Organizational learning in exporting: A bibliometric analysis and critical review of the empirical research

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Business Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev

Organizational learning in exporting: A bibliometric analysis and critical review of the empirical research İlayda İpek Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Business, Tınaztepe Yerleşkesi, Buca, 35390, İzmir, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Organizational learning Exporting Bibliometric analysis Literature review

In the latest decades, empirical research on organizational learning in the export context has recorded an increasing trend. On the other hand, in spite of the wealth of research on the subject, no effort has yet been made to offer an integrative review to investigate the improvement of this body of knowledge. To fill this gap, this study endeavors to synthesize the stream of empirical research on organizational learning in the field of exporting published between 1997 and 2017. Initially, the relevant studies were bibliometrically analyzed on the basis of the data gathered from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric data analysis indicates the most influential publication outlets, most influential institutions, most influential scholars, and most influential articles in relation to organizational learning in the export literature. Additionally, each article was contentanalyzed in terms of scope of research, research methodology, and empirical issues. The content analysis reveals that albeit significant progress, organizational learning research within the context of exporting is still at the introduction stage and certain weaknesses in scope, research designs, and conceptual understanding attract criticism.

1. Introduction Not only on the domestic level but also on the international level, knowledge has been considered a valuable endowment; and thus, learning stands out as a vital concern in the international business context (Casillas, Acedo, & Barbero, 2010; Evangelista & Mac, 2016). Involvement in foreign trade and markets yields to double-looped learning that creates opportunities for firms to make progresses on existing as well as on new offerings (Love & Ganotakis, 2013). Specifically, the export context is firmly interwoven with organizational learning (Brouthers, Nakos, Hadjimarcou, & Brouthers, 2009; Li, Nicholls, & Roslow, 1999). Export markets consist of external forces, which are economically, legally, and socio-culturally complex and diverse compared to domestic markets (Cadogan & Diamantopoulos, 1995); and thus, exporting firms have to deal with high degrees of environmental uncertainty, while interacting with overseas markets (Helm & Gritsch, 2014). Uncertainty in export markets has a leverage effect on information asymmetries (Klein & Roth, 1993), and ultimately, on informational rents (Latacz-Lohmann & Hamsvoort, 1998), which impede export activities (Leonidou, Barnes, & Talias, 2006). Strategic information requirement for exporting firms is therefore enormous, creating challenges not necessarily being observed in domestic setting (Darling & Postnikoff, 1985). Exporting is identified as a learning process, in which firms collect

timely and accurate information about the export environment (Brouthers et al., 2009; Li et al., 1999). Both individual and collective learning processes are the components of exporting, concentrating on new ways of thinking (Kafouros, Buckley, Sharp, & Wang, 2008). Exposure to export markets expedites the accumulation of market and technological knowledge (Salomon & Shaver, 2005), which heightens the effect of 'learning by exporting' (Love & Ganotakis, 2013). In this respect, learning plays an essential role in exporting (Alegre, PlaBarber, Chiva, & Villar, 2012); and thus, there is a growing inclination toward organizational learning in export-related studies within recent decades (Leonidou, Katsikeas, & Coudounaris, 2010). Previously, scholars have made various efforts to review the organizational learning literature both in general (e.g., Bapuji & Crossan, 2004; Dodgson, 1993; Lähteenmäki, Toivonen, & Mattila, 2001) and in different areas of research such as human resource management (e.g., Dixon, 1992), information technology (e.g., Robey, Boudreau, & Rose, 2000), and public service organizations (e.g., Rashman, Withers, & Hartley, 2009), all of which provided fruitful directions. However, irrespective of the keen interest on the organizational learning theory in the field of international business, notably in exporting (Leonidou et al., 2010), no integrative review study has been offered in order to unveil the role of organizational learning in export activities. In light of this, a requirement emerges to improve the knowledge on organizational learning in the area of exporting through an investigation of the

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.11.010 Received 26 January 2018; Received in revised form 13 October 2018; Accepted 30 November 2018 0969-5931/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: İpek, İ., International Business Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.11.010

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

illustration for knowledge acquisition, Sinkula (1994) places high importance on market information use systems. As for value acquisition, for instance, Senge (1990 as cited in Senge, 1998) focuses on common vision and mental models within organizations. In conjunction with the assertions of Senge (1990 as cited in Senge, 1998: 444), which are based on the five vital components of effective organizational learning, namely, "personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking", the term of organizational learning has become well-known (Hult & Ferrell, 1997). In the area of marketing, Day (1994: 44) has recommended that success at organizational learning is highly dependent on capabilities of "openedminded inquiry, synergistic information distribution, mutually informed interpretations, and accessible memories". Additionally, Sinkula (1994) has supported that sense making together with time, rules, and routines play a huge role in organizational learning. In spite of the different conceptualizations presented by the scholars, organizational learning is diverse and encompasses instruments in a number of interrelated research fields (Hult & Ferrell, 1997). Learning stands out in theories pertaining to competitive advantage; however, the degree to which firms can establish and sustain competitive advantage through organizational learning is still doubtful (Baker & Sinkula, 1999). Within the scope of the resource-advantage theory, it has been argued that higher-order learning processes represent complicated resources, which can only help firms produce a long-run competitive advantage (Dickson, 1996). Conversely, Hunt and Morgan (1996) have advocated that learning is not superior over other resources and other resources may be able to create superior financial accomplishment. All in all, organizational learning has been identified as one of the fundamental capabilities, which acts an important part in producing competitive advantage and formulating effective business strategies (Henri, 2006). It has been also broadly acknowledged that learning is a significant constituent of a firm's internationalization process (Mac & Evangelista, 2017). Importantly, a firm's knowledge related to overseas markets mainly shapes the decision of internationalization (Schmidt & Sofka, 2009); such that insufficient knowledge about foreign markets serves as one of the fundamental barriers to a firm's internationalization process (Moini, 1997). In line with the organizational learning theory, internationalization is therefore closely intertwined with a firm's learning orientation (Yeoh, 2004). Some firms start to internationalize sooner than others to capitalize on "learning advantages of newness" (Zahra, 2005). Other firms may initiate internationalization activities through an incremental progress on the basis of knowledge accumulated from experience (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977). Dealing with international markets cultivates a firm's learning activities and creates a foundation for further learning (Yeoh, 2004). Hence, organizational learning fed by overseas operations enables international firms to surmount "liability of foreignness" (Westhead, Wright, & Ucbasaran, 2001; Zaheer, 1995) and to expedite internationalization practice (Pla-Barber & Escribá-Esteve, 2006). In international business, organizational learning plays an essential role in gaining success (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2010). Learningoriented firms are more able to attain superior performance in international marketplace (Kungwansupaphan & Siengthai, 2014), since continuous learning prevents possible mistakes (Wang, 2008). In the context of export management, exporting is recognized as a learning process, in which firms gather knowledge and take advantage of opportunities in export markets (Brouthers et al., 2009; Li et al., 1999). During the initial stages of exporting, firms have limited knowledge about the institutions of target country and the external stakeholders in export markets, knowledge of both improve through carrying out export activities (Alegre et al., 2012). New knowledge collected through export operations are internalized into the existing organizational memory (Alegre et al., 2012). In fierce market circumstances, exporting firms relying on attaining fresh market knowledge instead of utilizing existing knowledge base are more successful at analyzing market tendencies (Villar, Alegre, & Pla-Barber, 2014).

empirical research focusing on the subject. As a response to this gap, the purpose of this study is to review and harmonize the body of research on organizational learning in the context of exporting during the period 1997–2017. Specifically, the aims of this study are sixfold: (a) to present a bibliometric analysis to determine the most influential journals, most influential affiliations, most influential authors, and most influential studies in the extant literature; (b) to assess the scope of research in the pertinent literature; (c) to identify the research methodology employed in the relevant studies; (d) to evaluate the nature of organizational learning in exporting on the basis of the conceptualizations adopted; (e) to compile and synthesize the antecedents and outcomes of organizational learning within the export context; and (f) to analyze the indirect relationships between the antecedent factors/outcomes and organizational learning. This review study is expected to make considerable contributions to the pertinent literature. First, it offers a snapshot of the act of organizational learning within the export context. Second, it sheds light on the evolution of organizational learning in export research, through a bibliometric analysis. Third, it puts emphasis on the most cited publication outlets, the centers of excellence (as represented by institutions), the most prolific and cited scholars, and the leading articles in this body of research, which would provide a strong ground for future studies. Fourth, it establishes trends toward scope of research, research methodology, and empirical issues adopted by this stream of research. And fifth, it recognizes gaps in the related literature that warrant special attention and offers valuable insights into the avenues for further research. 2. Background Organizational learning theory, advanced by Cyert and March (1963), suggests that organizations are cognitive entities, which learn by means of interacting with the environment (Bell DeTienne & Thompson, 1996). The perspective also supports that organizations learn through accumulating experiences from history and transforming these experiences into routines, which shape organizational behavior (Levitt & March, 1988). At its most elementary level, organizational learning has been conceptualized as "the process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding" (Fiol & Lyles, 1985: 803). The components of the organizational learning process include knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory (Huber, 1991). Organizational learning happens at three levels covering individual, group, and organization and these levels describe the system how organizational learning processes (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999). According to Lee, Courtney, and O’Keefe (1992: 23), "individuals' actions lead to organizational interactions with the environment, the environment responds, and environmental responses are interpreted by individuals who learn by updating their beliefs about cause-effect (i.e., action-response) relationships", which indicates that the process of organizational learning has been considered cyclical (Sinkula, 1994). Firms which are actively engaged in learning are named as "learning organizations" (Sinkula, Baker, & Noordewier, 1997: 305). Specifically, learning organizations are successful at forming, collecting, and disseminating knowledge, and tend to adjust their organizational climate to new knowledge and observations (Garvin, 1993). Although organizational learning has been widely accepted as a process, scholars share different opinions on the essence of the concept (Sinkula et al., 1997). On the one hand, it has been argued that alteration is essential for learning (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). On the other hand, it has been claimed that in order to mention about learning within an organization, noticeable alteration in behavior is not a requirement (Huber, 1991); instead, learning is strongly associated with new insights which may yield to changes in comprehension (Friedlander, 1983). Moreover, some scholars correlate learning with knowledge acquisition, while others identify learning with value acquisition (Sinkula et al., 1997). As an 2

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

protocol was prepared, derived from Aykol, Palihawadana, and Leonidou, (2013); Chen, Sousa, and He, (2016), and Eteokleous et al. (2016) and developed along with three major parts: (a) scope - countries involved, region, industrial sector, firm size, and unit of analysis; (b) methodology - time emphasis, sampling design, sample size, data collection method, response rate, key informant, and analytical approach; and (c) empirical issues - conceptualization, antecedents, and outcomes of organizational learning. Pursuing other outstanding review studies in the field (e.g., Aykol et al., 2013; Leonidou & Katsikeas, 2010), the articles were examined on the basis of two time periods grouped by decade: 1997–2006 and 2007-2017. The breakdown of the studies with respect to publication dates shows that 23 articles (27.7%) appeared in the initial time period (1997–2006), while 60 articles (72.3%) were published during the second time period (2007–2017). This reveals an increasing tendency over time toward organizational learning theory in export-related articles.

