journal of

International Management, 7(3): 173–189.

Belsley, D. A. (1990). Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and

weak data in regression. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture

creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3): 223–242.

Bilkey, W. J., & Tesar, G. (1977). The export behaviour of smaller-

sized Wisconsin manufacturing firms. Journal of International

Business Studies, 8(1): 93–98.

Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measure-

ment: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin,

110(2): 305–314.

Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Biases and heuristics in

strategic decision-making: Differences between entrepreneurs and

managers in large organisations. Journal of Business Venturing,

21(1): 9–30.

Calori, R., Johnson, G., & Sarnin, P. (1994). CEO’s cognitive maps

and the scope of the organization. Strategic Management Journal,

15(6): 437–457.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity

assessment. Sage University paper series on quantitative applica-

tions in the social sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Caughey, M., & Chetty, S. (1993). Pre-export behaviour of small

manufacturing firms in New Zealand. International Small Busi-

ness Journal, 12(3): 62–68.

Cavusgil, S. T., & Naor, J. (1987). Firm and management character-

istics as discriminators of export marketing activity. Journal of

Business Research, 15(3): 221–235.

Cavusgil, S. T., & Nevin, J. R. (1981). Internal determinants of export

marketing behavior: An empirical investigation. Journal of Mar-

keting Research, 18(1): 114–119.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural

equation modelling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods

for business research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chin, W. W. (2000). Frequently asked questions: Partial Least

Squares and PLS-Graph. Home page.

Chin, W. W., & Frye, T. (2003). PLS-Graph: Version 3.00 Build 1016.

University of Houston.

Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention in GSS: Relative

importance of beliefs. Data base Advances, 26(2–3): 42–63.

Coviello, N. E., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological issues in

international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Ven-

turing, 19(4): 485–508.

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252250

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entre-

preneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-

tice, 16(1): 7–25.

Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of

entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Manage-

ment, 34(3): 42–49.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of

Management, 26(3): 435–462.

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed

from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, 21(1): 63–75.

Crick, D., & Chaudhry, S. (2001). Technological entrepreneurship in

the electronics industry: Collaboration with partners in developing

countries as a means for de-internationalised UK SMEs to com-

pete in overseas markets. Conference on technological entrepre-

neurship in the emerging regions of the new millennium.

Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial

strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and

configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9):

677–695.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Winkelhofer, H. (2001). Index construction

with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development.

Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2): 269–278.

Dichtl, E., Koeglmayr, H. G., & Mueller, S. (1990). International

orientation as a precondition for export success. Journal of Inter-

national Business Studies, 21(1): 23–41.

Eisenhardt, K., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational growth:

Linking founding team, strategy, environment and growth among

US semiconductor firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3):

504–529.

Entrialgo, M., Fernandez, E., & Vazquez, C. J. (2000). Psychological

characteristics and process: The role of entrepreurship in Spanish

SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 3(3): 137–

149.

Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., & Majkgard, A. (1997). Experiential

knowledge and cost in the internationalization process. Journal

of International Business Studies, 28(2): 337–360.

Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgard, A., & Sharma, D. D. (2000).

Effect of variation on knowledge accumulation in the internatio-

nalisation process. International Studies of Management and

Organization, 30(1): 26–45.

Fletcher, R. (2001). A holistic approach to internationalisation. Inter-

national Business Review, 10(1): 25–49.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation

Models with unobservable variables and measurement error.

Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39–50.

Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). A comparative analysis of two

structural equation models: Lisrel and PLS applied to market data.

In C. Fornell (Ed.), A second generation of multivariate analysis

(pp. 298–324). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Forsgren, M. (2002). The concept of learning in the Uppsala inter-

nationalization process model: A critical review. International

Business Review, 11(3): 257–277.

Genturk, E. F., & Kotabe, M. (2001). The effect of export assistance

program usage on export performance: A contingency explana-

tion. Journal of International Marketing, 9(2): 51–72.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1988). The role of human resources strategy in

export performance: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management

Journal, 9(5): 493–505.

Gray, B. J. (1997). Profiling managers to improve export promotion

targeting. Journal of Small Business Management, 28(2): 287–

321.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (1984). Business unit strategy,

managerial characteristics and business unit effectiveness at strat-

egy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1): 25–

41.

Halikias, J., & Panayotopoulou, L. (2003). Chief executive personality

and export involvement. Management Decision, 41(4): 340–349.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The

organization as reflection of its managers. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 9(2): 193–206.

Harveston, P. D., Kedia, B. L., & Davis, P. S. (2000). Internationaliza-

tion of born global and gradual globalizing firms: The impact of

the manager. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 8(1): 92–99.

Hedlund, G., & Kverneland, A. (1985). Are strategies for foreign

market entry changing? The case of Swedish investment in Japan.

International Studies of Management and Organization, 15(2):

41–59.

Hills, G. E., Lumpkin, G. T., & Singh, R. (1997). Opportunity

recognition: Perceptions and behaviors of entrepreneurs. Frontiers

of Entrepreneurship Research, 17: 168–182.

