International Management 1
Running Head: INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Globalization Strategy Process Model
Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, MO
Mail Stop 5875, Harrison College of Business
Department of Management and Marketing
Southeast Missouri State University
One University Plaza, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
Office Phone: 573-651-2902
Home Phone: 573-332-7838
International Management 2
This study presents the Globalization Strategy Process Model to: 1) explore the impact of host
and home country environmental factors and company specific determinants on foreign market
entry mode (strategy) choice; 2) explain the effect of foreign market entry strategies on
performance mediated by strategy implementation. The paper argues that foreign market entry
strategy choice is a function of foreign market entry strategy determinants: host country and
home country political and macroeconomic stability, market size, resource potential, market
reforms, foreign trade and economic relations, interstate relations, industry characteristics,
company resources, capabilities, core competencies, business and corporate level strategies, and
organizational culture. The study also stresses that corporate performance is a function of foreign
market entry mode (strategy) mediated by strategy implementation: systems, processes,
procedures, organizational structures, governance, and leadership in foreign subsidiaries.
Differently from previous research, the study suggests a holistic model of foreign business
expansion and operation. Empirical testing the entire model or its parts will be useful for
businesses and host countries, as well as international financial organizations.
International Management 3
The main concern of multinational corporations or newly internationally expanding companies is
identifying and analyzing major determinants of successful market entries, effective operations,
and high performance in other countries. The main concern of host countries is to develop trade
and economic relations, attract foreign direct investments, create new jobs, and increase living
standards of the population. International economic institutions like the World Bank, IMF, and
others are concerned about analysis of the level of poverty and economic development of host
countries to finance joint projects of multinational corporations and local private firms.
To possess such information, businesses, countries, and international organizations must
conduct research using some economic models which help make valid decisions to achieve their
superior objectives. This study is to integrate previous research and develop a comprehensive
model of strategy process in global business. This paper draws on Andrew’s (1971) strategy
process theory (SPT).
Also the Stage Models of Internationalization, specifically the Product Life Cycle Model
(Vernon, 1966) and Internationalization Process Model (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977) as well as
Decision Models of Foreign Market Entry (Root, 1994, Madhok, 1997) were the basis for the
model development in this study.
Globalization strategy process as a research term has not been used and interpreted yet.
Leif Melin (1992) suggested internationalization as a strategy process based on Whelch and
Luostarinen’s (1988) definition of internationalization: “Internationalization – the process of
increasing involvement in international operations across borders.” Literature usually uses the
terms such as foreign market entry strategies (Root, 1994; Buckley & Casson, 1998; Shama,
2000), foreign market entry modes (Davis, Desai & Fransis, 2000; Chang & Rosenzweig, 2001;
International Management 4
Agarwal & Ramaswampi, 1992; Sharma, 1998; Kim & Hwang, 1992), foreign market entry
decision models (Parks, 1996), and so forth. In this research the foreign market entry strategy
process hypothesis is defined as interdependent and dynamic process of strategy formulation,
strategy choice, strategy implementation, performance assessment, and feedback loops.
This study is suggesting a new model which integrates all the previously existed models.
Why the new model? The world is getting complex and globalization dictates to make more
comprehensive decisions. The existing models do not help that much to capture relationships of
the essential factors that have significant impact on decisions on foreign market entries and
operations abroad. The new model is a multiphase and dynamic model of foreign market entry
and foreign operations strategies. It can be names as Globalization Strategy Process Model (GSP
Model). What is the importance of the model? First, it is applicable both types of companies,
newly internationalizing or already internationalized corporations to test numerous relationships
of interest. Second, the model is helpful for host countries, as well as, international economic
organizations. Host countries empirically testing parts of the model may be able to identify the
most important factors that have significant impact on trade and investment climate in their
locations. Third, the international economic organizations may be able to do country analysis and
make appropriate decisions on providing economic support or loans. Finally, the model can
stimulate further research in this area.
Analysis of the Existing Models
The Design Model of Strategy
These models’ main purpose is to explain relationships among company external environmental
factors, company internal factors, and its strategies in terms of formulation and implementation.
International Management 5
Kenneth R. Andrews first introduced such a model in 1971 in his book “The Concept of
Corporate Strategy”. The name of the model was introduced by Mintzberg (1990). The model
involves two stage actions that take top executives of companies in order to achieve their
strategic goals. The first stage is formulation and the second implementation. This model is a
very generic, at the same time genius. The first formulation (deciding what to do) stage involves:
a) identification of opportunity and risk; b) determining a company’s resources; c) personal
values and aspirations; and d) acknowledgements of noneconomic responsibility to society. The
resulting point of the first stage is a corporate strategy. The implementation stage (achieving
results) emphasizes: a) organization structure and relationships; b) organizational processes and
behavior, and c) top leadership. Specific aspects of this model were tested in terms of
relationships of a company’s resources or opportunities and strategy choice (low cost leadership
or differentiation, growth, or diversification (Porter, 1980). But no one research indicated that it
was testing Andrew’s model.
