There is limited theoretical understanding and empirical evidence for how international new ventures legitimate. Drawing from legitimation theory, this study fills in this gap by exploring how international new ventures legitimate and strive for survival in the face of critical events during the process of their emergence. It is a longitudinal, multiple-case study research that employs critical incident technique for data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Following theory driven sampling, five international new ventures were selected that were operating in the software sector in the UK, and had internationalized and struggled for survival during the dotcom era. Grounded in data, this study corroborates a number of legitimation strategies yielded by prior research and refutes others. It further contributes to our understanding of international new venture legitimation by suggesting new types of legitimation strategies: technology, operating, and anchoring. Studying international new ventures through theoretical lenses of legitimation is a promising area of research that would contribute to the advancement of international entrepreneurship theory.
References
[1]
Fan, T.; Phan, P. International new ventures: Revisiting the influences behind the ‘born-global’ firm. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2007, 38, 1113–1131, doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400308.
[2]
Zahra, S. The theory of international new ventures: A decade of research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2005, 36, 20–29, doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400118.
[3]
Stinchcombe, A. Social Structure and Organizations. In Handbook of Organizations; March, J., Ed.; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1965; pp. 142–193.
[4]
Aldrich, H.; Fiol, C. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1994, 19, 645–670.
[5]
Zaheer, S. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 341–363, doi:10.2307/256683.
[6]
Zimmerman, M.; Zeitz, G. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 414–431.
[7]
Drori, I.; Honig, B.; Sheaffer, Z. The life cycle of an internet firm: Scripts, legitimacy, and identity. Ent. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 715–738, doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00323.x.
[8]
Suchman, M. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610.
[9]
Delmar, F.; Shane, S. Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. J. Bus. Ventur. 2004, 19, 385–410, doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00037-5.
[10]
Rialp, A.; Rialp, J.; Knight, G. The phenomenon of early internationalizing firms: What do we know after a decade (1993–2003) of scientific inquiry? Int. Bus. Rev. 2005, 14, 147–166, doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.04.006.
[11]
Coombs, J.; Sadrieh, F.; Annavarjula, M. Two decades of international entrepreneurship research: What have we learned—where do we go from here? Int. J. Ent. 2009, 13, 23–64.
[12]
Keupp, M.; Gassmann, O. The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: A review and suggestions for developing the field. J. Manag. 2009, 35, 600–633, doi:10.1177/0149206308330558.
[13]
Jones, M.; Coviello, N.; Tang, Y. International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. J. Bus. Ventur. 2011, 26, 632–659, doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001.
[14]
Kraus, S. State-of-the-art current research in international entrepreneurship: A citation analysis. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 5, 1020–1038.
[15]
Dyer, G.; Wilkins, A. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991, 16, 613–619.
[16]
Flanagan, J. The critical incident technique. Psychol. Bull. 1954, 51, 327–358, doi:10.1037/h0061470.
[17]
Chell, E. Critical Incident Technique. In Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide; Symon, G., Cassell, C., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 1998; pp. 51–72.
[18]
Butterfield, L.; Borgen, W.; Amundson, N.; Maglio, A.-S. Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qual. Res. 2005, 5, 475–497, doi:10.1177/1468794105056924.
[19]
Edvardsson, B. Service breakdowns: A study of critical incidents in an airline. Int. J. Ser. Ind. Manag. 1992, 3, 17–29.
[20]
Glaser, B. Theoretical Sensitivity; Sociology Press: Mill Valley, CA, USA, 1978.
[21]
Dubin, R. Theory Development; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
[22]
Johnson, C.; Dowd, T.; Ridgeway, C. Legitimacy as a social process. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006, 32, 53–78, doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123101.
[23]
Alvarez, S.; Barney, J. How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? J. Manag. 2005, 31, 776–793, doi:10.1177/0149206305279486.
[24]
Coltman, T.; Devinney, T.; Latukefu, A.; Midgley, D. E-business: Revolution, evolution, or hype. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2001, 44, 57–86, doi:10.2307/41166111.
[25]
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). The New Economy: Beyond the Hype; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2001.
[26]
Turcan, R.V. Toward a theory of international new venture survivability. J. Int. Ent. 2011, 9, 213–232, doi:10.1007/s10843-011-0075-0.
[27]
Dholakia, N.; Turcan, R.V. Bubbles: Towards a typology. Foresight 2013, 15, 79–88, doi:10.1108/14636681311321095.
[28]
Bitektine, A. Legitimacy-based entry deterrence in inter-population competition. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2008, 11, 73–93, doi:10.1057/crr.2008.5.
[29]
Oliver, C. The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Org. Stud. 1992, 13, 563–588, doi:10.1177/017084069201300403.
[30]
Bassanini, A.; Scarpetta, S. Growth, technological change, and ICT diffusion: Recent evidence from OECD countries. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2002, 18, 324–344, doi:10.1093/oxrep/18.3.324.
[31]
Pilat, D. Digital economy: Going for growth. OECD Obs. 2003, 237, 15–17.
[32]
Booz-Allen & Hamilton. Competing in the Digital Age: How the Internet will Transform Global Business; EIU: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
[33]
Turcan, R.V.; Fraser, N.M. The Emergence of an International New Software Venture from an Emerging Economy. In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing: Software Business: Third International Conference; Cusumano, M., Iyer, B., Venkatraman, N., Eds.; Springer Publishing Company: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 114–127.