Knowledge replenishment and utilization about overseas markets help exporting firms raise export volumes (Balabanis, Theodosiou, & Katsikea, 2004) and firms' competencies to learn strengthen their export intensity (Alegre et al., 2012). Exposure to different export markets, which are geographically dispersed, increases international firms' ability to exploit opportunities in export countries, since interaction with greater number of customers enhances export expertise (Ogasavara et al., 2016). Correspondingly, exporting firms with higher experience possess more absorptive capacity, and ultimately, stronger capability to collect and employ extrinsic information compared to lessexperienced exporting firms (Lane, Koka, & Pathak, 2006). More accurate information pertaining to export markets yields to higher achievements (Tsai, 2001). The value of export learning has been well emphasized by the notion that "competitive competence rests in a major way on a firm's level of export-related skill, the learning that takes place and the knowledge that flows from it" (Seringhaus, 1988: 100). All in all, organizational learning represents one of the most contemporary topics of exporting in the latest decades (Leonidou et al., 2010).

4. Research findings

3. Investigation method

Within the scope of this part, the findings in relation to bibliometric analysis and content analysis are offered.

This study reviews all empirical articles that have an explicit concentration on organizational learning in the context of exporting. Specifically, the investigation covers the empirical research that were published in English and appeared in business publication outlets, since the beginning of this stream of research in 1997. In order to determine relevant articles to be included within the scope of the present study, four criteria were established: (a) to analyze organizational learning in export activities; (b) to be published in referred academic journals that can be accessible; (c) to focus on exporting rather than other international market entry modes (e.g., franchising, or foreign direct investment); and (d) to be empirical in nature through first-hand and/or second-hand data. Eligible studies were recognized in regard to both electronic and manual bibliographic search methods. Electronic searching was performed utilizing electronic databases: EBSCO, Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Sage, Taylor & Francis, and JSTOR. The keywords "learning" and "organizational learning" in combination with "export" were used to trace the relevant studies. In an attempt to ensure that all eligible studies were identified, manual searching was carried out by scanning the reference lists of the relevant articles found out through electronic searching. Additionally, the Academic Journal Guide for 2015, which was published by the Association of Business Schools (ABS) and has been extensively preferred by scholars (e.g., Adams, Jeanrenaud, Bessant, Denyer, & Overy, 2015; Coombes & Nicholson, 2013), was utilized as a directory to check for the quality of the related studies. This process led to the recognition of 83 empirical studies that appeared in 35 academic journals during the period 1997–2017 (Appendix). Organizational learning studies within the context of exporting have intensified in the body of research in marketing (37.4%) and international business and area studies (32.5%). Bibliometric analysis was utilized to detect quantitative trends in organizational learning within the export context. All 83 eligible studies, found previously through the processes of electronic and manual bibliographic search methods, were bibliometrically examined on the basis of the records incorporating author name(s), author institution(s), the academic outlet it is published in, publication date, and citation data. Citation data was gathered from the Web of Science online database, which has been identified as one of the most well-known data sources for bibliometric studies (e.g., Fetscherin & Heinrich, 2015; ReyMartí, Ribeiro-Soriano, & Palacios-Marqués, 2016). In addition to bibliometric analysis, in an effort to analyze the information comprised in the articles, each article was subjected to content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980), which is in line with other assessments in the pertinent literature (e.g., Eteokleous, Leonidou, & Katsikeas, 2016; Leonidou et al., 2010). To codify the data, a coding

4.1. Bibliometric analysis This part provides the findings of bibliometric analysis, focusing on the most influential publication outlets, most influential institutions, most influential scholars, and most influential articles in the pertinent literature. 4.1.1. Most influential publication outlets Relying on the notion that "different journals are most influential in different subareas" (Baumgartner & Pieters, 2003: 123), it is vital to determine which publication outlets shape and impact organizational learning in the field of exporting. The knowledge regarding the journal performance is particularly important, since it serves as a guide as to which journals should be focused on while conducting a future research about organizational learning within the export context. In this sense, Table 1 demonstrates the top 6 publication outlets along with the number of publications in the pertinent literature, total citations received, and average total citations received per year. Remarkably, 6 journals account for more than half of the total studies (54.2%) in the extant research. The top 6 publication outlets that contributed most to this stream of research are: International Business Review (16.9%), International Marketing Review (12.1%), Journal of International Business Studies (8.4%), Journal of International Marketing (6.0%), Industrial Marketing Management (6.0%), and Journal of Business Research (4.8%), which indicates the fact that a significant amount of related studies in the area of international marketing and business dominate the field. To examine the top journals' performance further, average total citations received per year were calculated on the basis of the citation Table 1 Most influential publication outlets (sorted by POLE). Rank

Journal

Label

POLE

TC

TC/t

1 2 3 4 5 6

International Business Review International Marketing Review Journal of International Business Studies Journal of International Marketing Industrial Marketing Management Journal of Business Research

IBR IMR JIBS JIM IMM JBR

14 10 7 5 5 4

254 312 642 284 154 51

12.70 15.60 32.10 14.20 7.70 2.55

Note: POLE number of studies published in relation to organizational learning in the export context. TC total citations received. TC/t average total citations received per year. 3

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

Table 2 Most influential institutions (sorted by POLE - left and TC - right), most influential scholars (sorted by TC), and most influential articles (sorted by TC/t). Rank

Institution

POLE

TC

TC/t

Rank

Institution

POLE

TC

TC/t

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

University of Leeds University of Seville Loughborough University Aston University Athens University of Economics and Business University of Valencia University of Macau

6 6 5 4 4 4 4

239 76 365 291 106 71 17

11.95 3.80 18.25 14.55 5.30 3.55 0.85

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Loughborough University Aston University NOVA University University of Leeds University of Nottingham Michigan State University Beihang University

5 4 3 6 3 3 1

365 291 252 239 203 194 193

18.25 14.55 12.60 11.95 10.15 9.70 9.65

Rank

Author

POLE

TC

TC/POLE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Robert M. Salomon Constantine S. Katsikeas Luis Filipe Lages John W. Cadogan Jianch Guan Ning Ma Douglas W. Vorhies Neil A. Morgan Igor Filatotchev J. Myles Shaver

4 4 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 1

313 304 292 280 193 193 192 192 187 184

78.25 76.00 73.00 70.00 193.00 193.00 96.00 96.00 93.50 184.00

Rank

Article

TC

TC/t

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Filatotchev et al. (2009) Salomon and Shaver (2005) Guan and Ma (2003) Morgan et al. (2012) Lages et al. (2008) Lages et al. (2009) Cadogan et al. (2002) Kropp et al. (2006) Lisboa et al. (2011a) Wu et al. (2007)

146 184 193 82 106 90 149 113 59 88

14.60 13.14 12.06 11.71 9.64 9.00 8.77 8.69 7.38 7.33

Note: POLE number of studies published in relation to organizational learning in the export context. TC total citations received. TC/t average total citations received per year. TC/POLE average number of citations received per publication.

statistically reliable performance measures, a satisfactory number of publications in a manageable time period is required; and (2) It does not necessarily mean that research productivity and citations are correlated with each other (Glänzel, 2006). Nevertheless, by virtue of limited resources, quantifying scientific performance is essential for appraisal objectives such as hiring and funding (Hirsch, 2005). In this regard, the most important 10 scholars dealing with organizational learning in the context of exporting were identified by resting on total number of publications, total citations received, and average number of citations received per publication (Table 2). It has been found that even though the most prolific scholars in the field are Robert M. Salomon, Constantine S. Katsikeas, Luis Filipe Lages, and John W. Cadogan, with 4 export-related articles on organizational learning, Robert M. Salomon represents the author, with most citations (i.e., 313 citations). Referring to average number of citations received per study, the impact of the scholars, Jianch Guan and Ning Ma, is really huge, with 193 citations, albeit their ownership of only one academic article on the subject. The same is also valid for J. Myles Shaver, with 184 citations for one study.

data gathered from the Web of Science database. Interestingly, even though International Business Review has been identified as the most influential journal in terms of total number of articles published, the citation analysis supports that Journal of International Business Studies has attracted much more attention compared to other top journals. 4.1.2. Most influential institutions In an attempt to find out the most influential institutions in relation to organizational learning in export-related studies, the importance and academic weight of various universities were analyzed by resting on the data covering the number of publications in the pertinent literature, total citations received, and average total citations received per year (Table 2). The findings reveal that different universities, being mainly located in Europe, stand out in this research area. Specifically, the most leading institutions are situated in the United Kingdom, followed by Spain and China. With regard to the total number of studies on organizational learning in the field of exporting, the most influential intuitions can be listed as University of Leeds, University of Seville, and Loughborough University. On the other side, number of overall citations signifies that in addition to Loughborough University, Aston University and NOVA University refer to other centers of excellence. This information can offer useful insights for scholars who are interested in organizational learning within the export context and are looking for opportunities to collaborate with other scholars in the field.