The main deficiency of the Design Model is that Andrews did not depict the model as a
dynamic process model. First, a company must formulate its strategy and then implement it
matching the company’s resource capabilities with its environmental opportunities. The model
can be easily turned into a dynamic model by adding a performance appraisal stage and feedback
loops at every stage. Also the following statement is very important. Based on the constant
feedback about performance and information about environmental conditions, strategy
formulation and implementation can be turned into a continuous process of modification of
strategy and adaptation to the changed environment not only for machine bureaucratic type of
organizations (Mintzberg, 1990) but also for any organizations regardless of size.
International Management 6
Theoretical and empirical studies in this area mainly are based on the stage models of
internationalization and foreign market entry decision models. The stage models include the
Product Life Cycle Model and Internationalization Process Model. Melin (1992) analyzed well
the stage models of internationalization.
The Product Life Cycle Model developed by Vernon (1966) is an attempt to bridge a
country-based perspective of international trade theory with an individual firm’s perspectives of
international investment theory. Its main contribution is developmental view on relocalization of
production activities (Melin, 1992, p. 102-103). A general conclusion is that increasing product
maturity makes it possible to expand business overseas.
The second stage model of importance is the Internationalization Process Model
(Johanson & Vahlne, 1977). This process, whereby a firm gradually increases its international
involvement, is described as being sequential from the initial export activities to the setting up of
foreign production units. Each firm goes through a number of logical steps of international
behavior, based on its gradual acquisition, integration and use of knowledge about foreign
markets and operations and its successively increasing commitment to foreign markets (Melin,
1992, p. 103).
The Product Life Cycle Model’s descriptive value is weak for products with short life
cycles, a circumstance which applies to more and more products (McKiernan, 1992). The
applicability of this model is also limited if new products are developed in companies that
already have considerable operations in foreign countries. New products are not necessarily
developed only in the home country but anywhere else. In this case the concept about product
International Management 7
life cycle starting at home with introduction of a new product and ending abroad due to decline
of demand in the home country will be groundless.
The Internationalization Process Model has very serious limitations. It is too
deterministic: its significance is limited to the early stages of internationalization (Melin, 1992,
p. 104). The model is applicable to newly internationalizing their businesses companies. It does
not say anything about multinational companies’ internationalization strategies. Additionally,
this model pays no attention to environmental determinants of foreign market entry mode
(strategy) choice. The decision models of foreign market entry fix these limitations of the
The Eclectic Paradigm
The eclectic paradigm represents foreign operations perspective rather than foreign market entry
perspective. The object of study is companies with foreign operations. The eclectic paradigm
(Dunning, 1980, 1988) argues that there are three distinct sets of advantages for firms with
foreign operations. These are ownership-specific advantages, internalization advantages
(Buckley, 1988; Ragman, 1980), and localization advantages (Melin, 1992). The eclectic
paradigm is based on economic theory and has transaction costs and factor costs as its main
explanatory variables together with the assumption of rational decision-making in international
firms that make foreign direct investments.
Foreign Market Entry Decision Models
Most recent research done on foreign market entry decisions attempted to analyze determinants
of successful entries into different markets around the World. The choice of appropriate entry
International Management 8
modes to a right country and at a right time with right entry mode is the main concern of research
and corporations. Environmental factors in host and home countries, target country market
factors, target country production factors, company product factors, and company
resource/commitment factors (Root, 1994; Chang, 1995) are the most important variables in
research. Various views effecting entry decisions have been developed: transaction costs theory
(Anderson & Gatignon, 1986), eclectic theory (Agarwal & Ramaswampy, 1991; Kim, Hwang, &
Burger, 1989; Kim & Hwang, 1992) entry mode choice, entry timing, firm size (Caves & Mehra,
1986), multinational experience (Erramilly & Rao, 1993; Kogut & Singh, 1988), and the ability
to differentiate products.
Hitt and Tyler (1991) have emphasized that decision process involves relationships
among three factors: strategic choice/executive characteristics (Child, 1972); external
control/industry characteristics (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969); and rational normative
model/objective criteria (Andrews, 1971; Ansoff, 1965; Hofer and Schendel, 1978). Hitt and
Tyler (1991) say that current research supports the necessity of integrating elements of the
rational normative, external, and strategic choice perspectives in models of the strategic decision
process. They empirically tested these models. Strong support found the rational analytical
normative choice perspective with objective criteria explaining the greatest amount of total
explained variance (almost 82 percent) in evaluation of target firms. The decision-making
perspective has some pitfalls. It is constrained by examining only making decisions and does not
consider decision-performance relationships.
