http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz Antecedents of successful internationalization in family and non-family firms: How knowledge resources and collaboration intensity shape international performance Philipp Stieg1, Beate Cesinger2, Gerhard Apfelthaler3, Sascha Kraus4, Cheng-Feng Cheng5 1University of Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein, philipp.stieg@uni.li 2New Design University, St. Pölten, Austria, beate.cesinger@ndu.ac.at 3California Lutheran University, United States of America, apfeltha@callutheran.edu 4ESCE International Business School, Paris, France, sascha.kraus@esce.fr 5Asia University, Taiwan, cheng-cf@asia.edu.tw A B S T R A C T The internationalization of family firms has increasingly been recognized as an important field of inquiry for international business scholars. And yet, there is a noticeable paucity of original research on key issues, including the differences in antecedents of interna- tional performance between family and non-family firms. By drawing on the revised Uppsala model of internationalization from 2009 and the concept of socio-emotional wealth, the present study applies Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis as a methodological approach to identify different configurational sets of antecedents for international performance. Our results suggest that differences in causal configurations of certain antecedents (education, international market knowledge, international business experience, and collaboration intensity) between family and non-family firms exist. Furthermore, we found that the specific characteristics of family firms explain these differences. Keywords: Journal of Small Business Strategy 2018, Vol. 28, No. 01, 14-27 ISSN: 1081-8510 (Print) 2380-1751 (Online) ©Copyright 2018 Small Business Institute® APA Citation Information: Stieg, P., Cesinger, B., Apfelthaler, G., Kraus, S., & Cheng, C. F. (2018). Antecedents of successful internationaliza- tion in family and non-family firms: How knowledge resources and collaboration intensity shape international performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(1), 14-27. w w w. j s b s . o rg Family firm internationalization, Socio-emotional wealth, Uppsala model of internationalization, Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis, fsQCA ervation of non-financial or affective utilities, commonly known as socio-emotional wealth (SEW) (Debicki, Van de Graaff, & Sobczak, 2017; De Massis, Kotlar, Chua, & Chris- man, 2014). Extant literature acknowledges that family firms in- creasingly break the boundaries of domestic markets and engage in activities directed toward foreign markets (e.g., Kraus, Mensching, Calabrò, Cheng, & Filser, 2016; Lin, 2012; Pukall & Calabro, 2014; Sciascia, Mazzola, Astrachan, & Pieper, 2012). Recent literature reviews (Arregle, Duran, Hitt, & Essen, 2017; Pukall & Calabrò, 2014) further show that internationalization is an important strategic element in the pursuit of growth for family firms, yet the majority of studies describe family firm internationalization as fol- lowing the Uppsala model of internationalization (Johan- son & Vahlne, 1977). The stepwise approach supports the long-term orientation of family firms with regard to both business and the family (Brigham, Lumpkin, Payne, & Zach- ary, 2014; Mitter, Duller, Feldbauer-Durstmüller, & Kraus, 2014). International performance results of family businesses compared with non-family businesses however are mixed (O’Boyle, Pollack, & Rutherford, 2012; Wagner, Block, Mill- er, Schwens, & Xi, 2015). Several studies have reported no differences (e.g., Crick, Bradshaw, & Chaudhry, 2006; Introduction The importance of family firms for national economies has long been recognized and their idiosyncrasies have been widely discussed in the literature (e.g., Ahluwalia, Mahto, & Walsh, 2017; Chrisman & Holt, 2016; Gedajlovic, Carney, Chrisman, & Kellermanns, 2012; Schulze & Geda- jlovic, 2010). Family businesses are commonly defined as businesses “governed and/or managed with the intention to shape and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant coalition controlled by members of the same family or a small number of families in a manner that is potentially sustainable across generations of the family or families” (Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 1999, p. 28). Control and sustainability of financial and non-monetary wealth are therefore defining characteristics of family firms (Ber- rone, Cruz, & Gómez-Mejía, 2012). Further, the impacts family ownership and family management have on struc- tures, behavior, and goal-setting differentiate family from non-family firms (Kraus, Fink, & Harms, 2011; Xi, Kraus, Kellermanns, & Filser, 2015). Extant literature attributes the unique strategic behavior of family firms to the pres- http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz http://www.jsbs.org 15 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 Muñoz-Bullón & Sánchez-Bueno, 2012), while others have found higher (Graves & Shan, 2014; Tsao & Lien, 2013) or lower levels of international performance for family firms (Thomas & Graves, 2005; Zahra 2003). Traditionally, inter- national business research has discussed a variety of an- tecedents that are positively associated with international performance, such as education, international experience, commitment, risk propensity, perceived benefits, or mar- ket knowledge (see Game & Apfelthaler, 2016 or Leonidou, Katsikeas, & Piercy, 1998 for overviews). These, howev- er, were identified without controlling for ownership and therefore do not provide specific insights into family firms. Of the few studies that are specific to family firms, sever- al have identified family ownership and involvement (e.g., Cerrato & Piva, 2012; Sciascia et al., 2012), the role and in- fluence of networks (e.g., Arregle, Naldi, Nordqvist, & Hitt, 2012; Cesinger, Hughes, Mensching, Bouncken, Fredrich, & Kraus, 2016; Kontinen & Ojala, 2011a), and international market knowledge (Basly, 2007) as relevant antecedents for international performance differences between family businesses and non-family businesses. A clear picture of which antecedents are more or less important for family firms compared with non-family firms is missing. Family firms rarely possess sufficient international market knowledge, and particularly not in the pre-inter- nationalization phase (e.g., Cesinger et al., 2016; Chirico & Salvato, 2008; Graves & Thomas, 2008). They accumulate knowledge incrementally and slowly (e.g., Casillas & Ace- do, 2005; Claver, Rienda, & Quer, 2007; Graves & Thomas, 2008), which may be due to the fact that family firms are reluctant to enter new networks and to form new rela- tionships (Gómez-Mejía, Haynes, Núñez-Nickel, Jacobson, & Moyano-Fuentes, 2007). Their preference for intimate and familiar sources of foreign market information makes them rely on well-established, lasting, and identity-based network ties (Kontinen & Ojala, 2011a; 2011b; Musteen, Francis, & Datta, 2010). Furthermore, family firms do not exhibit great collaboration intensity (Cesinger et al., 2016), defined as the strength and frequency of any formal and informal relational interaction via personal meetings, the cultivation of close relationships, or informal communica- tion (Lin & Germain, 1998). In addition, there is evidence that international performance in family firms is associat- ed with the owner’s or the succeeding generation’s level of education (Davis & Harveston, 2000; Fernandez & Nieto, 2005). What is therefore missing is a coherent approach that explains antecedents critical for family businesses com- pared with non-family businesses when achieving high levels of international performance. We posit that the rea- sons lie in the fact that international business theory does not explicitly take the dominant position of the family and the need to protect family control (Berrone et al., 2012; Pukall & Calabrò, 2014) into account. Consequently, from a conceptual point of view, we supplement Johanson and Vahlne’s work with the concept of SEW. In line with the re- vised Uppsala model (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009), we sug- gest that each antecedent alone will have an influence on internationalization success for family firms and non-family firms, but due to the idiosyncrasies of family firms we pro- pose that combinations of various antecedents will differ between both groups. Widely applied quantitative meth- ods (e.g., regression or structural equation modelling) pre- dict the effects of one or more independent variables on one or more dependent variables, but fall short in describ- ing the complex interaction of multiple factors that affect the results, particularly in emerging fields of interest (e.g., Cesinger et al., 2016; Vis, 2012). We therefore apply Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) as an alterna- tive to investigate the complexity of differences in anteced- ents of family firms’ and non-family firms’ international performance. The results of our study offer two primary contribu- tions to the existing literature: we provide a rich, compar- ative view of antecedents of international performance for family and non-family firms by supplementing traditional international business theory with the perspective of SEW. From the SEW perspective, our results highlight that fam- ily firms either