4.1.4. Most influential articles In order to answer the question of which studies are the most influential in organizational learning within the context of exporting, total citation numbers and average total citation numbers received per year were taken into consideration (Table 2). The citation analysis demonstrates that all 10 articles ranked can be evaluated as highly effective in shaping organizational learning research in the area of exporting. However, it is critical to note that the impact of some of those articles is relatively higher than others, namely, Filatotchev, Liu, Buck, and Wright, (2009); Salomon and Shaver (2005); Guan and Ma (2003), and Morgan, Katsikeas, and Vorhies, (2012). The

4.1.3. Most influential scholars While undertaking a bibliometric analysis in a particular area, the assessment of research performance at the individual scientist level is seen as questionable (Cole 1989 as cited in Bornmann & Daniel, 2007), mainly because of two different reasons: (1) In order to attain 4

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

analysis. Regarding firm size, an important proportion of studies (34.9%) did not specify the size of the respondent firms, which is valid throughout the two time periods examined. On the other side, about one-third of the studies (34.9%) covered small, medium, and large-sized firms altogether, followed closely by studies using small and medium-sized firms (27.7%). The increasing inclination toward small and mediumsized firms is consistent with the notion that organizational learning serves as one of the main facilitators of internationalization processes of small and medium-sized enterprises (Love, Roper, & Zhou, 2016). As for unit of analysis, while more than three-fourth of the articles (79.5%) used the firm as the unit of analysis, export venture was adopted to a much lesser extent (13.3%), which is apparent during both the period of 1997–2006 and 2007-2017. The rising trend in the firm as the unit of analysis can be attributed to the appropriateness of the firmlevel analysis for small-sized firms because of a little number of product lines (Zou & Stan, 1998). Other units of analysis utilized were products (e.g., Li et al., 1999), relationships (e.g., Ling-yee, 2006), and sales negotiations (e.g., Shankarmahesh, Ford, & LaTour, 2004), which account for 7.2%.

Table 3 Scope of research. Scope of research

Countries involved One Two Three and more Not specified Region Europe Asia North America Caribbean Pacific Latin America Africa Not specified Industrial sector Multiple Single Not specified Firm size Small, medium, and large SMEs Small Medium Large Not specified Unit of analysis Firm Export venture Other

Total (n=83) (%)

1997-2006 (n=23) (%)

2007-2017 (n=60) (%)

88.0 8.4 1.2 2.4

82.6 13.0 – 4.4

90.0 6.6 1.7 1.7

50.6 27.7 14.5 8.4 6.0 3.6 3.6 2.4

34.8 17.4 43.5 – 4.3 8.7 – 4.3

56.6 31.6 3.3 5.0 3.3 5.0 11.6 1.6

68.6 16.9 14.5

69.6 13.0 17.4

68.3 18.3 13.4

37.3

39.1

36.6

16.9 7.2 3.6 3.6 34.9

13.1 8.7 – – 39.1

18.3 6.6 5.0 5.0 33.3

79.5 13.3 7.2

65.2 17.4 17.4

85.0 11.7 3.3

4.2.2. Research methodology In respect of research methodology (Table 4), the vast majority of articles (84.3%) were cross-sectional in nature, probably due to the relative easiness of cross-sectional research to conduct, whereas longitudinal studies (15.7%) were rarely carried out. Longitudinal research mainly employed panel data primarily for the purpose of testing the long-term role of organizational learning in exporting (e.g, MonrealPérez, Aragón-Sánchez, & Sánchez-Marín, 2012; Salomon & Shaver, 2005). The dominance of the cross-sectional studies indicates a pattern, which is similar throughout the whole time period studied. In terms of sampling design, articles were roughly evenly separated between those using a probability sampling method (44.6%) and those with a non-probability sampling method (41.0%). Most articles adopting a probability sampling method were undertaken in developed economies such as the United Kingdom, Portugal, and New Zealand, likely by virtue of an existence of extensive data sources. However, the popularity of both probability and non-probability sampling methods has declined over time. Another 16.9% of empirical studies did not disclose information about the sampling method. The sample size characteristics demonstrate that the size of the sample contained in the empirical studies differed in the range of 65–249,326, with a mean of approximately 3658 and a median of 216. In more than half of the total studies (55.4%), the sample size did not exceed 250 units, which signifies that the articles reviewed incorporated relatively small sample sizes. On the other hand, about a quarter of the studies (26.5%) used sample sizes changing between 250 and 499 units. Moreover, only 16.9% had sample sizes of greater than 500 units, which commonly relied on a secondary data source. With regard to data collection methods, mail surveys (37.3% of studies) represent the most generally employed method for primary data collection. The wide recognition of mail surveys as a data collection tool is noticeable especially during the first time period; nevertheless, it experienced a sharp decline in the second time period, together with an increase in the usage of other data collection tools such as personal interviews and secondary data. Other data collection methods, namely, postal, electronic, drop and collect, telephone, and fax questionnaire were preferred on a limited extent. Furthermore, the chronological analysis exhibits that the studies covered in the review study reported an average response rate of 38%. Taking into consideration that the average response rates recorded by management surveys are about 20% (Menon, Bharadwaj, & Howell, 1996), the majority of studies (51.9%) disclosed a response rate above the 20% response rate level. But, surprisingly, a significant percentage of articles (37.3%) did not include information related to response rates, which is observable during the whole period under investigation.

identification of the cult studies in the pertinent literature is of great value, offering fruitful directions for future research. 4.2. Content analysis This section presents the findings of the content analysis, consisting of scope of research, research methodology, and empirical issues. 4.2.1. Scope of research In terms of scope of research (Table 3), the fieldwork characteristics indicate that the vast majority of studies (88.0%) concentrated on a single country setting with an increasing trend over time, while only 9.6% of the studies adopted multi-country approach as a geographical scope, of which only a few made a cross-cultural comparison (e.g., Morgan, Zou, Vorhies, & Katsikeas, 2003; Weerawardena, Mort, Salunke, Knight, & Liesch, 2015). With respect to geographical region, in particular, the most common countries that attracted huge attention among scholars were Spain (21.7%), China (16.9%), and the United States (13.3%). In harmony with this finding, Europe (50.6%), Asia (27.7%), and North America (14.5%) represent the most widely investigated regions. In spite of the growing tendency toward Europe and Asia throughout the two time periods, interestingly, scholars' interest in North America has dramatically decreased during the period of 20072017. Instead, the regions of Caribbean and Africa started to spotlight in recent years, which reflects an extensive recognition of organizational learning theory in exporting around the world. In addition, the chronological analysis shows that the great majority of studies (68.6%) employed multiple industries to examine organizational learning in the field of exporting, mainly in order to strengthen the generalizability of study findings (e.g., Hortinha, Lages, & Filipe Lages, 2011; Lages, Silva, & Styles, 2009). However, a single industry perspective was pursued on a much smaller basis (16.9% of studies), with particular stress on ceramic-tile, food, and software industries. This pattern is nearly the same for the whole time period under 5

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

There appears to be a lean towards employing both structural equation modeling and regression over time. Other set of statistical tools, constituting 15.7% of the studies investigated, encompass correlation analysis, t-test, analysis of variance, cluster analysis, discriminant analysis, and correspondence analysis, which drew considerable interest in the period 1997 and 2006, but were much more infrequent in the recent time frame.

Table 4 Research methodology. Research methodology

Time emphasis Cross-sectional Longitudinal Sampling design Probability Non-probability Not specified Sample size 99 or less 100-249 250-499 500 or more Not specified Data collection method Mail Interview Secondary data Postal Electronic Drop and collect* Telephone Fax Not specified Response rate 19% or less 20%-29% 30%-39% 40% or more Not specified Keyinformant CEO/President Export executives Owner Other Not specified Analyticalapproach Structural equation modeling Regression Other

Total (n=83) (%)

1997-2006 (n=23) (%)

2007-2017 (n=60) (%)