Holzmuller, H. H., & Kasper, H. (1991). On a theory of export

performance: Personal and organizational eterminants of export

trade activities observed in small and medium-sized firms. Man-

agement International Review, 31(4): 45–70.

Holzmuller, H. H., & Stottinger, B. (1996). Structural modelling of

success factors in exporting: Cross-validation and further devel-

opment of an export performance model. Journal of International

Marketing, 4(2): 29–55.

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic

management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic

Management Journal, 20(2): 195–204.

Hurmerinta-Peltomaki, L. (2003). Time and internationalisation:

Theoretical challenges set by rapid internationalisation. Journal

of International Entrepreneurship, 1(2): 217–236 2001.

Ibeh, K. I. N., & Young, S. (2001). Exporting as an entrepreneurial act:

An empirical study of Nigerian firm. European Journal of Market-

ing, 35(5–6): 566–586.

Jaffe, D. E., Nebenzahl, I. D., & Pasternak, H. (1988). The export

behaviour of small and medium-sized Israeli manufacturers.

Journal of Global Marketing, 2(2): 27–49.

Jaffe, D. E., & Pasternak, H. (1994). An attitudinal model to determine

the export intention of non-exporting, small manufacturers. Inter-

national Marketing Review, 11(3): 17–32.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process

of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing

foreign commitment. Journal of International Business Studies, 8:

23–32.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1990). The mechanism of internatio-

nalisation. International Marketing Review, 7(4): 11–24.

Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalisation

of the firm—Four Swedish case studies. Journal of Management

Studies, October: 305–322.

Jones, M. V., & Coviello, N. E. (2005). Internationalization: Con-

ceptualizing an entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time.

Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3): 284–303.

Julien, P. A., & Ramanujam, V. (2003). Competitive strategy and

performance of exporting SMEs: An empirical investigation of the

impact of their export information search and competencies.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3): 227–245.

Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1994). Timid choices and bold fore-

casts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. In R. P. Rumelt, D. E.

Schendel, & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Fundamental issues in strategy: A

research agenda (pp. 71–96).

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252 251

Knight, G., & Cavusgil, S. T. (1996). The born global firm: A

challenge to traditional internationalization theory. In C. R. Taylor

(Ed.), Advances of international marketing (pp. 11–26). New

York: JAI Press.

Knight, G., & Leisch, P. W. (2002). Information internalisation in

internationalising the firm. Journal of Business Research, 55(12):

981–995.

Koh, A. H. (1991). Relationships among organizational characteris-

tics, marketing strategy and export performance. International

Marketing Review, 8(3): 46–60.

Krueger, N. F., Jr. (2003). The cognitive psychology of entrepreneur-

ship. In Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. Eds. Handbook of

entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and intro-

duction. Vol. 6 (pp.105–140).London: Kluwer Academic Publish-

ers.Kulkarni, S. P. (2001). The influence of the type of uncertainty on the

mode of international entry. American Business Review, 19(1): 94–

102.

Kundu, S., & Katz, J. A. (2003). Born-international SMEs: Bi-level

impacts of resources and intentions. Small Business Economics,

20(1): 25–47.

Lautanen, T. (2000). Modelling small firms decisions to export—

Evidence from manufacturing firms in Finland. Small Business

Economics, 14(2): 107–124.

Leonidou, L. C., Katsikeas, C. S., & Piercy, N. F. (1998). Identifying

managerial influences on exporting: Past research and future

directions. Journal of International Marketing, 6(2): 74–102.

Liesch, P. W., & Knight, G. (1999). Information internalization and

hurdle rates in small and medium enterprise internationalization.

Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2): 383–394.

Lim, J., Sharkey, T., & Kim, K. (1996). Competitive environmental

scanning and export involvement: an initial enquiry. International

Marketing Review, 13(1): 65–80.

Lim, J., Sharkey, T., & Kim, K. (1991). An empirical test of an export

adoption model. Management International Review, 31(1): 51–

63.

Lorsch, J. W., & Morse, J. J. (1974). Organizations and their mem-

bers: A contingency approach. New York: Harper & Row.

Madsen, T. K., & Servais, P. (1997). The internationalization of born

globals: An evolutionary process? International Business Review,

6(6): 561–583.

Manalova, T. S., Brush, C. G., Edelmal, L. F., & Greene, P. G. (2002).

Internationalisation of small firms. International Small Business

Journal, 20(1): 9–31.

McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International entrepreneur-

ship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 43(5): 902–906.

McDougall, P. P., Oviatt, B. M., & Shrader, R. C. (2003). A compar-

ison of international and domestic new ventures. Journal of

International Entrepreneurship, 1(1): 59–82.

Mehran, J., & Moini, A. H. (1999). Firms’ export behavior. American

Business Review, 17(1): 86–93.

Milliken, F. (1990). Perceiving and interpreting environmental

change: An examination of college administrators’ interpretation

of changing demographics. Academy of Management Journal,

33(1): 42–63.