Root (1994) introduced foreign market entry decision model that considers decision-
making as a function of external and internal company factors. To make a decision on foreign
market entry one must: (1) assess products and foreign markets; (2) choose the target
International Management 9
product/market; (3) set objectives and goals; (4) choose the entry mode: export, contractual
arrangements, or investment; (5) design the marketing plan: price, promotion, distribution, etc.;
(6) conduct entry operations (a moderator variable); and (7) conduct target market activities.
Control system (monitoring operations/revising entry strategy) influences the first four elements
and gets feedback from the ‘target market’ element (Root, 1994). Besides the decision phase, it
includes entry operations and the target market activities, structural arrangements and control
systems to fit strategy. Root’s model is the most attractive because it includes all the stages of
formulating foreign market entry strategies and implementation. This model has not been tested
empirically. In this study the Root’s model serves as the basis for new empirically testable model
Buckley and Casson (1998) presented a new fully integrated analysis of foreign market
entry decision, encompassing the choice between exporting, licensing, joint
venturing, and wholly owned foreign investment. The model extends the insights of
internalization (foreign direct investments) theory, and draws on concepts from the economics of
industrial organization (Buckley & Casson, 1998). This study introduced twelve strategies in
various combinations. The model has such variables as production, research and development,
marketing and distribution activities in the home country and host country and joint production
and distribution activities of a joint venture. All these variables are determinants of demand.
Relationships between the determinants and demand are mediated by the twelve foreign market
The model as said is very flexible, in the sense that it is easy to modify the assumptions
to address other issues (Buckley & Casson, 1998). It can be used in competitor analysis
including two host country rivals, or two entrants vying with each other to enter the same market.
International Management 10
The model is more dynamic and allows entrants to determine the timing of entry. However, it is
difficult to know the exact determinants of market entry modes from this model. Other
considerations are order of entry and strategic and financial performance issues that can be
achieved employing one or another entry mode. The model is theoretical and has not yet been
Davis, Desai, and Francis (2000) introduced an isomorphic perspective of mode of
international entry. As it has been pointed out above the previous research on foreign market
entry-mode choice draws extensively either from transaction-cost economics (Anderson &
Gatingnon, 1986; Erramilli & Rao, 1993), or resource-based view, or eclectic theory (Agraval &
Ramaswampy, 1991; Kim, Hwang, & Burgers, 1989; Kim & Hwang, 1992). The isomorphic
perspective (Davis, Desai, & Francis, 2000) links the determination of entry modes to an
institutional theory framework. They stress that two sources of isomorphic pressures affect a
strategic business unit’s (SBU) entry mode choice: (1) host country institutional environment,
and (2) internal institutional environment (the parent organization). This research relates the
entry mode choice to institutional environment only.
Shama (2000) tested determinants of entry strategies of U.S. companies into Eastern
Europe, as well as factors that determine satisfaction of these companies with their economic
performance in this area. He empirically tested the introduced model which postulated that entry
mode depends on the variables of business activity, year of entry, level of competition, and
market potential. The second part of the model hypothesized that satisfaction with economic
performance in these markets is dependent on the variables of business activity, entry mode,
business outlook, level of competition, market potential, and number of competitors.
International Management 11
Using a very large sample size (1,189 firms) Taylor, Zou, and Osland (2000) examined
determinants of entry modes of Japanese firms into foreign countries. In their study a survey of
Japanese MNCs was conducted to assess the factors that are the most influential in the foreign
market entry decisions of Japanese MNCs. Using bargaining power theory eight factors were
identified in the study. The findings indicate that five of the eight factors (stake of the host
country, need for local contribution, riskiness of the host country, resource commitment, and
host government restrictions) are significant predictors of Japanese MNCs entry mode choice.
Sharma (1998) developed and empirically tested hypotheses delineating how a set of
industry- and firm-level factors are differently associated with post-entry performance of de novo
and acquisitive entrants. The independent variables were structural entry barriers such as sunk
costs or irrecoverable investments. The dependent variables were survival and sales growth.
Chang and Rosenzweig (2001) found that several independent variables, which explain a
firm’s initial mode of entry, do not explain the modes of subsequent entries. These findings
underscore the importance of experience in foreign investment, as companies learn from early
entries and adapt the modes of subsequent ones.
Pan and Tse (2000) proposed and tested a hierarchical model of market entry modes.
According to them entry modes can first be viewed as equity-based versus non-equity-based.