84.3 15.7

91.3 8.7

81.7 18.3

44.6 41.0 16.9

56.5 47.8 –

40.0 38.3 23.3

1.2 54.2 26.5 16.9 1.2

4.3 43.5 30.4 21.8 –

– 58.3 25.0 15.0 1.7

37.3 19.3 18.1 12.0 7.2 4.8 3.6 3.6 3.6

60.9 13.0 8.7 8.7 – 4.3 8.7 8.7 4.3

28.3 21.7 21.7 13.3 10.0 5.0 1.7 1.7 3.3

10.8 20.5 7.3 24.1 37.3

– 26.1 13.0 34.8 26.1

15.0 18.3 5.0 20.0 41.7

42.2 36.1 12.0 24.1 30.1

43.5 34.8 8.7 26.1 30.4

41.7 36.7 13.3 23.3 30.0

53.0

43.5

56.7

37.3 15.7

34.8 43.5

38.3 5.0

4.2.3. Empirical issues Empirical issues in this review study cover antecedents, conceptualization, and outcomes of organizational learning in export-relates studies. In this respect, Fig. 1 displays an integrative framework, including antecedents, conceptualization, outcomes, mediators, and moderators of organizational learning in the pertinent literature. 4.2.3.1. Antecedents of organizational learning. In terms of antecedents of organizational learning, 88 various constructs were recognized for the two time frames included in the analysis (Table 5). In line with Chen et al. (2016), recognized constructs were classified into two main categories: (1) internal factors, and (2) external factors. The chronological analysis exhibited that the overwhelming majority of antecedents (88.6%) pertained to internal factors, whereas external factors (11.4%) were rarely tested. Internal factors in relation to determinants of organizational learning were sorted into four second-order categories, namely, firm characteristics, management characteristics, export behavior, and export strategy. Among the internal factors, the first sub-category deals with firm characteristics, with exactly the same trend for the first and second time period being detected. Firm characteristics mainly refer to elements that are idiosyncratic to a firm (e.g., firm resources, capabilities) (Sousa, Martínez-López, & Coelho, 2008), with the most widely investigated variables being strategic orientation and organizational commitment and culture. With respect to strategic orientation, entrepreneurial orientation (Fernández-Mesa & Alegre, 2015; Lisboa, Skarmeas, & Lages, 2011), customer orientation (Hortinha et al., 2011; Lisboa, Skarmeas, & Lages, 2011), technology orientation (Hortinha et al., 2011), market orientation (Mac & Evangelista, 2016), and competitor orientation (Lisboa et al., 2011b), all registered significant impacts on organizational learning. Nevertheless, in the sense of the influence of corporate commitment and culture on organizational learning, the findings were inconsistent. For instance, while the link between commitment to a shared export vision and organizational learning was found to be not statistically significant (Souchon, SyChangco, & Dewsnap, 2012), it was concluded that commitment to learning is conducive to learning in organizations (Evangelista & Mac, 2016). Likewise, in an empirical study focusing on the relationship between the aspects of intrapreneurship (i.e., new business venturing, innovativeness, proactiveness, and self-renewal) and organizational learning, it was acknowledged that new business venturing, innovativeness, and self-renewal contribute positively to export market learning capabilities; however, proactiveness failed to produce any significant effect neither on export market exploitation nor on export market exploration (Skarmeas, Lisboa, & Saridakis, 2016). Within the scope of firm characteristics, international experience, technological capabilities, and social capital were also extensively considered. Specifically, empirical evidence broadly supported the positive association between export experience and organizational learning (e.g., Evangelista & Mac, 2016; Samiee & Walters, 1999), with few exceptions (e.g., Navarro, Acedo, Robson, Ruzo, & Losada, 2010). Moreover, technological capabilities as determinants of organizational learning received great interest in the second time period. In general, it was reported that stronger technological competencies augment the intensity of organizational learning (e.g., García, Avella, & Fernández, 2012; Tse, Yu, & Zhu, 2017). As for the correlation of social capital (i.e., intrafirm structural social capital and interfirm relational social capital) with organizational learning, the results were mixed. Whereas group

* The drop and collect survey method is defined as "the researcher(s) and/or properly trained field assistants in personally delivering-and later collecting-the survey instrument (the questionnaire) either directly to the target respondent or indirectly via a gatekeeper (e.g., a secretary)" (Ibeh, Brock, & Zhou, 2004: 156).

As for the inspection of non-response bias, the characteristics of the empirical studies are fairly similar; such that while more than half of the studies (51.8%) tested non-response bias, 48.2% of articles did not conduct any assessment for potential non-response bias, which reveals a serious weakness in research methodology. In relation to key informants, the most popular key informants were CEOs/presidents (42.2%), pursued closely by export executives (36.1%). Even though the number of studies involving CEOs/presidents as key informants slightly diminished throughout time, they still had an outstanding impact on organizational learning studies in the area of exporting. The third most frequently applied key informants were owners (12.0%), while approximately one-third of the empirical studies (30.1%) do not provide any details associated with key informants. Also, two-fifths of the empirical articles (42.2%) controlled for common method bias to overcome problems owing to data collection from single key informants (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Combination of statistical (e.g., Harman's single factor test, marker approach) and procedural methods (24.1%) was the most widely utilized remedy for this issue. Referring to analytical approach, structural equation modeling (53.0%) was the dominant statistical method for data analysis, while the second most common analytical approach was regression (37.3%).

6

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

Fig. 1. An integrative framework of organizational learning in the export context. Note: RG: Research Gap.

Of the internal factors, management characteristics (10.2%) were the second most popular antecedents of organizational learning, with a growing inclination throughout time. Management characteristics primarily involve three third-order categories: managerial capabilities, management commitment, and management of mental export models. First of all, the aggregate analysis illustrated that abilities of managers provide the cornerstone for the implementation of successful organizational learning (e.g., Kungwansupaphan & Siengthai, 2014; Navarro et al., 2010). Secondly, in a similar vein, empirical studies demonstrated managerial commitment to exporting to be positively correlated with learning in organizations (e.g., Weerawardena et al., 2015; Zhou, Lin, & Li, 2010). And thirdly, management of mental export models was found to add to the improvement of learning orientation in exporting (Souchon et al., 2012). The third sub-category of internal factors pertains to export behavior, which attracted huge interest during the period 2007-2017. The antecedents of organizational learning associated with this sub-category mainly encompassed export status, export intensity, export development, and export intention. Research on export status indicated that export position of a firm, signaling whether or not the firm is involved in export activities, are influential on organizational learning, in particular on productivity performance (e.g., Salomon & Shaver, 2005; Sharma & Mishra, 2012). Other line of research regarding export behavior includes export intensity (i.e., level of internationalization), advocating it to be positively related to different concepts of organizational learning such as experiential learning and marketing knowhow (Ellis, Davies, & Wong, 2011; Papadopoulos & Martín, 2010). Besides, relatively little attention was devoted to both export development and export intention. Studies highlighted the positive effect of export development on learning environment (Zhou et al., 2010) and of export intensity on the stages of organizational learning process (Casillas et al., 2010). Export strategy was also crucial to organizational learning, which recorded a sharp decreasing trend over time. In this sense, the most widely examined issue was export proactiveness, pursued by general export strategy. This stream of research concluded that exporting firms that are proactive are more able to cultivate both export market orientation and qualitative past export performance (Navarro, Acedo, Losada, & Ruzo, 2011; Navarro-García, Rondán-Cataluña, & AcedoGonzález, 2013). Additionally, it was also depicted that export proactiveness, expressed in the conceptualization of formal export planning,

Table 5 Antecedents of organizational learning. Antecedents of organizational learning

Total (n=88) (%)

1997-2006 (n=32) (%)

2007-2017 (n=56) (%)

Internal Factors Firm characteristics Strategic orientation Organizational commitment and culture International experience Technological capabilities Social capital Firm size Knowledge-based capabilities Knowledge-based resources R&D resources Absorptive capacity Human resources Structural resources Business type Other Management characteristics Managerial capabilities Management commitment Management of mental export models Export behavior Export status Export intensity Export development Export intention Export strategy Export proactiveness General export strategy External Factors Governance mechanism Socio-cultural forces Technological forces Competition Customer issues

88.6 62.5 8.0 8.0

84.4 62.5 – 3.1

91.1 62.5 12.5 10.7

6.8 5.7 5.7 4.5 4.5

6.3 – 15.6 6.3 6.3

7.1 8.9 – 3.6 3.6

3.4 2.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 9.1 10.2 4.5 4.5 1.1

– – – – – – 25.0 6.3 – 6.3 –

5.4 3.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 – 12.5 7.1 3.6 1.8

9.1 4.5 2.3 1.1 1.1 6.8 4.6 2.3 11.4 5.7 2.3 1.1 1.1 1.1

3.1 3.1 – – – 12.5 6.3 6.3 15.6 – 6.3 3.1 3.1 3.1

12.5 5.4 3.6 1.8 1.8 3.6 3.6 – 8.9 8.9 – – – –

decision making, relational dependency, and relational importance were positively linked with foreign market knowledge, both structural integration and relational cooperation had no significant impact on knowledge related to overseas markets (Ling-yee, 2004). 7

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

increases firm's interest in organizational learning process (Samiee & Walters, 1999). With respect to the role of general export strategy in organizational learning, scholars came up with contradictory findings. Whereas no linkage was observed in the interrelation of general export strategy, market learning, and technological learning (Yeoh, 2004), the influence of general export strategy on social learning and innovative productivity was empirically supported (Salomon, 2006; Yeoh, 2004). Another line of research in connection with determinants of organizational learning concentrated on external factors, which cover governance mechanism, socio-cultural forces, technological forces, competition, and customer issues. The primary stress was placed on governance mechanism, which took part only in the second time period. In this respect, scholars noted either positive or negative direct impacts of governance mechanism on organizational learning. For example, Durmuşoğlu, Apfelthaler, Nayir, Alvarez and Mughan, (2012) reported an affirmative relationship between government export assistance programs and organizational learning goal attainment. However, no significant association was discovered between market governance mechanism and learning in organizations (Jer 2004). Moreover, social cultural forces as antecedents of organizational learning were mildly explored. Empirical evidence suggested that in the scope of sales negotiations, only contextual familiarity with foreign buyer's environment contributes to organizational learning in exporting (Shankarmahesh et al., 2004). Further, only one empirical study handled the subject of technological forces, competition, and customer issues in foreign markets in terms of organizational learning. This study revealed the favorable effects of customer sophistication and requests, competitive tension, and acceleration of technological change in export markets on both customer and competitor learning processes (Li et al., 1999). Aside from focusing on direct interactions between determinants of organizational learning and organizational learning, scholars made attempts to throw light on indirect interplays between these issues. Despite scant attention, various moderating and/or mediating variables were added to the conceptual models in order to improve the knowledge on organizational learning in export research. In this case, 8 empirical studies were identified, with 12 moderators and 3 mediators; interestingly, moderating/mediating effects were completely neglected in the extant literature before 2004. Empirical studies concerning the indirect link between organizational learning and its antecedents were distributed across internal (66.7%) and external factors (33.3%). Internal factors as moderating/mediating variables consist of three groups: firm characteristics (33.3%), outcomes (26.7%), and management characteristics (6.7%). Among firm characteristics, technological capabilities were widely used. Specifically, the association between exporting and productivity was found to be mediated by firm's innovativeness and production capability (Tse et al., 2017). With regard to outcomes, as an illustration, empirical research denotes that the higher the export dependence the stronger the positive the relationship between governance mechanism and functional upgrading (Jer, 2014). It was also proven that past performance has a moderating act in the association between strategic orientations and innovation capabilities (Hortinha et al., 2011). On the other hand, the moderating role of firm's productivity in the impact of innovation resources on export propensity was not statistically supported (Monreal-Pérez et al., 2012). Regarding management characteristics, it was suggested that top management's international experience has a positive moderating act in the linkage between export strategy and organizational learning, with special stress on technological, market, and social learning (Yeoh, 2004). In addition, external factors are mainly described by market environment characteristics; in this context, technological forces and competitive intensity served as moderators in the conceptual frameworks of the majority of studies (26.7%). However, the results were inconsistent. On the one side, technological distance between home and export countries increases the positive influence of export status on innovative productivity (Salomon & Jin, 2008). On the other side, technological turbulence in export markets does not moderate the influence of export

