Search results

In this paper we describe the evolution of the Uppsala model, which we see as a gradual substitution of economics-type assumptions with ones derived from the behavioral theory of the firm and from empirical studies of international firm behavior. We rely upon them to introduce a new version of the Uppsala model. To decrease the traditional focus on the activity of manufacturing and increase attention to the entrepreneurial and exchange activities of international companies, we renamed these firms “multinational business enterprises” (MBEs). We end with a plea to improve the relevance of empirical research in the international-business (IB) area by not only relying upon realistic assumptions but also performing longitudinal studies.

The aim of this study is to assess the significance of social capital in a public organization according to two theoretical frameworks. Following the structural hole theory (Burt, 1992), a sparse social network enables employees to gain control and information benefits. According to the social capital theory (Coleman, 1988), a cohesive social network creates trust and an obligation to cooperate. The theories describe favorable outcomes of the opposite poles of social structure, but the discussion shows that the social capital might not be realized because of unfavorable contextual factors. Empirical findings indicate that a sparse ego network increases an employee's indirect control and that a dense work unit network increases trust in the democracy of decision making. The discussion suggests that a sparse social network might be most beneficial to a bureaucratic organization and that cohesiveness does not automatically induce commitment if it is not supported by favorable social norms. Unless prerequisites of social interaction are well secured, the organization faces the risk of having inadequate levels of social cohesion, which might impede the creation of social capital. In conclusion, the management is faced with the challenge of social liabilities arising from both social cohesion and the lack of it.

Managerial intentionality has been assumed to be the most differentiating, but also the most neglected factor influencing internationalization. Although various scholars have emphasized its relevance, the key question still remains unanswered: What is managerial intentionality and why and how does it matter? Researchers share the view that internationalization paths are a joint outcome of environmental factors, path dependence and learning, and managerial intentionality. However, although managerial intentionality is argued to be an important factor, it is rather taken as a “given.” Therefore, we step back and take a closer look at its very nature and relevance for international business research.