Within equity-based modes, the choice is between wholly owned operations and equity joint
ventures, while within non-equity-based modes, the choice between contractual agreements and
export. The empirical test demonstrated that there are factors that exert substantial influences at
the equity versus non-equity level, but rather weak influences at the lower level of choice
International Management 12
The foreign market entry decision models are available in different variations and have a
more complete form in Root’s (1994) book “Entry Strategies for International Markets.”
Decision models differ from each other relative to the involvement of factors that determine
foreign market entry modes and research methodology. There are at least four approaches to
such models. First, transaction cost (Anderson & Gatington, 1986), second, competitive strategy
- environmental variables, industry characteristics, global strategy (Kotha & Nair, 1994;
McGahan & Porter, 1999), third, organizational capability - firm resources ( Root, 1994), and
fourth, the eclectic paradigm (Madhok, 1997; Pan & Tse, 2000; Kim & Hwang, 1992;
Schoenecker & Cooper, 1998; Dunning, 1988). The transaction cost approach is limited with
analysis of costs of entry and does not provide enough information for decision makers because
of uncertainty of all other factors (Madhok, 1997). The same is true for only analysis of firm
resources, capabilities, and distinctive competencies. The eclectic approach (Dunning, 1988)
involves more of (but not all the) factors influencing foreign market operations and performance
– transaction costs and factor costs with the assumption of rational decision making.
Due to limitations of information for individual researchers most studies are focused on
specific aspects of globalization strategies: transaction cost economics, determinants of entry
mode choice decision; effectiveness of joint venturing; foreign operations and performance;
entry timing; order of entry; green field entry strategies; acquisition strategies, strategic alliances,
doing business in emerging markets; and so forth. Companies do more extended research
involving numerous factors effecting their decisions. The scope of research depends on company
capabilities and resources. The full and reliable research can be conducted when a complex
integrated globalization strategy process model is being tested. Such an integrated model
involves multi phase company actions and relationships among numerous constructs (variables).
International Management 13
This model has an integrated dependent variable as foreign subsidiary performance, particularly
profitability (competitive advantage over rivals).
The Globalization Strategy Process Model
Globalization strategy process model (Figure 1) is important to link many stages of decision and
implementation process with performance of a multinational corporation. In the first phase a
company determines its mission and vision, as well as objectives for its foreign business. In the
second phase external home and host country environment, as well as the company’s internal
capabilities are examined. In the third phase entry strategy alternatives are developed and the
best alternative is chosen. In the forth phase foreign market entry is implemented. In the fifth
phase the company’s business, corporate, and other strategies are implemented on place. In the
sixth phase performance is appraised and in the seventh phase feedback is communicated to each
of the previous phase of strategy formulation and implementation. The power of the model is that
it can be used for each of the stages of action to test relationships among different factors having
impact on outcomes. For example, company external and internal situation have impact on the
company’s vision and mission, as well as its objectives. At the same time these factors have
impact on foreign market entry modes choice. A company’s vision, mission, and intent have
relationships with foreign market entry mode (strategy) choice mediated by company situation
factors (opportunities and threats, strengths and weaknesses: external environment and internal
factors). As such in all other phases of the model we observe multiple relationships that can be
tested empirically. Developed in detail propositions could address these relationships.
International Management 14
Mission Host Country
Vision Home Alternatives Actual Imple- Performance Feedback
Country and Choice Entry mentation Appraisal
Strategy Formulation Strategy ImplementatIon
Figure 1. The Globalization Strategy Process Model
Phase I. Company Vision and Mission in Globalization
A company’s mission, vision, and objectives are function of the company’s external environment
and internal capabilities. The external environment has two different settings. The first is host
country political-legal, economic, social, industrial, technological, infrastructural, demographic
conditions as well as market size and resource potential. The second is home country general
environment and industry (Porter, 1980) conditions. The internal company situation is the
company’s material, human, and financial resources, capabilities, and core competencies. The
external and internal company factors are determinants of its mission, vision, and objectives. The
task of the model is to determine the power of the internal and external factors in identifying the
International Management 15
company’s mission, vision, and objectives. Many propositions may be developed which can be
converted into hypotheses in empirical research.
Phase II. Analysis of Determinants of Foreign Market Entry Modes Choice
When we consider determinants of entry mode (Root, 1994) choice again external and internal
factors will be the major factors. Entry mode choice will be a function of those factors. Also the
company’s mission, vision, and objectives will be determinants of entry mode choice. Depending
on the company’s situation equity based or non-equity based foreign market entry modes can be
chosen (Pan & Tse, 2000). If the host country’s political, economic, social, industrial, and other
conditions are favorable, then a multinational corporation may decide to enter the country’s
market with capital investments. Otherwise it may consider non-equity options of entry or
exclude the country from consideration for doing business.