Table 6 Conceptualization of organizational learning. Conceptualization of organizational learning

Total (n=134) (%)

1997-2006 (n=37) (%)

2007-2017 (n=97) (%)

Firm resources Strategic orientation Experiential resources Knowledge-based resources Other Dynamic capabilities Technological capabilities Learning-based capabilities Strategic orientation Marketing capabilities Processes Foreign market learning Experiential learning Organizational learning Relationship learning Other Outcomes Performance-related outcomes Export behavior Others

29.1 12.0 8.9 6.7 1.5 28.3 12.0 11.1 3.7 1.5 26.9 8.2 4.5 3.7 2.3 8.2 10.5 8.2

24.3 2.7 10.8 10.8 – 8.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 – 54.1 24.3 10.8 5.4 8.1 5.4 8.1 5.4

30.9 15.4 8.2 5.2 2.1 36.1 15.4 14.5 4.1 2.1 16.5 2.1 2.1 3.1 – 9.2 11.3 8.2

2.3 5.2

– 5.4

3.1 5.2

market information gathering on organizational memory building (Kaleka & Berthon, 2006). Similarly, industry's new product development intensity in particular positively moderates the performance of learning mechanisms (Tse et al., 2017), whereas general competitive intensity in overseas market has no moderating effect on the association between export market information collection and organizational memory development (Kaleka & Berthon, 2006). 4.2.3.2. Conceptualization of organizational learning. In respect of conceptualization of organizational learning, 134 different types of concepts in relation to organizational learning were identified for the two time periods analyzed (Table 6). Identified concepts were grouped into five broad categories, which comprise firm resources, dynamic capabilities, processes, outcomes, and others. Firm resources, dynamic capabilities, and processes attracted the most scholarly attention, outcomes and other concepts, on the other hand, were relatively mildly studied. Accounting for the highest proportion (29.1%) of the organizational learning concepts recognized, firm resources mainly refer to strategic orientation, experiential resources, knowledge-based resources, and other firm resources. Among these, the greatest number of studies (12.0%) focused on strategic orientation, with an increasing trend over time. Drawing on the resource-based view, this research expresses organizational learning as a strategic resource pertaining to organizational culture (Nguyen, Barrett, & Nguyen, 2006), with particular emphasis on learning orientation (e.g., Kropp, Lindsay, & Shoham, 2006; Mac & Evangelista, 2016), export market orientation (e.g., Boso, Cadogan, & Story, 2012; Boso, Cadogan, & Story, 2013), and export entrepreneurial orientation (e.g., Boso et al., 2012, 2013). The second category deals with experiential resources, which gained popularity after 2007. In this stream of research, organizational learning is considered an internal asset, being firmly intertwined with accumulated experience across time and geographical territory (Ogasavara et al., 2016) and containing international experience, business experience, and overall firm experience (e.g., Navarro-García, 2016; Sraha, Raman Sharma, & Crick, 2017). Moreover, knowledge-based resources were explored by a few studies (6.7%), recording a decline in the recent time period. Research on knowledge-based resources attached organizational learning, specifically organizational memory, with an aggregate of knowledge bases in an organization (Kaleka & Berthon, 2006). In this sense, organizational learning was identified as either foreign market knowledge (e.g., Ling-yee, 2004; Toften, 2005) or informational 8

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

principally with information distribution, sense-making, and establishment of relationship-driven memories between exhibitors and visitors (Ling-yee, 2006). Finally, absorptive capacity and learning by exporting exemplify some of the other learning processes within the scope of exporting (Gunawan & Rose, 2014; Love & Ganotakis, 2013). About one tenth of the articles (10.5%) contained organizational learning concepts on the basis of outcomes; this pattern is similar for the two time periods under investigation. While one group of studies (8.2%) in this category encompassed performance-related outcomes, the other group of studies (2.3%) leaned towards export behavior. The tendency in the majority of these studies was to center on the insight that a firm's success in various aspects displays its learning ground (Villar, Pla-Barber, & Alegre, 2012), which comprised two main consequences: (1) productivity (e.g., Salomon & Jin, 2008; Tse et al., 2017), and (2) export performance (e.g., Durmuşoğlu et al., 2012; Navarro et al., 2011). In the case of export behavior, special importance was placed on export intensity (e.g., Brouthers et al., 2009; Casey & Hamilton, 2014) and export propensity outcomes (e.g., Monreal-Pérez et al., 2012). Further, the final category consisted of other conceptualizations of organizational learning such as learning environment, functional upgrading, and processes of sense-making and sensegiving (e.g., Jer, 2014; Shankarmahesh et al., 2004; Zhou et al., 2010).

knowledge (e.g., Casillas, Barbero, & Sapienza, 2015; Morgan et al., 2003) in the field of exporting. Other firm resources, combining knowledge and experience endowments into a single aspect (e.g., Durmaz & Eren, 2017; Morgan et al., 2003), were adopted by only two articles to refer to organizational learning. Dynamic capabilities were concerned in more than a quarter (28.3%) of the concepts distinguished in the extant literature, with a sharp increase throughout time. In this body of research, technological capabilities, learning-based capabilities, strategic orientation, and marketing capabilities served as representatives of organizational learning. With regard to technological capabilities, organizational learning is strictly integrated with the manner firms capitalize on technology (Lisboa et al., 2011a), with specific concentration on the suggestion that innovation-related activities reflect organizational learning (Hortinha et al., 2011). In this respect, the thrust of this research centered on innovation capabilities, notably capabilities of exploratory and exploitative innovation (e.g., Filatotchev et al., 2009; Lisboa et al., 2011b); on the other hand, only one study included Internet capability as organizational learning (Morgan-Thomas & Bridgewater, 2004). In addition, a significant number of studies (11.1%) engaged in learningbased capabilities, which imply an organization's competency to regularly obtain, disseminate, and exploit information to respond to changes in the external environment (Zhang, Tansuhaj, & McCullough, 2009). In this main category, international learning capabilities particularly stood out (e.g., Charoensukmongkol, 2016; Skarmeas et al., 2016), while there was less focus on organization-wide learning capabilities (e.g., Aguilera-Caracuel, Hurtado-Torres, & Aragón-Correa, 2012; Fernández-Mesa & Alegre, 2015) and other learning-based capabilities such as technology learning capability, social learning capability, and network learning capability, etc. (e.g., Rodriguez, Wise, & Ruy Martinez, 2013; Weerawardena et al., 2015). Furthermore, interestingly, anchoring primarily on the dynamic capabilities view, strategic orientation was also denoted as a capability to conceptualize organizational learning. In this context, both export market orientation and learning orientation attracted scholarly interest (e.g., Burpitt & Rondinelli, 1998; Navarro et al., 2010). Apart from these dynamic capabilities, marketing capabilities were in the consideration of only two empirical studies (He, Brouthers, & Filatotchev, 2013; Morgan et al., 2012). These studies associated organizational learning with architectural marketing capabilities, symbolizing the processes within a firm used for foreign market learning and correspondingly, formulating peculiar marketing strategies (Morgan et al., 2012). In spite of a declining tendency toward conceptualizing organizational learning as a process, processes were the third most dominant concept in the pertinent literature. In accordance with this category, organizational learning is characterized by a process, which progresses over time and enables firms to adapt to extrinsic circumstances (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). The processes of organizational learning in the export literature fundamentally involved foreign market learning, experiential learning, organizational learning, relationship learning, and other learning processes. Of these, a considerable amount of research (8.2%) constituted foreign market learning, concerning the behavioral movements entrenched in an organization to build knowledge about external stakeholders in export markets (Li & Cavusgil, 2000). The most frequently explored foreign market learning processes specifically covered the learning processes related to overseas customers and competitors (e.g., Kaleka & Berthon, 2006; Li et al., 1999). Secondly, 4.5% of articles were channeled into experiential learning process, which is strictly based on learning from prior tasks and experiences (Casillas et al., 2015). Other 3.7% of empirical studies spotlighted either the entire organizational learning process or its components. The emphasis of this sub-category was mainly on information acquisition (e.g., Casillas et al., 2010; Kaleka & Berthon, 2006) and information dissemination (e.g., Wu, Sinkovics, Cavusgil, & Roath, 2007) components of the organizational learning process. Moreover, only one study shed light on relationship learning process in the context of trade shows, dealing

4.2.3.3. Outcomes of organizational learning. In the field of exporting, the influence of organizational learning on different outcomes was empirically investigated; in this regard, 104 constructs were identified for the two time periods under examination (Table 7). On the basis of the constructs' nature and measurement, identified consequences were sorted into six first-order categories, namely, (1) performance-related outcomes, (2) export behavior, (3) firm characteristics, (4) export strategy, (5) competitive advantage, and (6) others. The review study Table 7 Outcomes of organizational learning.