rely on collaboration intensity or individu- al-level knowledge resources to preserve control and alle- viate the fear of losing SEW. Our present contribution is structured as follows: af- ter a brief overview on the current state of research con- cerning differences in the international performances of family firms and non-family firms, we theoretically ground our research. Next, we will discuss independent variables, followed by a description of our research model, the char- acteristics of our sample, descriptive statistics, and the fsQ- CA method, before we describe our results. Our article will close with a discussion of our findings, possible directions for future research, and limitations of our research. Theory Socio-emotional Wealth and International Performance in Family Firms and Non-family Firms SEW has become a proven and commonly accept- ed construct that explains the distinct behavior of family firms (e.g., Berrone, Cruz, Gómez-Mejía, & Larraza-Kintana, 2010) by emphasizing that potential gains or losses of SEW constitute the primary frame of reference in their strate- gy formulation and strategic decision-making (Berrone et al., 2012; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007; Kraus et al., 2016; Vandekerkhof, Steijvers, Hendriks, & Voordeckers, 2015). A family firm’s SEW is described by the extent of the family’s control and influence on the firm (Zellweger, Kellermanns, Chrisman, & Chua, 2012) and can be characterized as the non-financial and affective value of the family firm, which is achieved using the family’s dominant position (Berrone et al., 2012; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). The preservation and the increase in SEW frequently is top priority in strategic choices, decisions, and actions of the family (Berrone et al., 2010; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). Family firms thus often demonstrate behavior that is not purely driven by econom- ic rationale, in particular when the family’s SEW is threat- 16 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 ened (Berrone et al., 2012; DeTienne & Chirico, 2013). SEW therefore may affect the likeliness for and speed of internationalization, the number of countries entered, or the entry modes selected (Kontinen & Ojala, 2010). Out of fear of loss of SEW, internationalization may be perceived as risky and therefore be approached with more caution, at a slower pace, or completely avoided. The Uppsala model characterizes internationalization as an incremental process, where the extent of internation- alization increases over time (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977). The model thus views successful internationalization as a function of gradually intensifying commitments to mar- kets, along with increasing experiential knowledge. Each phase produces certain outcomes or levels of internation- al performance. In 2009, Johanson and Vahlne added the concept of insidership to the model, assuming that being inside a network is a necessary condition for successful foreign market entry. Empirical evidence indeed suggests that family firms follow the establishment chain proposed by Johanson and Vahlne (1977) – they progress incremen- tally along a continuum from low-commitment modes to high-commitment modes (Child, Ng, & Wong, 2002; Claver et al., 2007; Game & Apfelthaler, 2016; Graves & Thomas, 2008; Janjuha-Jivraj, Martin, & Danko, 2012), each of which produces distinct outcomes and different levels of interna- tional performance (Claver et al., 2007; Puig & Pérez, 2009). International performance is commonly understood as a set of quantitative or attitudinal measures, such as the percentage of international revenues as a part of total revenue, growth of international revenue, growth of in- ternational profits, growth of international market share, or growth of employees in international markets (Sousa, 2004). Much scholarly attention has recently been given to the investigation of performance differentials between family firms and non-family firms, and it can be assumed that international diversification has a positive impact on a family firm’s performance (Carney, Van Essen, Gedajlovic, & Heugens, 2013). When considering the defining fea- tures of family firms, such as control or family ownership, empirical evidence on international performance of fam- ily firms is equivocal (Pukall & Calabrò, 2014) and results are mixed when comparing the international performance of family firms and non-family firms (O’Boyle et al., 2012; Wagner, Block, Miller, Schwens, & Xi, 2015). For example, Crick, Bradshaw, and Chaudhry (2006) and Muñoz-Bullón and Sánchez-Bueno (2012) have not reported any signifi- cant differences in international performance among fam- ily firms and non-family firms. Graves and Shan (2014), as well as Tsao and Lien (2013), have even demonstrated that family firms exhibit stronger international performance than non-family firms. Roida and Sunarjanto (2012) have shown that family firms and non-family firms do not differ in their export intensity, whereas the studies by Thomas and Graves (2005) and Zahra (2003) have revealed that in- ternational performance is lower in family firms compared with non-family businesses. Despite the empirical evidence shown using the Up- psala model’s value for family firms, neither the original model from 1977 nor its revised version from 2009 take into account the family firms’ tendency to prioritize SEW, which may explain the varying outcomes observed when the model is applied to family firms’ internationalization behavior. Antecedents of International Performance in Family- and Non-family Businesses At the core of the internationalization model by Jo- hanson and Vahlne from 1977 and 2009 is the concept of international market knowledge as the primary and most critical enabler of internationalization and international performance. International market knowledge refers to knowledge about international markets and knowledge about the process of internationalization (Eriksson, Johan- son, Majkgård, & Sharma, 1997). And, indeed, the empiri- cal literature on the antecedents of internationalization and performance confirms the importance of knowledge-based factors. Previous research shows that international mar- ket knowledge (e.g., Calof & Beamish, 1995; Canabal & White, 2008) or the knowledge of culture (e.g., Game & Apfelthaler, 2016; Brouthers & Brouthers, 2000) enhances internationalization and performance. Extant internation- alization literature suggests that the level of education of a firm’s management (e.g., Katsikeas, 1996) and the amount of international experience (e.g., Bloodgood, Sapienza, & Almeida, 1996) augment a firm’s internal stock of knowl- edge, which then correlates positively with a firm’s inter- national performance. Under the primacy of SEW and in line with the theoretical assumptions of the Uppsala model (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; 2009), we suggest that family firms and non-family firms alike achieve international per- formance if they hold sufficient levels of education, inter- national business experience, and international market knowledge. Yet, the particularities of family firms and their desire to safeguard SEW may position them differently. Education is one aspect of individual human capital and is positively related to knowledge, skills, and problem-solv- ing ability (Cooper, Gimeno-Gascon, & Woo, 1994). A high- er level of education can accelerate the firms level of in- novation (Sonfield & Lussier, 2016) and, moreover, can be useful when making internationalization decisions because they facilitate analysis of the international environment (Cerrato & Piva, 2012) and they enhance understanding of foreign markets and cultures (Fernandez-Ortiz & Lombar- do, 2009; Kyvik, Saris, Bonet, & Felício, 2013). The inter- national business literature has thus acknowledged it as a managerial characteristic of importance for international performance (Beamish, Craig, & McLellan, 1993; Katsikeas, 1996; Zou & Stan, 1998). The SEW perspective implies that family relationships dominate in family firms (i.e., there is a long history of shared knowledge and experiences, which shape current strategy) (Berrone et al., 2012). The mainte- nance of family ties and knowledge sharing among family members may substitute for formal education or depreci- ate the need for human capital development (Granovetter, 1985), although this limits access to novel information and 17 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 innovative business approaches, as well as new ways of do- ing things (Coleman, 1988). The level of education – due to SEW in family firms – may therefore have a different effect in family firms compared with non-family firms. Existing research on family firms’ internationalization has indeed found that lower levels of human capital result in a lower degree of internationalization (Casillas & Acedo, 2005; Cer- rato & Piva, 2012) or that the level of foreign sales is strong- ly associated with the owner’s level of education (Casillas & Acedo, 2005; Davis & Harveston, 2000; Sundaramurthy & Dean, 2008). International business experience is an important an- tecedent in the context of international performance (Ca- vusgil & Zou, 1994; Gray & McNaughton, 2010; Madsen, 1988; Miesenböck, 1988; Nielsen & Nielsen, 2010; Rocha, Cotta de Mello, Pacheco, & Farias, 2012). Individuals