In this model determinants of foreign market entry strategies are classified into three
groups of factors: host country business environment, home country business environment, and
company specific factors. Host country business environment includes host country political
stability, macroeconomic conditions, resource potential, market size, internal economic relations
consistent with the requirements of a market economy, external economic relations consistent
with Western standards, cultural dimensions, five forces of industry, and relations with a
company’s home country. Home country business environment involves such factors as market
conditions, regulatory environment, and governmental encouragement and support of foreign
economic expansion. Company specific factors are company resources, capabilities and core
competencies. Favorable combination of these three groups of factors is a condition for
successful foreign market entry and operations.
International Management 16
Host Country Environment and Entry Mode Choice
Empirical research conducted previously took host country business environment as an essential
factor influencing formulation of entry strategies (Root, 1994; Shama, 2000; Madhok, 1997;
Taylor, Zou, & Osland, 2000; Pan & Tse, 2000; McCarthy & Puffer, 1997) and found significant
relationships among environmental variables and company foreign market entry mode choice
and performance. Propositions to examine relationships among these factors and foreign market
entry mode choice decision are the following
Proposition 1a: Host country stable political conditions will be positively
related to all the modes of foreign market entry.
Proposition 1b: Host country stable macroeconomic conditions will be
positively related to any foreign market entry mode choice.
Proposition 1c: High market potential of the host country will be positively
related to any foreign market entry mode choice.
Proposition 1d: High resource potential of the host country will be positively
related to any foreign market entry mode choice.
Host country internal economic relations are one of the major conditions affecting foreign
market entry decisions. Governmental policies on foreign economic relations may encourage or
discourage export and import operations and investments. Availability of a legal basis and
possibility of enforcement of adopted laws and regulations on brands and property rights provide
protection of advanced technologies and know-how of MNCs from fraud and illegal imitation
(Filatotchev, Wright, Buck, & Dyomina, 1999). In strategy literature, sometimes, related
constructs are hidden in a host country’s economic potential or simply in economic environment
International Management 17
construct. This study determines every possible factor in host country internal economic relations
affecting foreign market entry decisions.
Proposition 1e: Host country internal economic relations consistent with the
requirements of market economy will be positively related to equity-based
foreign market entry mode choice.
Host country external economic relations are analyzed to determine impact of the
country’s economic integration into world economy on foreign market entry mode choice. There
is abundant research in economic theory and empirical studies on transition economies (Popov,
1998, 1999, 2000; Heybey & Murrell, 1999; Murrell, 1993), but strategy research often
inconclusive when it concerns external economic relations of a host country in general. External
economic policy liberalization is very important condition for market entry decisions.
Proposition 1f: Consistent external economic policy liberalization will be
positively related to any foreign market entry mode choice.
Political relationships of the home country with the host country have very significant
impact on foreign market entry strategies of business companies.
Proposition 1g: The higher the intensity of economic and trade relations of the
home country with the host country the higher the possibility of
any foreign market entry mode choice.
Proposition 1h: The higher the intensity of political and military relationships of
the home country with the host country the higher the
possibility of any foreign market entry mode choice.
Negative assessment of any of the host country factors may affect entry mode. Having all
the factors assessed positively companies are likely to decide to make capital investments in the
country. Having some of the factor negatively assessed countries are likely to decide to choose
International Management 18
non-equity modes of entry or not to decide to enter. Assessment of candidate countries is done
by ranking the countries on the basis of determining their ratings.
Home Country Business Environment and Entry Mode Choice
In this study home country environment is defined as external conditions to multinational
corporations that affect their foreign market activities. Globalization of company activities has
twofold consequences for the home country. First, a company’s foreign economic activities will
increase gross national product of the country bringing additional benefit for the company and
the country. Secondly, companies searching cheap resources around the world cut the future
internal investments, which leads to decrease of creation of new jobs. Therefore, home country
governments sometimes impose restrictions against global expansion of capital. The internal
political, economic, legal, and technological environment makes it possible for American
companies to internationalize their businesses.
Recession usually puts majority companies in disadvantageous position due to decrease
of demand in the market. To sustain their competitive advantage or market position many
companies try to outsource work places to other countries. They seek low competition and entry
barriers, and cheap labor. If the home country competitive environment makes MNCs withdraw
some businesses from home country location and the host country environment attracts them,
then it increases social problems (job losses) in the home country and decreasing rates of
unemployment in the host country. Low home country restrictions imposed against foreign
market expansion encourage companies making foreign direct investments.
Proposition 2a: Low home country restrictions imposed against foreign market
expansion will be positively related to equity based foreign market entry mode
choice in all other things being equal.
International Management 19
Proposition 2b: Economic power of the home country will be positively related to
internationalization of domestic companies.
