Sobre el vínculo previo y la gradación de la culpa

It is noticeable from table 2.1 and table 2.2 that researchers have

conceptualised and studied the EO construct at different levels. In particular, it is evident that two important levels have been attempted: firm-wide non-export versus export context-specific studies. Other levels of analysis have also been used by researchers including firm-level, individual entrepreneur-manager level and project level. In the paragraphs that follow, the level issue in EO research is addressed in some detail.

Level issues have been a source of continuing debate within the

entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Chandler and Lyon 2001; Lyon, Lumpkin and Dess 2000). Several scholars have argued that the entrepreneurship

phenomenon exists at multiple levels of the firm, including internal corporate venture (or project) level (Guth and Ginsberg 1990; Vesper 1980; Burgelman 1983); the individual entrepreneur level (Webster 1977; Mintzberg and Waters 1985; Jennings and Lumpkin 1989); and at the level of the entire organisational entity (Covin and Slevin 1991).

With respect to internal corporate venture or project level entrepreneurial

research, Burgelman (1983, p.223) shows that “new businesses enable the firm to diversify into new areas that involve competencies not readily available in the operating system of the mainstream businesses of the corporation”. Moreover, “High-technology ventures are initiated because entrepreneurially inclined technologists, usually at the [group-leader level], engage in strategic initiatives that fall outside the current concept of corporate strategy” (Burgelman 1983, p.241). As such, it is argued that the entrepreneurial behaviours of internal corporate ventures should be researched.

Regarding researchers focusing on the traits of the individual entrepreneur, it is argued that certain desirable traits of these individuals might help to explain the performance of the ventures they form and manage. For example, the quest for independence, leadership and self-motivation have been cited as critical

entrepreneurial characteristics that could explain the success of entrepreneurial organisations (e.g. Lerner, Brush and Hisrich 1997; Becherer and Maurer 1997).

69

For scholars interested in entrepreneurship at the firm-wide level, their rationale is that the firm‟s activity broadly can influence performance, and not just the stance of the leaders (Covin and Slevin 1991). In this context, it is argued that entrepreneurship exists across multiple people within the organisation and not just the „leader‟. Within this same context of firm-wide study, there are studies that have focused on large organisations (Atuahene-Gima and Ko 2001; Miller 1983; Zahra and Covin 1993; Lumpkin and Dess 2001; Matsuno, Mentzer, and Ozsomer 2002) and those that have exclusively focused on examining small businesses (e.g. Wiklund and Shepherd 2005; Baker and Sinkula 2009; Naman and Slevin 1993). Moreover, in recent years researchers have been turning attention to studying the entrepreneurial behaviours of not-for-profit

organisations (e.g. Bhuian, Menguc and Bell 2005; Pearce II, Fritz and Davis 2010; Voss, Voss and Moorman 2005) by arguing that these organisations rely on their entrepreneurial behaviours to boost performance.

Despite the different levels at which entrepreneurship might exist within a single organisation, Chandler and Lyon (2001, p. 107), however, find that “there was a lack of specification in the level of analysis for entrepreneurship research”, suggesting that researchers have been unconcerned about level issues that might affect how study results are interpreted. Yet, it is true that because individuals work in many different levels and layers within the organisation involving different types of activities researchers need to be more explicit about the level at which they draw their generalisation (Rousseau 1985).

This is important because the level of analysis inherent in theory is important for the purposes of generalisations (Rousseau 1985). It is also recommended that researchers should be explicit about the measurement level of their study as this helps to explain where the actual source of data is described. Thus, it is important that researchers specify the theoretical and measurement levels used in their study, such as whether it is at the organisational, group or individual level. Furthermore, to arrive at solid and meaningful conclusions, theory and measurement need to be congruent and assessed at the same level of analysis.

70

Considering the importance of level issues in theory development and knowledge accumulation, it is surprising that the issue of analysis level has received very little attention in the export EO literature. It is evident from the export EO literature that researchers tend to rely heavily on firm-level EO conceptualisations and measurement of EO. As a consequence, the field is replete with studies that link firm-wide EO to export performance, creating incidences of mismatch. For example, Balabanis and Katsikea (2003, p. 241) have predicted export performance by using a “scale developed by Covin and Slevin (1986, 1988) […] to assess the company‟s entrepreneurial posture”. Yet, the Covin and Slevin scale, which is a refinement of Miller (1983) scale, is developed at the firm-wide level with no specific consideration of export operations. Another case is the work of Robertson and Chetty (2000). In their study, Robertson and Chetty have export performance as their dependent variable, yet their key independent variable, strategic orientation (defined as an aggregation of innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness), is measured at the firm-wide level. In fact, an inspection of their strategic orientation measures (see Robertson and Chetty 2000, p. 218) indicates that there are no specific references to export operations. Several other export EO studies share similar mismatch features.

The mismatch is a problem in the sense that firms do not need to have similar levels of EOB at the broader organisational level and at the specific export functional level. For example, it can be argued that a firm might be highly entrepreneurially-oriented in its home market but less or moderately entrepreneurial in its export markets. Thus, if the purpose of a study is to provide guidance to export managers on how they should behave (i.e. more or less entrepreneurially-oriented), then it would make sense to examine

entrepreneurial behaviours of export managers (i.e. EOB at export functional level) and search for its relationship with export success. Indeed, findings (e.g. Balabanis and Katsikea 2003) that show that firm-wide EOB is related to export success say nothing, necessarily, about how export functions should behave to achieve success.

The implication for export EO research is therefore clear: attention should be expended to understanding EO activities in firms‟ export operations. In that way,

71

researchers can capture qualitative and unique aspects of export context- specific EOBs. The benefit is that researchers can understand more clearly what the benefit is of being entrepreneurially-oriented for exporters.

2.5.6 The Export EOB and Export Performance Linkage: An