9

Outcomes oforganizational learning

Total (n=104) (%)

1997-2006 (n=33) (%)

2007-2017 (n=71) (%)

Performance-related outcomes Export performance Product innovation performance Relationship performance Business performance Strategy implementation effectiveness Export behavior Export intensity International commitment Export intention International entrepreneurship Export propensity Exporter ethnocentrism Other Firm characteristics Marketing capabilities Strategic orientation Technological capabilities Organizational capabilities Marketing resources R&D resources Organizational system Export strategy Export marketing strategy Export proactiveness Environmental strategy Competitive advantage Differentiation positional advantage Cost positional advantage Others

43.3 27.0 4.8

48.5 33.3 3.1

41.0 24.0 5.7

4.8 4.8 1.9

9.1 3.1 –

2.8 5.7 2.8

20.2 7.7 4.8 2.9 1.9

12.1 6.1 – 6.1 –

24.0 8.5 7.1 1.4 2.8

0.9 0.9 0.9 15.4 5.8 3.8 1.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 12.5 10.6 0.9 0.9 3.8 2.9

– – – 15.2 6.1 6.1 – 3.1 – – – 3.1 3.1 – – 12.1 9.1

1.4 1.4 1.4 15.5 5.7 2.8 2.8 – 1.4 1.4 1.4 16.9 14.1 1.4 1.4 – –

0.9 4.8

3.1 9.1

– 2.8

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

technological capabilities. In this sense, the review study broadly advocated that organizational learning serves as critical determinants of marketing capabilities in general, and marketing planning capabilities, marketing implementation capabilities, and adaptive capabilities in particular (e.g., Charoensukmongkol, 2016; Morgan et al., 2003; Weerawardena et al., 2015). With regard to strategic orientation, the scholars suggested that the effectiveness of organizational learning is able to heighten both firm's export and market orientation (e.g., Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, & Siguaw, 2002; Filatotchev et al., 2009; Nguyen et al., 2006). As for technological capabilities, it was unveiled that innovation and manufacturing flexibility capabilities were derived from technology and market learning capabilities in exporting (Rodriguez et al., 2013). Another important proportion of organizational learning consequences (12.5%) centered on export strategy, with the trust of research concerning export marketing strategy. Among these, the empirical studies mainly focused on the decisions about either the components of marketing-mix strategy or marketing strategy adaptation. In terms of the former, the affirmative influence of innovation capabilities on product strategy, covering product innovation and new product differentiation, was broadly acknowledged (Lages et al., 2009; Lisboa et al., 2011a). In addition, market orientation capability was found to be significantly correlated with export channel choice (He et al., 2013). As regards to the latter, the findings, however, were contradictory. For example, the empirical reports demonstrated that export market orientation enhances the adaptation of marketing-mix (Navarro et al., 2010, 2011; Navarro-García et al., 2013) and experiential learning contributes favorably to the pricing strategy adaptation (Lages & Montgomery, 2005). Nevertheless, in other research, it was denoted that product, promotion, pricing, and distribution adaptation, none of the elements of the marketing strategy adaptation had a significant relationship with managerial learning (Lages, Jap, & Griffith, 2008). Besides export marketing strategy, the comprehensive analysis also proved that firms with organizational learning capability are more inclined to pursue a proactive environmental strategy (Aguilera-Caracuel et al., 2012); qualitative past export performance strengthens firm's export proactivity (Navarro et al., 2011). Notwithstanding the adequate concern about competitive advantagerelated consequences of organizational learning in the initial time period, interestingly, this category did not draw any attention during the second time frame. Most of the studies on competitive advantage (2.9%) contained differentiation positional advantage, followed by cost positional advantage. In respect of differentiation positional advantage, empirical evidence supported that, specifically, organizational learning processes and organizational memory development are conducive to gain product and service advantages in target countries (Kaleka & Berthon, 2006; Li & Cavusgil, 2000). On the other hand, no statistically significant association was detected between experiential resources and cost competitive advantage in export markets (Piercy, Kaleka, & Katsikeas, 1998). Other outcomes of organizational learning, such as knowledge integration, local market competence, and flexibility, attracted limited interest among scholars. As an illustration, in the context of exporterimporter sales negotiations, while sense-making increases flexibility during the negotiation process, it reduces conflict between parties (Shankarmahesh et al., 2004). Moreover, in the sense of exporter-foreign distributor relationships, knowledge dissemination with distributors enhances firm's local market competence; but also causes distributor opportunism in exporting (Wu et al., 2007). As for indirect linkages between organizational learning and its consequences, 10 empirical articles were recognized, including 13 moderators and 2 mediators. The review study pointed out that scholars started to be keen on exploring the impact of moderating/mediating variables on the association between organizational learning and its outcomes after 2006. In the existing literature, compared to external factors (40.0%), internal factors (60.0%) were more used as

pointed out that the empirical articles laid most emphasis on performance-related outcomes (43.3%), while the consequences of export behavior (20.2%), firm characteristics (15.4%), and export strategy (12.5) received relatively less interest. Nevertheless, competitive advantage (3.8%) and other outcomes (4.8%) did not attract adequate attention. Performance-related outcomes of organizational learning in exporting mainly incorporate export performance, product innovation performance, relationship performance, business performance, and strategy implementation effectiveness, marking a similar pattern during the two time frames. In respect of export performance, albeit a declining trend throughout time, organizational learning was broadly considered conducive to export success; such that empirical evidence largely confirmed the positive correlation between organizational learning and export achievement (e.g., Evangelista & Mac, 2016; Li & Cavusgil, 2000; Souchon et al., 2012). However, there were also studies reporting that organizational learning is not statistically associated with export performance. For instance, according to the findings of the aggregate analysis, no positive direct relationship was found between export market exploration and current export performance (e.g., Lisboa, Skarmeas, & Lages, 2013; Skarmeas et al., 2016). In terms of product innovation performance, all empirical articles affirmed the favorable influence of organizational learning on export new product success (e.g., Alegre et al., 2012; Boso et al., 2013; Li et al., 1999), displaying a consistency in the pertinent literature. Importantly, this affirmative linkage between organizational learning and export innovation performance is more prominent in advanced economies such as Australia (Weerawardena et al., 2015), the United States (Li et al., 1999), and the United Kingdom (Boso et al., 2012), in comparison with emerging economies. Moreover, in extant research relationship performance was evaluated in the context of importer-exporter and buyer-supplier relationships. Regarding importer-exporter relationships, learning orientation adds positively to relationship quality (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2010; Nguyen et al., 2006). As for buyer-supplier relationships, it was concluded that relationship learning creates superior relationship performance (Ling-yee, 2006). Organizational learning was also seen as central to overall business performance. Notably, learning orientation, new product development know-how, and exploitative capabilities enhance current business performance (Ellis et al., 2011; Kropp et al., 2006; Lisboa et al., 2011b), while explorative capabilities help firms cultivate future business performance (Lisboa et al., 2011b). Lastly, one empirical study dealt with strategy implementation effectiveness, coming up with the finding that architectural marketing capabilities are positively correlated with internal marketing strategy implementation effectiveness but not with external marketing strategy implementation effectiveness (Morgan et al., 2012). In the related literature, export behavior (20.2%) was the second most common category of organizational learning consequences. Research on this phenomenon as an outcome of organizational learning doubled (12.1% vs. 24.0%), showing a rising tendency from 2006 to 2017. In this category, export intensity, international commitment, and export intention drew the most attention. Empirical studies largely indicated that organizational learning, such as foreign market knowledge and organizational learning capability, gives rise to the ratio of exports/ total sales (e.g., Alegre et al., 2012; Fernández-Mesa & Alegre, 2015; Ling-yee, 2004). With respect to international commitment, it was presented that, specifically, both international experience and export market orientation boost the degree of resource allocation to international operations (e.g., Navarro-García et al., 2013; Papadopoulos & Martín, 2010; Sraha et al., 2017). Also, the statistical results about export intention underlined that organizational learning increases the attractiveness of export trade, which shapes firm's export decisionmaking (e.g., Burpitt & Rondinelli, 1998; Casillas et al., 2010). A considerable amount of research on outcomes of organizational learning (15.4%) was also devoted to firm characteristics, with particular concentration on marketing capabilities, strategic orientation, and 10

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

moderating/mediating variables. Of these, firm characteristics (33.3%), outcomes (20.0%), and management characteristics (6.7%) constitute internal factors. In terms of firm characteristics, as an illustration, firm size moderates the link between product innovation and export intensity; such that the relationship is more intense for larger firms (Villar et al., 2012). The moderating role of firm age in the association between congenital knowledge and export intensity is also evident; the older the firm, the weaker the linkage (Casillas et al., 2015). In addition to these, it was found that the link between export experience and innovation resources is moderated by international business network ties (Ogasavara et al., 2016). Regarding outcomes, there are mixed findings. Whereas no moderating effect of market portfolio diversity on the connection between export market orientation and export market success was noticed (Sørensen & Madsen, 2012), it was empirically reported that export intention positively moderates the relation between organizational learning (i.e., vicarious learning and experiential learning) and export intensity (Casillas et al., 2015). On the other side, the intervening impact of product innovation performance on organizational learning capability and export intensity was statistically proven (Alegre et al., 2012). Concerning management characteristics, empirical research denoted that managerial commitment to exporting mediates the association between international experience and export performance (Sraha et al., 2017). Moreover, external factors attracted attention to an important extent, with specific focus on competitive intensity and customer turbulence. It was advocated that competitive intensity in export markets increases the positive influence of organizational learning on competitive advantage and export success (Boso et al., 2012; Kaleka & Berthon, 2006). In respect of customer turbulence, however, the empirical results are diverse. For instance, in highly turbulent environments, the relationship between organizational memory development and differentiation positional advantage becomes stronger (Kaleka & Berthon, 2006). In a similar vein, high customer turbulence in foreign markets increases the strength of the connection between export market exploration and export performance (Lisboa et al., 2013). Nevertheless, customer turbulence in overseas markets failed to produce any moderating effect on export market exploitation and export performance (Lisboa et al., 2013).