Proposition 2c: Home country government’s systematic negotiations with the host
countries on such issues as trade and economic relations will be positively related
to foreign market entry mode choice.
Proposition 2d: Home country shortage of natural resources will be positively
related to equity based foreign market entry mode choice of multinational
Proposition 2e: Home country narrow market size will be positively related to
internationalization of domestic companies.
Proposition 2f: Home country high intensity of competition will be positively
related to equity based foreign market entry mode choice of MNCs.
Proposition 2g: Home country political instability makes it possible for MNCs go
overseas to do business to prevent capital from possible losses.
Proposition 2h: Home country macroeconomic instability makes MNCs go
overseas to do business to prevent possible financial losses.
Company Specific Factors
Company resources, core competencies, and capabilities are the initial factors to consider
possibilities of its internationalization. Company resources, product availability, and managerial
commitment determine their decision to globalize their businesses. The decision to globalize is a
function of these three major factors. Appropriate propositions can be developed based on these
Phase III. Entry Mode Choice
Based on analysis of the company external environment factors and its resources managers
develop alternative foreign market entry strategies. Depending on the host and home country as
well as company conditions they may chose equity- or non-equity based foreign market entry
International Management 20
strategies. Companies first develop alternatives for each of the country under consideration.
Based on country ratings obtained during country analysis (host country environmental
condition) they chose a target country. Alternatives are chosen using different techniques as they
Phase IV. Foreign Market Entry Strategy and Actual Entry
After a company has chosen the most attractive country to do business with, it conducts entry
operations. This task is conditional upon procedures of registration, governmental loyalty, and
company expenditures: transaction costs, operational costs for creation of new facilities, joint
ventures, regional offices, and alliances. The actual entry must be cost efficient and strategically
effective. Overall foreign market entry effectiveness depends to some extent on successful entry
operations. Successful entry operations depend not only on favorable local context, but also
proper entry operations, planning, and financing. Successful entry operations are function of the
local context and a company’s entry arrangements: resources, organization, coordination, and
commitment. Appropriate propositions and hypotheses examine effectiveness of relationships of
successful entry operations measured by on time completion and cost effectiveness.
Phase V. Foreign Market Operation Strategies and Implementation
Strategy implementation in a foreign country is the next step in the Model. Companies use
different business and corporate level, as well as specific international strategies there. Corporate
and business level strategies usually match with their strategies in the home country. Companies
with low cost leadership strategies usually use global strategy and with differentiation strategy
multidomestic strategy. Depending on local market demand these companies may use
International Management 21
transnational strategy combining global and multidomestic strategies. Successful implementation
of these strategies is function of created management systems: policies, processes, procedures,
organizational structure, organizational culture, subsidiary and joint venture governance, human
resource practices, and leadership styles. But the political, economic, and social context in other
countries in some cases differs significantly. The context has significant impact on strategy
implementation. All the patterns of strategy implementation must be adapted or modified to local
business environment conditions. MNCs doing business in different cultural contexts must
employ different or modified management systems to implement their strategies.
Implementation is function of: 1) company mission, vision, and objectives; 2) host country and
home country general and industry environment; 3) company core competencies and capabilities;
4) chosen foreign market entry mode; 5) actual entry operations’ effectiveness and performance;
6) employed management systems.
Phase 6. Performance Assessment in Foreign Operations
In this study performance as an integrative outcome involves two aspects: strategic and financial.
Strategic outcomes are measured by the level of fulfillment of strategic goals, increase of market
share, and achievement of competitive advantage over rivals. Financial results are measured by
company profitability, above average returns on investment, and other essential ratios.
Performance in foreign operations is function of the same factors as in implementation phase but
one additional factor “strategies and their implementation in a foreign country” is added.
International Management 22
Phase 7. Feedback Loops
Feedback is the last phase in globalization strategy process. Based on performance outcomes it is
possible to make feedback to the all phases of the process. First feedback is made to performance
appraisal phase. If performance appraisal contains errors, the appraisal activity must be revised.
If not, then feedback is directed to the implementation stage for detecting and fixing errors and
problems. If the implementations process was errorless, then problems will be searched in phase
of execution of entry operations. If there is no error, then strategy mode choice is examined. If
there are no problems to fix in this phase, then all the strategy alternatives are revised. A
company might not pick the best entry mode. If the company picked the best strategy alternative
among the available ones, then the error is searched in the phase of analysis of external
environment, and company internal factors. Based on them company might formulate wrong
strategic vision, mission, and objectives. The nature of the feedback is function of all the
previous phases of the globalization strategy process. Feedback may be positive or negative
depending on the quality of performance at each of the phases of the model.