Mitchell, R. K., Smith, B., & Seawright, K. W. (2000). Cross-cultural

cognitions and the venture creation decision. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 43(5): 974.

Moen, Ø. , & Servais, P. (2002). Born global or gradual global?

Examining the export behavior of small and medium-sized enter-

prises. Journal of International Marketing, 10(3): 49–72.

Moon, J., & Lee, H. (1990). On the internal correlates of export stage

development: An empirical investigation in the Korean electro-

nics. International Marketing Review, 7(5): 16–26.

Morgan, R. E., & Katsikeas, C. S. (1997). Export stimuli: Export

intention compared with export activity. International Business

Review, 6(5): 477–500.

Naor, J., & Punj, G. (1984). Structural equation modelling of export

behavior. In 8th conference of the academy of marketing science.

Nummela, N., Saarenketo, S., & Puumalainen, K. (2004). A global

mindset: A pre-requisite for successful internationalization?

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 21(1): 51–64.

Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of

international new ventures. Journal of International Business

Studies, 25(1): 45–64.

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1997). Challenges for internatio-

nalization process theory: The case of international new ventures.

Management International Review, 37(2): 85–99.

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005a). Retrospective: The

internationalisation of entrepreneurship. Journal of International

Business Studies, 36(1): 2–8.

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005b). Toward a theory of

international new ventures. Journal of International Business

Studies, 36(1): 29–41.

Oviatt, B. M., Shrader, R. C., & McDougall, P. P. (2004). The

internationalization of new ventures: A risk management model.

In Hitt, M. A., & Cheng, J. L. C. (Eds.), Advances in International

Management, 16: 165–185.

Preece, S. B., Miles, G., & Baetz, M. C. (1998). Explaining the

international intensity and global diversity of early-stage technol-

ogy based firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 14: 259–281.

Rennie, M. W. (1993). Born global. McKinsey Quarterly, 4: 45–53

McKinsey & Company, Inc..

Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. (1997). The influence of the management

team’s international experience on internationalization behavior.

Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4): 807–825.

Rialp, A., Rialp, J., & Knight, G. A. (2004). The phenomenon of early

internationalizing firms: What do we know after a decade of

scientific enquiry (1993–2003)? International Business Review,

14(2): 147–166.

Robertson, C., & Chetty, S. K. (2000). A contingency based approach

to understanding export performance. International Business

Review, 9(2): 211–235.

Samiee, S., Walters, P., & DuBois, F. L. (1993). Exporting as

innovative behavior: An emprical investigation. International

Marketing Review, 10(3): 5–25.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive

personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology,

84(3): 416–427.

Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive biases,

risk perception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to

start companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2): 113–134.

Simpson, C. L., & Kujawa, D. (1974). The export decision process: An

empirical inquiry. Journal of International Business Studies, 5(1):

107–117.

Sitkin, S. B., & Weingart, L. R. (1995). Determinants of risk decision-

maker behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions

and propensity. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6): 1573–

1593.

Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneur-

ship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Jour-

nal, 11(5): 17–27.

F.J. Acedo, M.V. Jones / Journal of World Business 42 (2007) 236–252252

Stottinger, B., & Holzmuller, H. H. (2001). Cross national stability of

an export performance model: A comparative study of Austria and

the US. Management International Review, 41(1): 7–28.

Vallaster, C. (2000). Conducting field research in Asia: Fundamental

differences as compared to western societies. Culture and Psy-

chology, 6(4): 461–477.

Wally, S., & Baum, J. (1994). Personal and structural determinants of

the pace of strategic decision making. Academy of Management

Journal, 37(4): 932–956.

Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Joreskog, K. G. (1974). Interclass

reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 34: 25–33.

Westerberg, M., Singh, J., & Hackner, E. (1997). Does the CEO

matter? An empirical study of small Swedish firms operating in

turbulent environments. Scandinavian Journal of Management,

13(3): 251–270.

Westphal, J. D., & Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Who directs strategic

change? Director experience, the selection of new CEOs, and

change in corporate strategy. Strategic Management Journal,

22(12): 1113–1137.

Wiedersheim-Paul, F., Olson, H. C., & Welch, L. S. (1978). Pre-export

activity: The first step in internationalization. Journal of Interna-

tional Business Studies, 9(1): 47–58.

Wood, R., & Banudra, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organiza-

tional management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 361–

385.

Wood, V. R., & Robertson, K. R. (1997). Strategic orientation and

export success: An emprical study. International Marketing

Review, 14(6): 424–444.

Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Tontti, V. (2002). Social capital, knowl-

edge and the international growth of technology-based new firms.

International Business Review, 11: 279–304.

Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). International entrepreneurship: The

current status of the field and future research agenda. In M. A. Hitt,

R. D. Ireland, D. Sexton, & M. Camp (Eds.), Strategic entrepre-

neurship: Creating an integrated mindset. Malden, MA: Black-

well Publishers.

Zahra, S., Korri, J. S., & Yu, J. (2004). A cognitive approach to

international entrepreneurship. International Business Review,

14(2): 129–146.