The advantage of Spanish multinational enterprises in Latin America

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) from Spain made large foreign direct investments (FDIs) in Latin America between 1990 and 2002, making Spain the second largest direct investor in this region since 1998, behind the United States. This dissertation explains the reasons that led Spanish firms to make these FDIs, as well as their operations in Latin America. Seven Spanish MNEs were included in this study, BBVA and SCH (banking), Telefónica (telecommunications), Endesa, Iberdrola and Unión Fenosa (public utilities), and Repsol-YPF (oil and natural gas). Quantitative and qualitative data were used. Data were collected from the firms' annual reports, from their archives and from personal interviews with senior executives, as well as from academic and specialized publications. ^ Results indicate that the large Spanish FDIs in Latin America were highly concentrated in a few firms from five sectors. The FDIs of these firms alone accounted for 70 percent of total Spanish FDI in Latin America in this period. The reasons for these investments were firm-specific and sector specific. A series of institutional conditions existed in Spain between the 1970s and the 1990s that allowed the employees of the firms to develop the knowledge and devise strategies to adjust to that set of conditions. First, the policies of the Spanish state favored the creation of large firms in these sectors, operating under conditions of monopoly sometimes. Secondly, the consumers put pressure on the firms to provide better and cheaper products as the Spanish economy grew and modernized. Thirdly, the employees of the firms had to adjust their services and products to the demands of the consumers and to the constraints of the state and the market. They adjusted the internal organization of the firm to be able to produce the goods and services that the market demanded. Externally, they also adopted patterns of interaction with outside agents and institutions. This patterned behavior was the “corporate culture” of each firm and the “normative framework” in which their employees operated. When the managers of the firms perceived that there were similar conditions in Latin America, they decided to operate there as well by making FDIs. ^

Social-cognitive antecedents of ambidextrous orientation in family-owned startups: The role of family ties, achievement motivation, and internal locus of control

Regulatory Focus Theory predicts that the motivation to self-regulate goal-directed thought and behavior depends on two distinct regulation strategies: a promotion focus based on attaining gains and a prevention focus based on avoiding losses. This study took a social-cognitive approach predicting that regulatory focus has an impact on how family startups (several family related founders) explore "new ideas", exploit "old certainties" and achieve the balance of both (ambidexterity), compared to lone founder startups (only one founder present). It was proposed that the social context of family ties among founders leads them to a prevention focus concerned with avoiding the loss of the socio-emotional benefits of those ties. In order to avoid such a loss, family founders were expected to increase their risk perceptions and thus, explore less than lone founders, who lack such socio-emotional ties. It was also proposed that two commonly used psychological traits in entrepreneurship research —achievement motivation and internal locus of control, predispose entrepreneurs to a promotion focus. Founders with a promotion focus, in turn, were hypothesized to lead startups to more risk-seeking behaviors and to more explorative orientation. The previous argument was used as a springboard to derive hypotheses about ambidexterity (the ability to exploit and explore simultaneously) and survival hazards. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, exploitative orientation, conceptualized as the motivational strength to continue on previous paths of action, was hypothesized to be not significantly different from that of lone founder startups. Taking previous arguments together, lone founder startups were hypothesized to be more ambidextrous than family startups. Finally, ambidexterity and internal locus of control were hypothesized to reduce survival hazards in family startups. The findings suggested that family startups explore less than lone founder startups even after controlling for group effects. Interesting but contradictory findings revealed that internal locus of control have both a positive direct effect and a positive interaction that increases the explorative and ambidextrous orientation gap of family startups over lone founder startups. As expected, ambidexterity and internal locus of control reduced survival hazards on family startups. Implications for practitioners were derived based on a sample of 470 nascent entrepreneurs.

Social-cognitive Antecedents of Ambidextrous Orientation in Family-owned Startups: The Role of Family Ties, Achievement Motivation, and Internal Locus of Control

Regulatory Focus Theory predicts that the motivation to self-regulate goal-directed thought and behavior depends on two distinct regulation strategies: a promotion focus based on attaining gains and a prevention focus based on avoiding losses. This study took a social-cognitive approach predicting that regulatory focus has an impact on how family startups (several family related founders) explore “new ideas”, exploit “old certainties” and achieve the balance of both (ambidexterity), compared to lone founder startups (only one founder present). It was proposed that the social context of family ties among founders leads them to a prevention focus concerned with avoiding the loss of the socio-emotional benefits of those ties. In order to avoid such a loss, family founders were expected to increase their risk perceptions and thus, explore less than lone founders, who lack such socio-emotional ties. It was also proposed that two commonly used psychological traits in entrepreneurship research --achievement motivation and internal locus of control, predispose entrepreneurs to a promotion focus. Founders with a promotion focus, in turn, were hypothesized to lead startups to more risk-seeking behaviors and to more explorative orientation. The previous argument was used as a springboard to derive hypotheses about ambidexterity (the ability to exploit and explore simultaneously) and survival hazards. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, exploitative orientation, conceptualized as the motivational strength to continue on previous paths of action, was hypothesized to be not significantly different from that of lone founder startups. Taking previous arguments together, lone founder startups were hypothesized to be more ambidextrous than family startups. Finally, ambidexterity and internal locus of control were hypothesized to reduce survival hazards in family startups. The findings suggested that family startups explore less than lone founder startups even after controlling for group effects. Interesting but contradictory findings revealed that internal locus of control have both a positive direct effect and a positive interaction that increases the explorative and ambidextrous orientation gap of family startups over lone founder startups. As expected, ambidexterity and internal locus of control reduced survival hazards on family startups. Implications for practitioners were derived based on a sample of 470 nascent entrepreneurs.