The strengths of the GSP Model are as follows. First, the GSP Model is a multi-phase model
because it includes all the steps in strategy formulation and implementation starting with
environmental scanning and ending with performance assessment. In the framework of this
model based on a company’s vision and objectives: 1) external environment in a host country
and home country is analyzed; 2) company mission, vision, and objectives are identified; 3)
company resources and capabilities are determined; 4), strategic alternatives are worked out and
chosen; 5), actual entry is performed; 6) the company’s strategy(ies) is (are) implemented; 7), the
performance outcomes are estimated, and 8) feedback is communicated. The model not only
International Management 23
describes, but also explains relationships among factors existing in different phases of
globalization strategy process. Explanatory power of the model is to identify as many as possible
relationships for empirical testing and determining the significant constructs/variables having
importance in strategic decision-making. Different statistical techniques must be used to test the
model fully, starting from exploratory factor analysis ending with multiple regression analysis
The GSP Model goes far beyond the Product Life Cycle and Internationalization Process
Models and significantly improves the existing foreign market entry decision models (Root,
1994; Meyer, 2000; Madhok, 1997; Shama, 2000).
The theoretical outlay associated with foreign market entry strategy process and
outcomes represent a new research framework that has not been developed and empirically
tested within the strategy process research literature. How these constructs significantly support,
or inhibit, one another represents a strong basis for empirical research hypotheses.
Implications for Future Research
The model was partially empirically tested in Mardanov’s (2003) dissertation involving archival
and survey data about the Eastern European and Former Soviet Countries. The empirical testing
of relationships of host country environmental factors with equity-based foreign market entry
mode choice using archival data yielded very valuable predictions (country scores and ratings).
The task of the future research must be the following. First, propositions for each of the
phases of the model must be developed. Second, propositions must be converted into hypotheses.
Third empirical testing (full and partial) of the model must be conducted. Forth, data from
different sources must be used: archival data of host and home countries, international economic
International Management 24
institutions, company records and survey data from companies, customers, suppliers, host and
home governmental agencies, as well as panels of experts. Fifth, the results of the research must
be published, and communicated to host and home governments, international economic
organizations, and interested business companies.
It is clear that, for this kind of research, a longitudinal design is superior to capture trends
in host and home countries, as well as in companies. Conducting systematic survey in the future
is very important. It must be at least two years between surveys so that considerable changes can
occur in host country environments and company performance outcomes. Research can be
conducted in any emerging markets of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
International Management 25
Agarwal, S. & Ramaswampi, S.N. (1992). Choice of Foreign Market Entry Mode: Impact of
Ownership, Location and Internalization Factors. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.
23, Issue 1 (First Quarter), 1-27.
Anderson & Gatingnon, (1986). Modes of Foreign Entry: A Transaction Cost Analysis and
Propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 17, Issue 3 (Third Quarter), 1-26.
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Dow Jones-Irvin, Homewood, IL.
Andrews, K.R. (1987), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Third Edition. IRWIN, Homewood,
Ansoff, H.I. (1965), Corporate Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company
Bacharach, S. B. (1989) Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, 496-515.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, 99-120.
Buckley, P. J. & Casson, M. C. (1998). Analyzing Foreign Market Entry Strategies: Extending
the Internalization Approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 3 (Third Quarter
Caves, R. E. (1982). Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, New York.
Caves, R. & Mehra, S. (1986). Entry of Foreign Multinational Corporations in U.S.
Manufacturing Industries. In M. Porter (ed), Competition in Global Industries. Harvard Business
School Press, Cambridge, MA, 449-481.
Cavusgil, T. (1980). On the Internationalization Process of Firms. European Research,
Chang, S. & Rozenzweig, P.M. (1998). Industry and Regional Patterns in Sequential Foreign
Market Entry. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 35, Issue 6, 797-823.
Chang S. & Rosenzweig, P.M. (2001). The Choice of Entry Mode in Sequential Foreign Direct
Investment. Strategic Management Journal, 22; 747-776.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic
Choice. Sociology, Vol. 6, January, 1-22.
International Management 26
Davis, P. S., Desai, A. B. & Fransis, J.D. (2000). Journal of International Business Studies, 31, 2
(Second Quarter 2000), 239-258.
Dunning, J. H. (1980). Toward an Eclectic Theory of International Production. Some Empirical
Tests. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.11, 9-30.
Dunning, J. H. (1988). The Eclectic Paradigm of International Production: A restatement and
Some Possible Extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.19, 1-31.
Erramilli, M. K. (1991). The Experience Factor in Foreign market Entry Behavior of Service
Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22, Issue 3, 479-502.
Erramilli, M. & Rao, C. P. (1993). Service Firms’ International Entry Mode Choice: A modified
Transaction-Cost Analysis Approach. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, 19-38.