with international experience have the ability to systematize and generalize their knowledge of the internationalization process and transfer their experience to other cases and environments (Blomstermo, Eriksson, Lindstrand, & Shar- ma, 2004). This reduces the level of uncertainty and risk re- lated to foreign market decision-making (Armario, Ruiz, & Armario, 2008). Overall, family firms are equipped with less advanced management skills than non-family firms (Graves & Thomas, 2008) and typically have lower levels of inter- national business experience than non-family firms (e.g., Banalieva & Eddleston, 2011; George, Wiklund, & Zahra, 2005; Kuo, Kao, Chang, & Chiu, 2012). According to Boellis, Mariotti, Minichilli, and Piscitello (2016), this may be the result of a lower and less diversified shareholder and man- agerial base that makes a family firm per se less informed compared with non-family firms. Gallo and Pont (1996) have suggested that family firms also tend to hire manag- ers without international experience. Gómez-Mejía, Makri, and Larraza Kintana (2010) have demonstrated that family firms are less internationally diversified than non-family firms, and assume that this is a result of the family leaders’ lack of international experience. From the SEW perspec- tive, the family’s desire to maintain control of the firm and avoid risk leads family firms not to hire internationally ex- perienced non-family managers, resulting in lower levels of international performance (Banalieva & Eddleston, 2011). Firms must possess sufficient stocks of idiosyncrat- ic, rare, and valuable knowledge to achieve international performance (Grant, Jammine, & Thomas, 1988; Kogut & Zander, 1993). In the same vein, international market knowledge, i.e., international business knowledge specific to a market or culture, is crucial for successful internation- alization (Fletcher & Harris, 2012) and serves as the basis for international competitiveness (Lu & Beamish, 2006). Al- though it has been shown that international market knowl- edge has a positive impact on the degree of international- ization of family firms (Basly, 2007; Calabrò & Mussolino, 2013), family firms typically have lower levels of interna- tional market knowledge than non-family firms due to less developed managerial skills (e.g., Banalieva & Eddleston, 2011; Chirico & Salvato, 2008; Claver, Rienda, & Quer, 2009; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2010; Kuo et al., 2012). Results from extant family literature also suggest that family firms struggle to develop internal capabilities based on knowl- edge resources (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Hoy & Verser, 1994). Instead, family members have deep levels of firm-specif- ic tacit knowledge (Chirico & Salvato, 2008; Zahra, Neu- baum, & Larrañeta, 2007) and family firms integrate family members’ individual specialized knowledge (Arregle, Hitt, Sirmon, & Very, 2007). Lower levels of education, interna- tional experience, and international market knowledge ne- cessitate more external human resources to mitigate family firms’ deficiencies in international market knowledge (e.g., Graves & Thomas, 2006). The appointment of non-family CEOs and managers (Arregle et al., 2012), however, may sacrifice the family’s SEW and minimize the possibility to exercise authority and maintain influence over business ac- tivity (Chang & Shim, 2015; Banalieva & Eddleston, 2011; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007). As a result, family firms tend to accumulate international market knowledge within the firm and among family members, safeguarding SEW, and preserving family control and ownership (Pukall & Calabrò, 2014). Large and small firms increasingly engage in collabo- ration to successfully compete in global markets (Etemad, Wright, & Dana, 2001). Whereas the original Uppsala mod- el (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977) predicts that knowledge is in- ternally developed as an outcome of experiential learning, the extension of the model (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009), as well as the extensive literature on international entrepre- neurship (e.g., Ratten, Dana, Han, & Welpe, 2007; Young, Dimitratos, & Dana, 2003; Wright & Dana, 2003) argues that firms may access and generate international market knowledge through exchange and collaboration with net- work partners. Specifically, intensive inter-firm collabora- tions increase a firm’s understanding of both prospects and constraints of going international (e.g., Chetty & Holm, 2000; Musteen et al., 2010). Further, in highly dynamic and fast changing international environments, being involved in networks can also shorten the time span to market (Zhu, Hitt, & Tihanyi, 2006) Collaboration intensity then mitigates a firm’s liabili- ty of outsidership – the disadvantage stemming from the lack of specific international market knowledge (Schweizer, 2013). These theoretical foundations also apply to fami- ly firms. Network relationships held by family firms allow them to develop and accumulate international market knowledge from domestic and international collaborations with customers, business partners, governmental institu- tions, and others. Such collaborations provide family firms with access to foreign markets (Zahra, 2005), to interna- tional market knowledge, and to other resources of their network partners (Bhaumik, Driffield, & Pal, 2010). This triggers internationalization, helps the firm to gain compet- itive advantage, and to achieve international performance. While this theoretical prediction holds in principle, em- pirical research has shown that family firms are reluctant to enter new networks (Basly, 2007; Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007) and overall to cooperate less than non-family firms (Donckels & Fröhlich, 1991; Graves & Thomas, 2004). Com- 18 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 pared with non-family firms, family firms prioritize deep internal relations (Arregle et al., 2007). They often show low collaboration intensity (Lin & Germain, 1998), which creates barriers to external networks (e.g., Bubolz, 2001). The empirical literature on family firm internationalization also demonstrates their tendency to preferably connect with other family firms, instead of just any business enter- prise, because they prefer to develop strong ties that cater to their aspiration for personal information safeguarding of SEW (Basly, 2007; Eddleston, Chrisman, Steier, & Chua, 2010; Kontinen & Ojala, 2012; 2011a; 2011b; Musteen et al., 2010; Pukall & Calabrò, 2014; Swinth & Vinton, 1993). Family firms may only then overcome the fear of losing SEW by relying on intensive collaborations; i.e., the cultiva- tion of close relationships is coherent with the affective val- ue the family places on its business because collaboration intensity does not threaten SEW. Rather, intense collabora- tions can enable family firms to overcome the fear of losing SEW and, in turn enhance international performance. Method The goal of our research is to identify combinations of antecedents that enhance international performance in family and non-family firms. Conventional multivariate methods such as regressions have limitations in this re- gard, and we therefore utilize fsQCA. As outlined by Ragin (2008a), fsQCA is a comparative research technique that uses the concept of Boolean algebra for systematic cross- case analysis (Gonzalez, Rodriguez, & Sossa, 2017; Rihoux & Ragin, 2009). Rather than investigating linear relation- ships, fsQCA tries to understand asymmetric set relation- ships (Covin, Eggers, Kraus, Cheng, & Chang, 2016) in a combinatorial way. It is based on set theory, in which causal claims are developed by means of supersets and subsets. The basic approach of fsQCA is to count all types of cases that occur. Types of cases are defined by their own unique combination of values for independent and depen- dent variables. For example, if there were four variables of interest, with the first two being dichotomous, the third having three values, and the fourth having five, the result would be a total of 60 possible and unique combinations or types of observations. Each one of those 60 paths is rel- evant in a distinct way as it leads to the same or similar outcomes. Therefore, rather than testing an assumed path relationship, fsQCA allows for the detection of multiple causal paths. By counting the number of observations for each unique combination of variables, fsQCA determines which descriptive inferences or implications are empirical- ly supported by the dataset. fsQCA is particularly suited when evaluating both the number and the complexity of alternative paths that lead to a desired outcome (Felicio, Rodrigues, Samagaio, 2016; Fiss, 2011; Greckhamer, Mis- angyi, Elms, & Lacey, 2008; Ragin, 2008a). Marx, Rihoux, and Ragin (2013) and Ragin (2008a) have argued that the logic of the comparative study is configurational, whereby firms are considered to be the combination of causal con- ditions and an outcome. Fuzzy sets allow researchers to ac- count for the varying degrees of membership of cases in a set by using the anchor 0.95 to designate full membership in a particular set and 0.05 for non-membership. As most firms will not meet those ideal types, 0.5 is the crossover point that defines the anchor for being neither in nor out of a particular set. For