total citations and total number of studies published were taken into account. However, the measure of average number of citations received per article highlights Jianch Guan and Ning Ma as other outstanding scholars in the field. The similar situation is also true for the most influential articles in the existing research; such that the average number of citations received per study indicates Filatotchev et al. (2009); Salomon and Shaver (2005); Guan and Ma (2003), and Morgan et al. (2012) as the seminal works for this literature, while total citation numbers point out additional different studies. The content analysis demonstrates that organizational learning is one of the influential theories in the field of exporting, especially in the recent decade. Throughout time, export research on organizational learning has significantly advanced both in terms of volume and quality. However, in spite of these improvements, this stream of research is still at the introduction level due to a number of weaknesses in scope of research, research methodology, and empirical issues. Stemming from this review study, some important points related to scope of research, research methodology, and empirical issues are delineated in an attempt to make this body of research move from the early stage of identification toward maturity. Concerning scope, the extension of relevant articles has broadened. Evidence of this broadening can be attributed to the finding that the geographical regions, in which the empirical studies were conducted, have widened. For instance, there has been an increasing inclination toward adopting different countries in Europe and Asia (e.g., Italy, Denmark, and Turkey) as a research setting. In addition, in last years the zones of Caribbean and Africa have drawn special attention in the matter of the investigation context, which have been completely neglected by previous studies. Moreover, huge concentration on a multiindustry approach demonstrates other strength in scope-related issues, as employment of multiple industries increases observed variance and enhances the generalizability of the results (Morgan, Kaleka, & Katsikeas, 2004). On the other hand, the dominance of empirical studies focusing on a single country setting exhibits an important gap in scope of research, since multi-country analysis offers information on the cross-national stability of the theory (Cadogan, 2010). Albeit the existence of empirical articles with a multiple-country perspective in the extant literature, only a few dealt with comparisons across cultures (e.g., Morgan et al., 2003; Weerawardena et al., 2015), which warrants attention in future studies. In respect of firm size, relying on the argument that organizational learning is strategically critical to expedite internationalization processes of small and medium-sized firms (Love et al., 2016), the growing trend towards samples encompassing small and medium-sized enterprises is understandable. Nonetheless, organizational size is of vital value in appreciating the impact of organizational learning on exporting; such that large-sized firms are more apt to learn compared to smaller ones (Espinosa & Lindahl, 2016). Therefore, more research on large-sized enterprises is expected to offer additional insights. The unit of analysis constitutes another issue that needs to be considered. The review points out that the firm-level investigation has been gaining popularity in research on organizational learning within the context of exporting. The basic rationale behind this finding is attached to the fact that each firm has idiosyncratic learning and knowledge management practices (Zheng, Yang, & McLean, 2010); and thus, examination of learning processes at the firm level sheds more light on the organizational learning phenomenon (Bapuji & Crossan, 2004). However, learning changes considerably on the basis of whether it occurs at the individual, group, or organization level; accordingly, the objective of the study should be the main concern to decide on the appropriate unit of analysis (Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006). Methodologically, the pertinent research is overwhelmingly characterized by cross-sectional studies, which is contradictory with the dynamic nature of organizational learning. Because learning is an active process, which progresses over time and different degrees of organization as well as forms an interaction between organizational

5. Discussion and future research directions The overall purpose of this study is to uncover both the evolution of organizational learning in exporting through a bibliometric analysis and to assess scope of research, research methodology, and empirical issues related to the pertinent literature by means of a content analysis. In terms of the bibliometric analysis, the study reveals the most influential publication outlets, the leading universities, the most prolific and most cited scholars, and the cult studies in the field, on the basis of the data retrieved from the Web of Science. Improving the knowledge about the subject, the findings serve as a guide for the ones who are keen on organizational learning within the export context. With regard to the most influential journals, the results put stress on the dominance of international marketing and business publication outlets in the existing literature. On the other side, interestingly, journals associated with the area of international management added to this stream of research to a much lesser extent. In addition, the limited number of publications in other management- and strategy-related journals with a broader focus (e.g., Journal of Management, Strategic Management Journal, etc.) can be considered surprising. Regarding the most influential institutions, the prominent universities in this research area are mainly based in the United Kingdom. The significant contributions of the universities from Europe can be expected; however, the relatively small impact of the institutions in the United States is remarkable for this body of research. The most influential authors, touching on organizational learning in the context of exporting, were identified as Robert M. Salomon, Constantine S. Katsikeas, Luis Filipe Lages, and John W. Cadogan, when 11

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

attention (i.e., firm resources, dynamic capabilities, and processes). Although one of the main assertions of the organizational learning theory relies on that learning incorporates processes and consequences (Dodgson, 1993), the organizational learning notion has been increasingly expressed in the conceptualizations of firm resources and dynamic capabilities in recent years. On the other side, since the research theme within the context of exporting is relatively young and immature, this line of research is extremely fragmented. Within the 83 empirical articles, 134 different conceptualizations of organizational learning were recognized, implying the lack of agreement among scholars as to the definition, recognition, and operationalization of organizational learning. Thus, the research should be consolidated to standardize the understanding of the role of organizational learning in export activities. Research Gap 2: Research on organizational learning in the export context should set a clear understanding of the essence of organizational learning. Other conceptual challenge is related to the disconnection and inconsistency on the nature of organizational learning in exporting. As an illustration, mainly because of the discrepancy among scholars in identifying resources and capabilities (İpek, 2017), in the case of the conceptualization of organizational learning as a strategic orientation such as learning orientation and export market orientation, organizational learning was described as both a firm resource and dynamic capability. This creates confusion on the essence of the organizational learning phenomena which merits special interest. Research Gap 3: Research on organizational learning in the export context should explore more the factors that are conducive to organizational learning. Apart from the conceptualizations of organizational learning, there is also room for improvement as regards the antecedents and outcomes of organizational learning. In terms of the former, the determinants of organizational learning in the export context were relatively neglected; such that only half of the total articles (49.4%) aimed to unveil the antecedent factors affecting organizational learning in export research. Thus, this review provides only a partial understanding of these interrelationships; and accordingly, there is a strong demonstration that more research is needed to shed light on the elements that are conducive to organizational learning in the area of exporting. Research Gap 4: Research on organizational learning in the export context should address more the effect of management characteristics, export behavior, and export strategy on organizational learning. Additionally and importantly, the considerable amount of the determinants was channelled into internal factors, with a huge emphasis on firm characteristics. Nevertheless, the antecedents related to firm characteristics are really diverse and multifarious; and should be aggregated. Other consideration is that more research interest should be devoted to management characteristics, export behavior, and export strategy as determinants of organizational learning. Respecting management characteristics, for example, managerial and organizational learning are closely intertwined with each other (Torbert, 1994), which requires more concentration. Besides, further research should take into account the act of export behavior and export strategy in cultivating organizational learning, as both of these are able to shape the direction of learning within an organization (e.g., Casillas et al., 2010; Navarro et al., 2011). Research Gap 5: Research on organizational learning in the export context should examine more the influence of external antecedents of organizational learning. Another empirical problem arises from the limited number of studies (only 4 out of the 83 empirical studies) dealing with external factors as antecedents of organizational learning in exporting, which reported inconsistent findings. External environment has an enormous influence on the complexity of organizational learning (Levitt & March, 1988) and environmental conditions determine the degree to which firms gain advantages from learning activities (Lichtenthaler, 2009). Correspondingly, more research attempts should be made to validate

memory and new learning (Crossan et al., 1999), the study highlights both the worth and requirement for longitudinal studies in this field. Regarding sampling design, both probability and non-probability sampling attracted attention in this body of research, but with a decreasing magnitude. Especially, there is a call for empirical studies utilizing more probability sampling techniques, since random sampling allows researchers to better represent the attributes of the whole population and to assess and show the degree of representativeness of the sample through statistical methods (Gentry & Hoftyzer, 1977). The review study also reveals the popularity of the relatively small sample sizes in this line of research, with a rising tendency over time. Similar challenges as those of non-probability sampling methods are valid for the adoption of small sample sizes; therefore, future empirical investigation should use larger sample sizes in an attempt to reduce sampling errors and to strengthen the generalizability of research results (Yang, Wang, & Su, 2006). Further, the results of the review indicate a gradual departure from employing less diversified data collection methods toward utilizing a more variety of tools for data collection. This implies greater sophistication in this area, as organizational learning is complicated in nature and hence needs in-depth analysis (Jerez-Gómez, Céspedes-Lorente, & Valle-Cabrera, 2005). With respect to response rates, even though the reported response rates are generally satisfactory, approximately half of the studies did not evaluate non-response bias, which casts doubt on the soundness of the data gathered (Tan & Sousa, 2011). In order to ensure about the quality of the sample (Armstrong & Overton, 1977), high concentration on controls for non-response bias is necessary. Additionally, on the basis of the finding that the great majority of studies collected the data from single key informants, potential common method bias may inflate or deflate the associations among the theoretical constructs (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Correspondingly, despite the efforts to eliminate common method bias, more attention should be paid to both procedural and statistical remedies to check for common method bias. As for analytical approach, the growing inclination toward performing more advanced multivariate statistical tools (e.g., structural equation modeling) is an indication of improvement in research methodology (Leonidou & Katsikeas, 2010). However, it is imperative to apply more diverse set of data analysis methods to come up with more rigorous findings. Empirically, the knowledge on organizational learning in the field of exporting has progressively improved, offering useful insights. Nevertheless, the analysis of the empirical issues highlights the fact that there is a requirement for theoretical development and particular papers within the export context in the following areas: (1) fragmented and diverse conceptualizations of organizational learning; (2) an unambiguous nature of organizational learning; (3) more concentration on the determinant factors of organizational learning; (4) the influence of specific internal antecedents, such as management characteristics, export behavior, and export strategy on organizational learning; (5) the impact of external determinants on organizational learning; (6) a deeper focus on the consequences of organizational learning such as product innovation performance, export behavior, export strategy, and competitive advantage; (7) a broad understanding of the distinctiveness of organizational learning in relation to its antecedents and outcomes; and (8) the indirect relationship between organizational learning and its antecedents/consequences. In the subsequent discussion, the research gaps associated with these empirical issues are identified; the main purpose is to set ground for future research, with special emphasis on both the challenges and opportunities in the extant literature. Research Gap 1: Research on organizational learning in the export context should consolidate conceptualizations of organizational learning, with a consensus on the definition, identification, and operationalization of the concept. On the conceptual side, the content analysis indicates that the conceptualizations of organizational learning in the export context have taken many different forms, with some of them drawing great research 12