Filatotchev, I., Wright, M. ,Buck, T. & Dyomina, N. (1999). Exporting and Restructuring in
Privatized Firms from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Blackwell Publishers Ltd: 1013-1037.
Heybey, B. & Murrell, P. (1999). The Relationship Between Economic Growth and the Speed of
Liberalization During Transition. Journal of Policy Reform, 3 (2).
Hitt, A. A. & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic Decision Models: Integrating Different Perspectives.
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, 327-351.
Hofer, C. & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts, West Publishing
Co., St. Paul, MN.
Johanson J. & Vahlne, J. (1977), The Internationalization Process of the Firm – A Model of
Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments. Journal of
International Business Studies.
Johanson J. & Vahlne, J. (1990), The Mechanism of Internationalization. International Marketing
Kim, W. C. & Hwang, P. (1992). Global Strategy and Multinationals’ Entry Mode Choice.
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23, Issue 1 (First Quarter), 29-54.
Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.
Kotha, S. & Nair, A. (1995). Strategy and Environment as Determinants of Performance:
Evidence From the Japanese Machine Tool Industry. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16,
International Management 27
Kogut, B, & Singh, H. (1988). Entering the United States by Joint Venture: Competitive Rivalry
and Industry Structure. Cooperative Strategies in International Business, Health, Lexington,
Krzanowski W.J. (2000). Principles of Multivariate Analysis. A User’s Perspective. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Lawrence, P. & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization And Environment. MA: Harvard School of
Business Administration Press. Boston.
McCarthy, D. J. & Puffer, S. M. (1997). Strategic Investment Flexibility for MNE Success in
Russia: Evolving Beyond Entry Modes. Journal of World Business, Vol. 32, Issue 4, 293-320.
McDougall, P. P., Robinson, R. B. & DeNisi, A.S. (1990). Modeling New Venture
Performance: An Analysis of New Venture Strategy, Industry Structure, and Venture Origin.
Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 767-289.
McGahan A. M. & Porter, M.E. (1997). How Much Does Industry matter, Really? Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 18 (Summer Special Issue), 15-30.
McKiernan, P. (1992). Strategy of Growth: Maturity, Recovery, and Internationalization.
Melin, L. (1992). Internationalization as a Strategy Process. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
Meyer, K. E. (2000). International Production Networks and Enterprise Transformation in
Central Europe. Comparative Economic Studies, XLII, No.1 (Spring), 135-150.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). The Design School; Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic
Management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, 171-195.
Murrell, P. (1993). What is Shock Therapy? What did it do in Poland and Russia? Post Soviet
Affairs, P,2. (April-June, 11-40.
Pan Y. & Tse, D.K. (2000). The Hierarchical Model of market Entry Modes. Journal of
International Business Studies, 31, 4 (Fourth Quarter 2000); 535-5454.
Parks, T. H. (1996). A Foreign market Entry Decision Model: A Comparison of Theoretical and
Actual Practices of Multinational Enterprises. Dissertation Abstract, Journal of International
Business Studies, 1997, Vol. 28, Issue 4, 883-884.
Popov, V. (1998). Investment in Transition Economies: Factors of Change and Implications for
Performance. Journal of East-West Business, Vol. 4, No.1/2, 47-98.
International Management 28
Popov, V. (1999). The Financial System of Russia as Compared to Other Transition Economies:
The Anglo-American versus the German-Japanese Model. Comparative Economic Studies, No.1.
Popov, V. (2000). Shock Therapy vs. Gradualism: The End of the Debate (Explaining the
Magnitude of Transformational Recession). Comparative Economic Studies, Vol. 42, Issue 1,
Porter, E. M. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors, Free Press, New York.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York.
Root, R.F. (1994), Entry Strategies for International Markets. Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, San
Schoenecker, T.S. & Cooper, A.C. (1998). The Role of Firm Resources and Organizational
Attributes in Determining Entry Timing: A Cross-Industry Study. Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 19, 1127-1143.
Shama, A. (2000). Determinants of Entry Strategies of U.S. Companies into Russia, the Czech
republic, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol.
Sharma, A. (1998). Mode of Entry and Ex-Post Performance. Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 19, 879-900.
Sharma, S. Applied Multivariate Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.
Taylor C. R., Zou, S., Osland, G. E. Foreign market Entry Strategies of Japanese MNCs.
International Marketing Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, 146-163.
Vernon, R. (1966). International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle.
Quarterly Journal of Economics. May, 190-207.
Vernon, R. (1979). The Product Cycle Hypothesis in a New International Environment. Oxford
Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 42(4), 255-267.
Welch, L. S. & Luostarinen, R. (1988). Internationalization: Evolution of a Concept. Journal of
General Management, 14(2), 34-35.