this, the original values of the 95th percentile, the 50th percentile, and the 5th percentile from the ordinary data corresponding to full membership (fuzzy score = 0.95), cross-over anchors (fuzzy score = 0.5), and full non-mem- bership (fuzzy score = 0.05) are set to transform ordinary data into fuzzy sets (Misangyi & Acharya, 2014; Ragin, 2008a). Following Chang and Cheng (2014), Fiss (2011), and Ragin (2008b), a data matrix, known as a truth table with 16 rows with four causal conditions, is then constructed. In addition, Ragin (2008a) strictly suggested that the configu- rations selected should have at least 75% to 80% of the cas- es included in the analysis. Accordingly, this study captures and recognizes configurations that are sufficient to the outcome from those that are not sufficient by specifying the consistent cut off value as 0.80. Ragin (2008a) further suggested that complex solutions are based on a different treatment of the remainder combinations (i.e., there is no logical remainder used in complex solutions, but all logical remainders may be used in parsimonious solutions with- out any evaluation of their plausibility). Therefore, in line with Ragin (2008a), this study explores the configurations of antecedents of international performance by comparing family and non-family firms based on an intermediate solu- tion (only the logical remainders that make sense given the researcher’s substantive and theoretical knowledge are in- corporated into the solution) and uses a minimum accept- able overall solution consistency of 0.80. Operationalization of Predictor Conditions Based on our review of the existing literature, we inves- tigate four antecedents of international performance for family firms and non-family firms: education, international business experience, international market knowledge, and collaboration intensity. In this study, we define a firm as a family firm if the majority (>50%) of all assets or control are in the hands of one or two families. In alignment with previous studies (e.g., Calof & Beam- ish, 1995; Sommer, 2010), we measure education in the form of the highest educational attainment of respondents on an 8-point scale, ranging from no diploma, compulsory education, secondary school, university-entrance diploma, master craftsman’s diploma, university of applied sciences, and university diploma to PhD. As a measure for international business experience, we use the number of years a respondent has worked in inter- national operations (Sommer, 2012). As proposed by Zhou (2007), we operationalize inter- national market knowledge as international institution- al knowledge (knowledge of (1) foreign laws, norms, and standards and (2) host government agencies), international business knowledge (knowledge of (1) the needs of foreign 19 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 clients/customers; (2) foreign distribution channels; (3) effective marketing in foreign markets; (4) foreign com- petitors; and (5) foreign languages), and internationaliza- tion knowledge (knowledge about (1) determining foreign business opportunities; (2) dealing with foreign business contacts; and (3) managing international operations) on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Collaboration intensity represents the magnitude of ongoing interactions between network partners (Lin & Germain, 1998). In our research, we measure collaboration intensity in line with Paulraj (2011), Chen, Tzeng, Ou, and Chang (2007), or Kotabe, Martin, and Domoto (2003) by using three items: (1) before internationalizing, I had fre- quent exchange with my network partners; (2) before in- ternationalizing, I maintained close relationships with my network partners; and (3) informal discussion between my network partners and me existed before internationalizing. We measure these by using a 5-point Likert scale. Measuring organizational performance using objective data is inherently difficult in privately held firms. Various authors have therefore suggested perceptual measures as an alternative (Dess & Robinson, 1984; Glaister & Buckley, 1998). Davis and Harveston (2000) have proposed using growth related performance measurements because fami- ly firms focus more on long-term growth than on achieving high profits in the short term. Following this assumption, Chen et al. (2007) have provided a set of measurements for international performance, including growth of inter- national revenue and profit, as well as a growth of inter- national employees and market share. In line with these suggestions, international performance in our research is measured as a subjective, perceptual, and composite index, with the following four components: (1) compared with our direct and indirect competitors, we realized higher growth of international revenue; (2) higher growth of international profit; (3) higher growth of international employees; and (4) higher growth of international market share. All were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Sample We collected our data via an online survey. First, we randomly selected a cross-sectional sample of 10,000 firms from Germany and three other predominantly Ger- man-speaking countries: Austria, Switzerland, and Liech- tenstein. Responses from companies without international business activities were not recorded, which resulted in a total of 501 valid questionnaires from Germany and 561 completed questionnaires from the other three countries. Respondents were CEOs, founders, owners, or top-level managers responsible for internationalization. These key in- formants (Lechner, Dowling, & Welpe, 2006) are commonly used in family business research (e.g., Kraus et al., 2016). The resulting response rate of 5.3% is comparable to oth- er online surveys (e.g., Rigtering, Kraus, Eggers, & Jensen, 2014). Out of our total of 1,062 firms, 792 are family firms (74.6%) and 270 are non-family firms (25.4%). The ma- jority of firms in our sample are small- and medium-sized companies with less than 250 employees (96.3% in family firms and 93.4% in non-family firms). Family firms in our sample are on average 41.3 years old and non-family firms are 32.9 years old. The average firm’s internationalization experience is 14.8 years in family firms compared with 11.3 years in non-family firms. The majority of the respondents in the firms have a degree from a tertiary institution (31.8% in family firms and 38.1% in non-family firms). Results Table 1 provides a summary of our results in the form of combinatorial causal configurations of different paths for firms in our dataset. As consistency scores should be as close to 1.0 as possible, we only included those configura- tions that have values exceeding 0.7, overall solution con- sistency values above 0.68, and overall solution coverage values above 0.74. These configurations offer the best ex- planations for how international performance is achieved. The results of fsQCA reveal five such causal configurations for family firms and four causal configurations for non-fam- ily firms. Table 1 Casual configurations for international performance Path Collaboration Intensity International Market Knowledge Education International Business Experience Raw Coverage Unique Coverage Consistency Solution Coverage Solution Consistency Family firms (n=792) 1a ● ○ 0.46 0.02 0.76 0.81 0.68 2a ● ○ 0.52 0.08 0.75 3a ○ ● 0.45 0.06 0.73 4a ○ ● 0.37 0.04 0.75 5a ● ○ 0.44 0.01 0.77 Non- family firms (n=270) 1b ● ● 0.54 0.05 0.74 0.74 0.73 2b ● ● 0.51 0.04 0.81 3b ● ● 0.51 0.05 0.78 4b ○ ● ● 0.34 0.05 0.81 20 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 Table 1 shows that five causal configurations exist which lead to a high level of international performance in family firms. Black circles in Table 1 indicate the presence of a necessary condition, white circles indicate the absence of a condition in the solution path, and empty cells indicate “don’t care/doesn’t matter” conditions (Ragin, 2008a). The latter may be present, but do not show a significant impact on international performance. According to Ragin’s guide of fsQCA (Ragin, 2008b), presence and absence are major states in Boolean algebra. The typical Boolean-based com- parative analysis addresses the presence/absence condi- tions under which a certain outcome can be accomplished. Presence indicates that the outcome is achieved when the causal condition is existent and the absence of a condition means that the outcome can be obtained without this con- dition (Chang & Cheng, 2014; Fiss, 2011; Kraus et al., 2016). For family firms, path 1a shows a configuration under which collaboration intensity is a single antecedent to in- ternational performance; international market knowledge or international business experience may be of importance, whereas education is of no relevance in this configuration. In other words, this configuration (i.e., a logical statement is “Collaboration Intensity*~Education”) shows that when CEOs, founders, owners, or top-level managers responsible for internationalization do not have high levels of educa- tion, they can still produce high levels of international per- formance for their firms by means of a high level of ongoing interactions between network partners (i.e., collaboration intensity). Path 2a demonstrates a similar configuration with international market knowledge being the necessary condition, collaboration intensity and education being suf- ficient, and international business experience being of no importance. With the highest unique coverage among all paths, path 2a offers the best explanation of international performance in family firms. Path 3a shows education as a necessary and collaboration intensity as an absent con- dition. Path 4a demonstrates that international business experience is a necessary antecedent, with education and collaboration intensity being potential contributors to in- ternational performance. Path 5a shows international mar- ket knowledge as a necessary condition, international busi- ness experience and collaboration intensity as sufficient conditions, and education as absent. What we can therefore conclude is that over all paths for family firms, single antecedents can be the source of international performance or, in other words, that family firms rely on a single source of international performance. Figure 1 summarizes these configurations for family firms. Figure 1. Causal configurations for international performance in family firms. 