[34]
Groen, A.; Wakkee, I.; Weerd-Nederhof, P. Managing tensions in a high-tech start-up: An innovation journey in social system perspective. Int. Small Bus. J. 2006, 26, 57–81.
[35]
Turcan, R.V. External legitimation in international new ventures: Toward the typology of captivity. Int. J. Ent. Small Bus. 2012, 15, 262–283.
[36]
Turcan, R.V.; Marinova, S.T.; Rana, M.B. Empirical studies on legitimation strategies: A case for international business research extension: Institutional theory in international business and management. Adv. Int. Manag. 2012, 25, 425–470, doi:10.1108/S1571-5027(2012)0000025023.
[37]
Tornikoski, E.; Newbert, S. Exploring the determinants of organizational emergence: A legitimacy perspective. J. Bus. Ventur. 2007, 22, 311–335, doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.12.003.
[38]
Zott, C.; Huy, Q. How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Adm. Sci. Q. 2007, 52, 70–105, doi:10.2189/asqu.52.1.70.
[39]
Hargadon, B.; Douglas, Y. When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Adm. Sci. Q. 2001, 46, 476–501, doi:10.2307/3094872.
[40]
Wilson, N.C.; Stokes, D. Laments and serenades: Relationship marketing and legitimation strategies for the cultural entrepreneur. Qual. Market Res. 2004, 7, 218–227, doi:10.1108/13522750410540227.
[41]
Lu, J.W.; Xu, D. Growth and survival of international joint ventures: An external-internal legitimacy perspective. J. Manag. 2006, 32, 426–448.
[42]
Rao, R.S.; Chandy, R.; Prabhu, J. The fruits of legitimacy: Why some new ventures gain more from innovation than others. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 58–75, doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.4.58.
[43]
Kim, H.E.; Pennings, J.M. Innovation and strategic renewal in mature markets: A study of the tennis racket industry. Org. Sci. 2009, 20, 368–383, doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0420.
[44]
Davidsson, P.; Hunter, E.; Klofsten, M. Institutional forces: The invisible hand that shapes venture ideas? Int. Small Bus. J. 2006, 24, 115–131, doi:10.1177/0266242606061834.
[45]
De Clercq, D.; Voronov, M. Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus. Int. Small Bus. J. 2009, 27, 395–419, doi:10.1177/0266242609334971.
[46]
Lovallo, D.; Kahneman, D. Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 56–73.
[47]
Storey, D. Understanding the Small Business Sector; Routledge: London, UK, 1994.
[48]
Miles, M.; Huberman, M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook; Sage: London, UK, 1994.
[49]
Weick, K. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 516–531.
[50]
Scott, W. Institutions and Organizations; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001.
Slevin, D.; Covin, J. Time, growth, complexity, and transitions: Entrepreneurial challenges for the future. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1997, 22, 53–68.
[53]
Cuervo-Cazurra, A.; Maloney, M.; Manrakhan, S. Causes of the difficulties in internationalization. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2007, 38, 709–725, doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400295.
[54]
Oviatt, B.; McDougall, P. Toward a theory of international new ventures. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2004, 24, 45–64.
[55]
Alvarez, S.; Barney, J. How entrepreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large partners. Acad. Manag. Exec. 2001, 15, 139–148, doi:10.5465/AME.2001.4251563.
[56]
Barringer, B.; Harrison, J. Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 367–403, doi:10.1177/014920630002600302.
[57]
Colombo, M.; Grilli, L.; Murtinu, S.; Piscitello, L.; Piva, E. Effects of international R&D alliances on performance of high-tech start-ups: A longitudinal analysis. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2009, 3, 346–368, doi:10.1002/sej.78.
[58]
Lounsbury, M.; Glynn, M. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisitions of resources. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 545–564, doi:10.1002/smj.188.
[59]
Johanson, J.; Vahlne, J.-E. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2009, 40, 1411–1431, doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.24.
[60]
Rutherford, M.; Buller, P. Searching for the legitimacy threshold. J. Manag. Inquiry 2009, 16, 78–92, doi:10.1177/1056492606297546.
[61]
Rutherford, M.; Buller, P.; Stebbins, J. Ethical considerations of the legitimacy lie. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 949–964, doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00310.x.
[62]
Autio, E.; George, G.; Alexy, O. International entrepreneurship and capability development—qualitative evidence and future research directions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2010, 35, 11–37, doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00421.x.
[63]
Locke, E.; Latham, G. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1990.
[64]
Sapienza, H.; Korsgaard, M. The role of procedural justice in entrepreneur—venture capital relations. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 544–574, doi:10.2307/256655.
[65]
Busenitz, L.; Fiet, J.; Moesel, D. Reconsidering the venture capitalists’ value added proposition: An interorganizational learning perspective. J. Bus. Ventur. 2004, 19, 787–807, doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.06.005.
[66]
Kuemmerle, W. A test for the fainthearted. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 122–127.
[67]
Merton, R. Social Theory and Social Structure; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1968.
[68]
DiMaggio, P.; Powell, W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 47–160.
[69]
Suddaby, R.; Greenwood, R. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Adm. Sci. Q. 2005, 50, 35–67.
[70]
Zhara, S. Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. J. Bus. Ventur. 2007, 22, 443–452, doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.04.007.
[71]
Cesinger, B.; Fink, M.; Madsen, T.; Kraus, S. Rapidly internationalizing ventures: How definitions can bridge the gap across contexts. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 1816–1842, doi:10.1108/00251741211279620.