21 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 The results for non-family firms are quite different. In non-family firms, four causal configurations exist that pro- duce high levels of international performance. For all paths (1b–4b), two conditions for high international performance are present: collaboration intensity and international mar- ket knowledge in path 1b, international market knowledge and education in path 2b, international market knowledge and international business experience in 3b, and education and international business experience in 4b. The presence of international market knowledge in paths 1b, 2b, and 3b indicates that it is a critical condition for non-family firms to achieve superior international performance. Figure 2 sum- marizes these configurations for non-family firms. Our data therefore suggest a fundamental difference in the paths to international performance between family firms and non-family firms. Where all combinatorial solu- tion sets for family firms identify one single source for in- ternational performance, international performance in non-family firms is generally created from a combination of different antecedents. Figure 2. Causal configurations for international performance in non-family firms. Discussion and Conclusion Our study explores four relevant antecedents – col- laboration intensity, international market knowledge, ed- ucation, and international business experience – with the purpose of revealing different causal configurations for achieving international performance in family firms vs. non-family firms. Based on the results of our fsQCA, we found the existence of five different paths to international performance for family firms and four different paths for non-family firms. Our data and analysis not only show that there is more than just one single path to international performance, but we were also able to identify clear dif- ferences in those paths between family and non-family firms. Family firms can achieve international performance with the presence of only one of the four investigated an- tecedents. One possible explanation of this result is that family firms are typically characterized by lower resource endowments compared with non-family firms. This forces family firms to rely on a limited set of resources and capa- bilities in driving performance. Investing in other anteced- ents would also minimize their ability to maintain authority and control over the business and therefore threaten their SEW. Furthermore, the expansion across national borders is a committing and demanding step that is associated with risk that may endanger the family firm’s SEW. Therefore, family firms often try to reduce risk by reducing complexi- ty via their reliance on antecedents that can be controlled internally. International market knowledge, education, and international business experience are all capabilities, which family firms can develop without external assistance. The focus on risk-minimizing antecedents combined with fam- ily firms’ lower resource endowments result in a reliance on one factor that appears most promising and – most im- portantly – safeguards SEW while preserving family control and ownership. This also aligns with the original Uppsala model (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977), which sees knowledge as being internally developed. 22 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 The extension of the Uppsala model (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009) argues that firms may access and generate internationalization knowledge through exchange and col- laboration with partners within their business networks. Family firms, however, only rely on such networks in the presence of two internal capabilities: international market knowledge and international business experience. Under the primacy of SEW, we suggest that internally developed capabilities may enable family firms to better judge the val- ue and risk of collaborations. This will then also safeguard SEW. These results add further evidence to the predictive ability of the original Uppsala model (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977) and to the extended Uppsala school of thought (Jo- hanson & Vahlne, 2009) for family firms. Family firms either rely only on internal capabilities as suggested by the origi- nal model or on networks and internal capabilities. The fact that family firms can achieve international per- formance by relying only on single antecedents is important with regards to another area of difference between family and non-family firms that we found in the identified causal configurations. By applying fsQCA, we were able to identi- fy conditions that must be present and conditions that are distinctly absent. Our comparison of family and non-family firms shows that each configuration for family firms con- tains both a present and an absent condition. In contrast, only one path exists with an absent condition for non-fam- ily firms. For example, path 4a indicates that international market knowledge is absent, which is in accordance with the results of previous research demonstrating that fami- ly firms typically have lower levels of international market knowledge (e.g., Banalieva & Eddleston, 2011; Gómez-Me- jía et al., 2010; Kuo et al., 2012). Similarly, our results show the absence of international business experience in fami- ly firms’ paths toward international performance. Overall, family firms are equipped with fewer specialized manage- ment skills than non-family firms (Graves & Thomas, 2008) and therefore typically have lower levels of international business experience compared with non-family firms (e.g., Banalieva & Eddleston, 2011; Kuo et al., 2012). In contrast, non-family firms do not exclusively rely on one condition but combine more than one antecedent to achieve international performance. Their comparatively better resource base and distinct capabilities enable them to rely on a combination of factors, thus only showing an absent condition (that of collaboration intensity) in one solution set (i.e., 4b). The paths for non-family firms seem more homogenous compared with the family firm paths. Each set contains two present conditions for achieving suf- ficient international performance. One explanation may be that non-family firms recruit their (top-)management based on the current required skills and under the ratio- nale that international business is an active part of the firms’ strategies; non-family firms tend to employ c-level managers that are experienced in international business and/or have international education or international mar- ket knowledge, whereas for family firms, being a family member is the primary determinant. This also confirms previous research emphasizing the importance of educa- tion (Cerrato & Piva, 2012; Fernandez-Ortiz & Lombardo, 2009; Kyvik et al., 2013), international business experience (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Gray & McNaughton, 2010; Madsen, 1988; Miesenböck, 1988; Nielsen & Nielsen, 2010; Rocha et al., 2012), and international market knowledge (Basly, 2007) in the internationalization process of a firm. Overall, when looking at the configurational sets for both family firms and non-family firms, it is evident that international market knowledge is the most important an- tecedent for international performance. It appears in two family firm sets (2a, 5a) and three non-family firm sets (1b, 2b, 3b). This confirms the original Uppsala model and importance of international market knowledge widely ac- knowledged in research. We add further evidence to this with our results. Limitations and Future Research This study presents an attempt to add a more nuanced understanding of differences in antecedents of internation- al performances between family firms and non-family firms. Addressing this, our research drew on the Uppsala model and the concept of SEW, and it utilized fsQCA as a method. Compared with the traditional case study approach, fsQ- CA is highly appropriate for the study of complex causal relationships able to identify holistic causal recipes with a much higher level of formalization and rigor (Fiss, 2011). However, fsQCA has limitations. It can identify various com- binations of conditions for a respective outcome, whereas multivariate analysis techniques predict a certain outcome by isolating single factors. Therefore, fsQCA findings may not be generalizable (Fiss, 2011). Furthermore, the num- ber of antecedents we tested was limited to only four, with obvious factors such as the firms level of entrepreneurial orientation (Campbell, Line, Runyan, & Swinney, 2010) risk propensity, international commitment, or risk perception (Game & Apfelthaler, 2016) having been omitted. An addi- tional limitation lies in the use of subjective measures for international performance only. Also, the relatively small size of companies in our sample may present an addition- al limitation; the larger companies are (both family and non-family businesses), the more they become alike. This, however, could also be a promising starting point for fu- ture research. As our study draws on the Uppsala school, we intentionally did not approach our research question from the more recent and somehow opposing perspective of international entrepreneurship (see the work of Acs & Yeung, 1999; Etemad & Wright, 1999; 2000; 2003; McDou- gall & Oviatt, 2000). Building on the groundwork of the Mc- Gill school (e.g., Etemad, 2004; Young et al., 2003; Wright & Dana, 2003; Dana, Etemad, & Wright, 1999) on the en- trepreneurial dimension of internationalization, future re- search may address family firm internationalization from this perspective. Finally, our research was limited to Ger- man-speaking countries in Europe only and therefore may not be generalizable to other institutional contexts. None- theless, our empirical research has uncovered important new insights and we hope that it will further encourage 23 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 research in other institutional and cultural contexts, as well as inquiries that will address the present limitations. References Acs, Z. J. & Yeung, B. (1999). Small and Medium Sized Firms in the Global Economy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Ahluwalia, S., Mahto, R. V., & Walsh, S. T. (2017). Innovation in small firms: Does family vs. non-family matter? Journal of Small Business Strategy, 27(3), 39-49. Armario, J. M., Ruiz, D. M., & Armario, E. M. (2008). Mar- ket orientation and internationalization in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 485-511. Arregle, J. L., Duran, P., Hitt, M. A., & Essen, M. (2017). Why is family firms' internationalization unique? A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac- tice, 41(5), 801-831. Arregle, J. L., Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., & Hitt, M. A. (2012). Internationalization of family-controlled firms: A study of the effects of external involvement in gover- nance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1115-1143. Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M., Sirmon, D., & Very, P. (2007). The de- velopment of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73-95. Banalieva, E. R., & Eddleston, K. A. (2011). Home-region focus and performance of family firms: The role of family vs. non-family leaders. Journal of Internation- al Business Studies, 42(8), 1060-1072. Basly, S. (2007). The internationalization of family SME: An organizational learning and knowledge development perspective. Baltic Journal of Management, 2(2), 154-180. Beamish, P., Craig, R., & McLellan, K. (1993). The perfor- mance characteristics of Canadian versus UK export- ers in small and medium-sized firms. Management of International Review, 33(2), 121-137. Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gómez-Mejía, L. R. (2012). Socio- emotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimen- sions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3), 258-279. Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gómez-Mejía, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-con- trolled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82-113. Bhaumik, S. K., Driffield, N., & Pal, S. (2010). Does owner- ship structure of emerging-market firms affect their outward FDI? The case of the Indian automotive and pharmaceutical sectors. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(2), 437-450. Blomstermo, A., Eriksson, K., Lindstrand, A., & Sharma, D. (2004). The perceived usefulness of network experi- ential knowledge in the internationalizing firm. Jour- nal of International Management, 10(3), 355-373. Bloodgood, J., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. (1996). The internationalization of new high-potential US ven- tures: Antecedents and outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(4), 61-76. Boellis, A., Mariotti, S., Minichilli, A., & Piscitello, L. (2016). Family involvement and firms’ establishment mode choice in foreign markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8), 929-950. Brigham, K. H., Lumpkin, G. T., Payne, G. T., & Zachary, M. A. (2014). Researching long-term orientation: A val- idation study and recommendations for future re- search. Family Business Review, 27(1), 72-88. Brouthers, K. D., & Brouthers, L. E. (2000). Acquisition or greenfield start-up? Institutional, cultural and trans- action cost influences. Strategic Management Jour- nal, 21(1), 89-97. Bubolz, M. M. (2001). Family as source, user, and builder of social capital. Journal of Behavioral and Experimen- tal Economics, 30(2), 129-131. Calabrò, A., & Mussolino, D. (2013). How do boards of di- rectors contribute to family SME export intensity? The role of formal and informal governance mecha- nisms. Journal of Management & Governance, 17(2), 363-403. Calof, J., & Beamish, P. (1995). Adapting to foreign markets: Explaining internationalization. International Busi- ness Review, 4 (2), 115-131. Campbell, J. M., Line, N., Runyan, R.C., & Swinney, J. L. (2010). The moderating effect of family-ownership on firm performance: An examination of entrepre- neurial orientation and social capital. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 21(2), 27-46. Canabal, A., & White, G. O. (2008). Entry mode research: past and future. International Business Review, 17(3), 267-284. Carney, M., Van Essen, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2015). What do we know about private family firms? A meta-analytical review. Entrepre- neurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 513-544. Casillas, J. C., & Acedo, F. J. (2005). Internationalisation of Spanish family SMEs: An analysis of family involve- ment. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 1(2), 134-151. Cavusgil, S. T., & Zou, S. (1994). Marketing strategy-perfor- mance relationships: An investigation of the empiri- cal link in export market ventures. Journal of Market- ing, 58(1), 1-21. Cerrato, D., & Piva, M. (2012). The internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises: The effect of family management, human capital and foreign ownership. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(4), 617-644. Cesinger, B., Hughes, M., Mensching, H., Bouncken, R., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2016). A socioemotional wealth perspective on how collaboration intensity, trust, and international market knowledge affect family firms' multinationality. Journal of World Busi- ness, 51(4), 586-599. 24 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 Chang, M. L., & Cheng, C. F. (2014). How balance theory ex- plains high-tech professionals' solutions of enhanc- ing job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 2008-2018. Chang, S. J., & Shim, J. (2015). When does transitioning from family to professional management improve firm performance? Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1297-1316. Chen, C. N., Tzeng, L. C., Ou, W. M., & Chang, K. T. (2007). The relationship among social capital, entrepreneur- ial orientation, organizational resources and entre- preneurial performance for new ventures. Contem- porary Management Research, 3(3), 213-232. Chetty, S., & Holm, D. B. (2000). Internationalization of small to medium sized manufacturing firms: A net- work approach. International Business Review, 9(1), 77-93. Child, J., Ng, S. H., & Wong, C. (2002). Psychic distance and internationalization: Evidence from Hong Kong firms. International Studies of Management & Orga- nization, 32(1), 36-56. Chirico, F., & Salvato, C. (2008). Knowledge integration and dynamic organizational adaptation in family firms. Family Business Review, 21(2), 169-181. Chrisman, J. J., & Holt, D. T. (2016). Beyond socioemotion- al wealth: Taking another step toward a theory of the family firm. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 14(3), 279-287. Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19-39. Claver, E., Rienda, L., & Quer, D. (2007). The internation- alisation process in family firms: Choice of market entry strategies. Journal of General Management, 33(1), 1-16. Claver, E., Rienda, L., & Quer, D. (2009). Family firm´s inter- national commitment: The influence of family relat- ed factors. Family Business Review, 22(2), 125-135. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of hu- man capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95- 120. Cooper, R. G., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. C. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Ven- turing, 9(5), 371-395. Covin, J. G., Eggers, F., Kraus, S., Cheng, C. F., & Chang, M. L. (2016). Marketing-related resources and radical innovativeness in family and non-family firms: A con- figurational approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5620-5627. Crick, D., Bradshaw, R., & Chaudhry, S. (2006). Successful internationalising UK family and non-family-owned firms: A comparative study. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(4), 498-512. Dana, L. P., Etemad, H., & Wright, R. W. (1999). Theoreti- cal foundations of international entrepreneurship. In R. W. Wright (Ed.), Research in Global Strategic Management, Vol. 7 (pp. 3-22). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Davis, P. S., & Harveston, P. D. (2000). Internationalisation and organisational growth: The impact of internet usage and technology involvement among entrepre- neur-led family businesses. Family Business Review, 13(2), 107-120. De Massis, A., Kotlar, J., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2014). Ability and willingness as sufficience conditions for family-oriented particularistic behavior: Implications for theory and empirical studies. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 1-42. Debicki, B. J., Van de Graaff Randolph, R., & Sobczak, M. (2017). Socioemotional wealth and family firm per- formance: A stakeholder approach. Journal of Man- agerial Issues, 29(1), 82-111. Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organi- zational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Review, 5(3), 265-273. DeTienne, D. R., & Chirico, F. (2013). Exit strategies in family firms: How socioemotional wealth drives the thresh- old of performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1297-1318. Donckels, R., & Fröhlich, E. (1991). Are family businesses really different? European experiences from STRA- TOS. Family Business Review, 4(2), 149-160. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Coop- erative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660- 679. Eddleston, K. A., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Chua, J. H. (2010). Governance and trust in family firms: An in- troduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 1043-1056. Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgård, A., & Sharma, D. D. (1997). Experiential knowledge and cost in the in- ternationalization process. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 337-360. Etemad, H. (2004). International entrepreneurship as a dy- namic adaptive system: Towards a grounded theo- ry. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 2(1-2), 5-59. Etemad, H., & Wright, R. W. (1999). From the Guest Editors. Journal of International Marketing, 7(4), 4-10. Etemad, H., & Wright, R. W. (2000). From the Guest Editors. Journal of International Marketing, 8(2), 4-7. Etemad, H., & Wright, R. W. (2003). From the Guest Editors. Small Business Economics, 20(1), 1-4. Etemad, H., Wright, R. W., & Dana, L. P. (2001). Symbiotic international business networks: Collaboration be- tween small and large firms. Thunderbird Interna- tional Business Review, 43(4), 481-500. Felicio, J. A., Rodrigues, R., & Samagaio, A. (2016). Corpo- rate governance and the performance of commercial banks: A fuzzy-set QCA approach. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 26(1), 87-101. 25 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 Fernandez-Ortiz, R., & Lombardo, G. F. (2009). Influence of the capacities of top management on the interna- tionalization of SMEs. Entrepreneurship and Region- al Development, 21(2), 131-154. Fernandez, Z., & Nieto, M. J. (2005). Internationalization strategy of small and medium-sized family business- es. Family Business Review, 18(1), 77-89. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420. Fletcher, M., & Harris, S. (2012). Knowledge acquisition for the internationalization of the smaller firm: Content and sources. International Business Review, 21(4), 631-647. Gallo, M. A., & Pont, C. G. (1996). Important factors in fam- ily business internationalisation. Family Business Re- view, 9(1), 45-60. Game, R., & Apfelthaler, G. (2016). Attitude and its role in SME internationalisation: Why do firms commit to advanced foreign market entry modes? European Journal of International Management, 10(2), 221- 248. Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). The adolescence of family firm research taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1010-1037. George, G., Wiklund, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2005). Ownership and the internationalization of small firms. Journal of Management, 31(2), 210-233. Glaister, K. W., & Buckley, P. J. (1998). Measures of perfor- mance in UK international alliances. Organization Studies, 19(1), 89-118. Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Makri, M., & Kintana, M. L. (2010). Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 223-252. Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacob- son, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemo- tional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106-137. Gonzalez, A. C., Rodriguez, Y. E., & Sossa, A. (2017). Lead- ership and governance decisions in family business performance: An application of fuzzy sets logic. Jour- nal of Small Business Strategy, 27(1), 51-66. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social struc- ture: The problem of embeddedness. American Jour- nal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510. Grant, A., Jammine, P., & Thomas, H. (1988). Diversity, di- versification, and profitability among British manu- facturing companies, 1972-1984. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 131(4), 771-801. Graves, C., & Shan, Y. C. (2014). An empirical analysis of the effect of internationalization on the performance of unlisted family and nonfamily firms in Australia. Family Business Review, 27(2), 142-160. Graves, C., & Thomas, J. (2008). Determinants of the inter- nationalization pathways of family firms: An exam- ination of family influence. Family Business Review, 21(2), 151-167. Graves, C., & Thomas, J. (2006). Internationalization of Aus- tralian family businesses: A managerial capabilities perspective. Family Business Review, 19(3), 207-224. Graves, C., & Thomas, J. (2004). Internationalization of the family business: A longitudinal perspective. Interna- tional Journal of Globalization and Small Business, 1(1), 7-27. Gray, B. J., & McNaughton, R. (2010). Knowledge, values and internationalisation: Introduction to the special edition. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 115-120. Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V. F., Elms. H., & Lacey, R. (2008). Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combi- nations of industry, corporate, and business-unit ef- fects. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 695- 726. Hoy, F., & Verser, T. G. (1994). Emerging business, emerging field: Entrepreneurship and the family firm. Entre- preneurship Theory and Practice, 19(1), 9-23. Janjuha-Jivraj, S., Martin, L., & Danko, A. (2012). Interna- tionalization of a ‘born-again global’: How a fam- ily-led crisis enabled the realization of internation- alization opportunities. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 201-215. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (2009). The Uppsala interna- tionalization process model revisted: From liability of foreigness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411-1431. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm - A model of knowledge develop- ment and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(1), 23- 32. Katsikeas, C. (1996). Ongoing export motivation: Differenc- es between regular and sporadic exporters. Interna- tional Marketing Review, 13(2), 4-19. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational cor- poration. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625-645. Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2012). Social capital in the inter- national operations of family SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(1), 39-55. Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2011a). Network ties in the in- ternational opportunity recognition of family SMEs. International Business Review, 20(4), 440-453. Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2011b). Social capital in relation to the foreign market entry and post-entry operations of family SMEs. Journal of International Entrepre- neurship, 9(2), 133-151. Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2010). The internationalization of family businesses: A review of extant research. Jour- nal of Family Business Strategy, 1(2), 97-107. Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. (2003). Gaining from vertical partnerships: Knowledge transfer, relation- ship duration, and supplier performance improve- 26 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 ment in the U.S. and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4), 293-316. Kraus, S., Fink, M., & Harms, R. (2011). Family firm research: Sketching a research field. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation Management, 13(1), 32-47. Kraus, S., Mensching, H., Calabrò, A., Cheng, C. F., & Filser, M. (2016). Family firm internationalization: A con- figurational approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5473-5478. Kuo, A., Kao, M. S., Chang, Y. C., & Chiu, C. F. (2012). The influence of international experience on entry mode choice: Difference between family and non-family firms. European Management Journal, 30(3), 248- 263. Kyvik, O., Saris, W., Bonet, E., & Felício, J. A. (2013). The internationalization of small firms: The relationship between the global mindset and firms’ internation- alization behavior. Journal of International Entrepre- neurship, 11(2), 172-195. Lechner, C., Dowling, M., & Welpe, I. (2006). Firm networks and firm development: The role of the relational mix. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 487-514. Leonidou, L. C., Katsikeas, C. S., & Piercy, N. F. (1998). Iden- tifying managerial influences on exporting: Past re- search and future directions. Journal of International Marketing, 6(2), 74-102. Lin, W. T. (2012). Family ownership and internationalization processes: Internationalization pace, international- ization scope, and internationalization rhythm. Euro- pean Management Journal, 30(1), 47-56. Lin, X., & Germain, R. (1998). Sustaining satisfactory joint venture relationships: The role of conflict resolution strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1), 79-198. Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2006). Partnering strategies and performance of SMEs international joint ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 285-307. Madsen, T. (1988). Successful export marketing manage- ment: Some empirical evidence. International Mar- keting Review, 6(4), 41-57. Marx, A., Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. (2013). The origins, devel- opment, and application of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): The first 25 years. European Political Science Review, 6(1), 115-142. McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International entre- preneurship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 902-906. Miesenböck, K. J. (1988). Small businesses and exporting: A literature review. International Small Business Jour- nal, 6(2), 42-61. Misangyi, V. F., & Acharya, A. G. (2014). Substitutes or com- plements? A configurational examination of corpo- rate governance mechanisms. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 57(6), 1681-1705. Mitter, C., Duller, C., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., & Kraus, S. (2014). Internationalization of family firms: The ef- fect of ownership and governance. Review of Mana- gerial Science, 8(1), 1-28. Muñoz-Bullón, F., & Sánchez-Bueno, M. J. (2012). Do family ties shape the performance consequences of diversi- fication? Evidence from the European Union. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 469-477. Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Datta, D. K. (2010). The influ- ence of international networks on internationaliza- tion speed and performance: A study of Czech SMEs. Journal of World Business, 45(3), 197-205. Nielsen, B., & Nielsen, S. (2010). The role of top manage- ment team international orientation in international strategic decision-making: The choice of foreign en- try mode. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 185-193. O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Rutherford, M. W. (2012). Exploring the relation between family involvement and firms’ financial performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Ven- turing, 27(1), 1-18. Paulraj, A. (2011). Understanding the relationships between internal resources and capabilities, sustainable sup- ply management, and organizational sustainability. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1), 19-37. Puig, N., & Pérez, P. F. (2009). A silent revolution: The in- ternationalisation of large Spanish family firms. Busi- ness History, 51(3), 462-483. Pukall, T. J., & Calabrò, A. (2014). The internationalization of family firms: A critical review and integrative mod- el. Family Business Review, 27(2), 103-125. Ragin, C. C. (2008a). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ragin, C. C. (2008b). User's guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis. Tucson, AZ: Department of So- ciology, University of Arizona. Ratten, V., Dana, L. P., Han, M., & Welpe, I. (2007). Interna- tionalisation of SMEs: European comparative stud- ies. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 4(3), 361-379. Rigtering, C., Kraus, S., Eggers, F., & Jensen, S. H. (2014). A comparative analysis of the entrepreneurial orienta- tion/growth relationship in service firms and man- ufacturing firms. Service Industries Journal, 34(4), 275-294. Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2009). Configurational compar- ative methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rocha, A., Cotta de Mello, R., Pacheco, H., & Farias, I. (2102). The international commitment of late-international- izing Brazilian entrepreneurial firms. International Marketing Review, 29(3), 228-252. Roida, H. Y., & Sunarjanto, N. A. (2012). Family ownership type and the international involvement of SMEs: Em- pirical study of agency theory in East Java Indonesia. Chinese Business Review, 11(2), 224-232. Schulze, W. S., & Gedajlovic, E. R. (2010). Whither family business. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 191-204. Schweizer, R. (2013). SMEs and networks: Overcoming the 27 P. Stieg, B. Cesinger, G. Apfelthaler, S. Kraus, & C. F. Cheng Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 14-27 liability of outsidership. Journal of International En- trepreneurship, 11(1), 80-103. Sciascia, S., Mazzola, P., Astrachan, J., & Pieper, T. (2012). The role of family ownership in international entre- preneurship: Exploring nonlinear effects. Small Busi- ness Economics, 38(1), 15-31. Sommer, L. (2012). Measurement of international experi- ence as a dimension of board indices: Concept for an improvement. International Journal of Business Administration, 3(4), 2-19. Sommer, L. (2010). Internationalization process of small and medium size enterprises – a matter of attitude? Journal of Entrepreneurial Management, 8, 288-317. Sonfield, M., & Lussier, R. N. (2016). The influence of the entrepreneur’s education level on strategic decision making. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 24(1), 19-28. Sousa, C. M. (2004). Export performance measurement: An evaluation of the empirical research in the literature. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 8(9), 1-22. Sundaramurthy, C. & Dean, M.A. (2008). Family business openness to external influence and international sales: An empirical examination. Multinational Busi- ness Review, 16(2), 89-106. Swinth R. L., & Vinton K. L. (1993). Do family-owned busi- nesses have a strategic advantage in international joint ventures? Family Business Review, 6(1), 19-30. Thomas, J., & Graves, C. (2005). Internationalising the fam- ily firm as a demonstration of an entrepreneurial culture. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneur- ship, 17(2), 91-113. Tsao, S. M., Lien, W. H. (2013). Family management and in- ternationalization: The impact on firm performance and innovation. Management International Review, 53(2), 189-213. Vandekerkhof, P., Steijvers, T., Hendriks, W., & Voordeckers, W. (2015). The effect of organizational characteris- tics on the appointment of nonfamily managers in private family firms: The moderating role of socio- emotional wealth. Family Business Review, 28(2), 104-122. Vis, B. (2012). The comparative advantages of fsQCA and regression analysis for moderately large-N analyses. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(1), 168-198. Wagner, D., Block J. H., Miller, D., Schwens, C., & Xi, G. (2015). A meta-analysis of the financial performance of family firms: Another attempt. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(1), 3-13. Wright, R. W., & Dana, L. P. (2003). Changing paradigms of international entrepreneurship strategy. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 135-152. Xi, J. M., Kraus, S., Kellermanns, F., & Filser, M. (2015). Mapping the field of family business research: Past trends and future directions. International Entrepre- neurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 113-132. Young, S., Dimitratos, P., & Dana, L. P. (2003). International entrepreneurship research: What scope for interna- tional business theories? Journal of International En- trepreneurship, 1(1), 31-42. Zahra, S. A., (2005). Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms. Family Business Review, 18(1), 23-40. Zahra, S. A., (2003). International expansion of U.S. man- ufacturing family businesses: The effect of owner- ship and involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 495-512. Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Larrañeta, B. (2007). Knowl- edge sharing and technological capabilities: The moderating role of family involvement. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1070-1079. Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valua- tion by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organization Science, 23(3), 851-868. Zhou, L. (2007). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and foreign market knowledge on early internation- alization. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 281-293. Zhu, H., Hitt, M. A., & Tihanyi, L. (2006). The international- ization of SMEs in emerging economies: Internation- al embeddedness and absorptive capacity. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 17(2), 1-26. Zou, S., & Stan, S. (1998). The determinants of export per- formance: A review of empirical literature between 1987 and 1997. International Marketing Review, 15(5), 333-356.