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

context should draw the boundaries of the organizational learning concept. Yet another crucial challenge associated with the antecedents and consequences of organizational learning in exporting also warrants further attention. In conjunction with the conceptualizations of organizational learning, there are important contradictions as to the determinant factors in the extant literature. In some cases organizational learning was conceptualized as a specific term such as innovation capability, international experience, and export intensity; but in other cases the same term was set as an antecedent of organizational learning, which signifies an important barrier to the improvement of the related research. The same is also valid for the outcomes of organizational learning; for instance, in some instances, organizational learning was expressed in the conceptualization of an outcome, particularly of export performance; however, in another instance export performance was positioned as a consequence of organizational learning. This of course, should be viewed with caution. Research Gap 8: Research on organizational learning in the export context should make more attempts to uncover the indirect associations between organizational learning and its antecedents/consequences through the inclusion of moderating/mediating variables. As a final comment on empirical issues, irrespective of the stress placed on the direct relationships, the indirect linkages between the antecedent factors and organizational learning and organizational learning and its outcomes did not attract adequate attention among scholars in the field. Only 8 empirical studies aimed to shed light on the indirect relationship between organizational learning and its determinants, while only 10 empirical articles investigated the indirect interaction between organizational learning and its outcomes through moderating/mediating effects. This limited comprehension merits further investigation.

particular associations between external circumstances and organizational learning in the context of exporting, which were suggested in a few instances. Research Gap 6: Research on organizational learning in the export context should focus more on the investigation of the interrelationship between organizational learning and product innovation performance, export behavior, export strategy, and competitive advantage. As for the outcomes of organizational learning within the export context, the content analysis shows that performance-related outcomes, specifically, export performance had almost reached saturation point, whereas other consequences, namely, export behavior, firm characteristics, and export strategy continue to gather momentum. Concerning performance-related outcomes, research should give more insight into product innovation performance, due to the notion that learning embedded in the organizational culture cultivates new product success (Hung, Lien, Yang, Wu, & Kuo, 2011). In addition, it has been strongly supported that a firm's orientation toward learning during the internationalization process increases its commitment to export activities, which ultimately affects export behavior (Fernández-Mesa & Alegre, 2015). Learning is also influential on export strategy, since it enables firms to deeply analyze the external conditions and to formulate strategies on the basis of this information collected from the environment (Lages et al., 2008). Building on these aforementioned issues, important avenues for research exist in terms of the influence of organizational learning on both export behavior and export strategy. Furthermore, as learning organizations are more successful at sensing the environment, they better adapt to market changes, which brings sustainable competitive advantage (Day, 1994). Therefore, competitive advantage as a consequence of organizational learning represents another promising area of research in the field of exporting, which was rarely examined. Research Gap 7: Research on organizational learning in the export

Appendix Journal contribution to research on organizational learning in the export context Journal field and name

Subtotal

1997-2006

2007-2017

Marketing International Marketing Review Industrial Marketing Management Journal of International Marketing European Journal of Marketing Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Journal of Global Marketing International Journal of Research in Marketing Advances in International Marketing Journal of Strategic Marketing Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Marketing Intelligence and Planning International business and area studies International Business Review Journal of International Business Studies Journal of World Business Asia Pacific Business Review Journal of International Management European Journal of International Management

31 10 5 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 27 14 7 2 2 1 1

12 6 2

19 4 3 5

13

2 1

2 2 1 1 1

1 5 1 2 2

22 13 5 2 1 1

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek 7 2 2 1 1 1 7 4 2 1 5 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 83

Entrepreneurship and small business management International Small Business Journal Journal of International Entrepreneurship Journal of Small Business Management International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research General management, ethics, and social responsibility Journal of Business Research Journal of Management Management Decision Strategy Technology Analysis and Strategic Management Strategic Management Journal Strategic Organization Journal of Economics and Management Strategy Innovation Technovation Journal of Technology Management in China Information management International Journal of Information Management Operations and technology management Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management Operations research and management science Decision Sciences Regional studies, planning, and environment European Planning Studies Total

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

6 2 2 1 1 6 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

23

60

254–269. Casillas, J. C., Acedo, F. J., & Barbero, J. L. (2010). Learning, unlearning and internationalisation: Evidence from the pre-export phase. International Journal of Information Management, 30(2), 162–173. Casillas, J. C., Barbero, J. L., & Sapienza, H. J. (2015). Knowledge acquisition, learning, and the initial pace of internationalization. International Business Review, 24(1), 102–114. Charoensukmongkol, P. (2016). Cultural intelligence and export performance of small and medium enterprises in Thailand: Mediating roles of organizational capabilities. International Small Business Journal, 34(1), 105–122. Chen, J., Sousa, C. M., & He, X. (2016). The determinants of export performance: A review of the literature 2006-2014. International Marketing Review, 33(5), 626–670. Coombes, P. H., & Nicholson, J. D. (2013). Business models and their relationship with marketing: A systematic literature review. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 656–664. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs. Darling, J. R., & Postnikoff, J. F. (1985). Strategic export information for small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 23, 28–37. Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52. Dickson, P. R. (1996). The static and dynamic mechanics of competition: A comment on Hunt and Morgan’s comparative advantage theory. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 102–106. Dixon, N. M. (1992). Organizational learning: A review of the literature with implications for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3(1), 29–49. Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375–394. Durmaz, A., & Eren, M. S. (2017). Export performance: Is it possible through knowledge and capabilities? Evidence from Turkish manufacturing firms. Journal of Global Marketing, XX(X) XX-XX. Durmuşoğlu, S. S., Apfelthaler, G., Nayir, D. Z., Alvarez, R., & Mughan, T. (2012). The effect of government-designed export promotion service use on small and mediumsized enterprise goal achievement: A multidimensional view of export performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), 680–691. Ellis, P. D., Davies, H., & Wong, A. H. K. (2011). Export intensity and marketing in transition economies: Evidence from China. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(4), 593–602. Espinosa, M. D. M. B., & Lindahl, J. M. M. (2016). Organizational design as a learning enabler: A fuzzy-set approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1340–1344. Evangelista, F., & Mac, L. (2016). The influence of experience and deliberate learning on SME export performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 22(6), 860–879. Eteokleous, P. P., Leonidou, L. C., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in international marketing: Review, assessment, and future research. International Marketing Review, 33(4), 580–624. Fernández-Mesa, A., & Alegre, J. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation and export intensity: Examining the interplay of organizational learning and innovation. International Business Review, 24(1), 148–156. Fetscherin, M., & Heinrich, D. (2015). Consumer brand relationships research: A bibliometric citation meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 380–390.

References Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., & Overy, P. (2015). Sustainabilityoriented innovation: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(2), 1–26. Aguilera-Caracuel, J., Hurtado-Torres, N. E., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2012). Does international experience help firms to be green? A knowledge-based view of how international experience and organisational learning influence proactive environmental strategies. International Business Review, 21(5), 847–861. Alegre, J., Pla-Barber, J., Chiva, R., & Villar, C. (2012). Organisational learning capability, product innovation performance and export intensity. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24(5), 511–526. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402. Aykol, B., Palihawadana, D., & Leonidou, L. C. (2013). Research on the import activities of firms 1960–2010. Management International Review, 53(2), 215–250. Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411–427. Balabanis, G., Theodosiou, M., & Katsikea, E. S. (2004). Export marketing: Developments and a research agenda. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 353–377. Bapuji, H., & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers: Reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning, 35(4), 397–417. Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 123–139. Bell DeTienne, K., & Thompson, J. A. (1996). Database marketing and organizational learning theory: Toward a research agenda. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(5), 12–34. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). What do we know about the h index? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381–1385. Boso, N., Cadogan, J. W., & Story, V. M. (2012). Complementary effect of entrepreneurial and market orientations on export new product success under differing levels of competitive intensity and financial capital. International Business Review, 21(4), 667–681. Boso, N., Cadogan, J. W., & Story, V. M. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation as drivers of product innovation success: A study of exporters from a developing economy. International Small Business Journal, 31(1), 57–81. Brouthers, L. E., Nakos, G., Hadjimarcou, J., & Brouthers, K. D. (2009). Key factors for successful export performance for small firms. Journal of International Marketing, 17(3), 21–38. Burpitt, W. J., & Rondinelli, D. A. (1998). Export decision-making in small firms: The role of organizational learning. Journal of World Business, 33(1), 51–68. Cadogan, J. (2010). Comparative, cross-cultural, and cross-national research: A comment on good and bad practice. International Marketing Review, 27(6), 601–605. Cadogan, J. W., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1995). Narver and Slater, Kohli and Jaworski and the market orientation construct: Integration and internationalization. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 3(1), 41–60. Cadogan, J. W., Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2002). Export market-oriented activities: Their antecedents and performance consequences. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 615–626. Casey, S. R., & Hamilton, R. T. (2014). Export performance of small firms from small countries: The case of New Zealand. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 12(3),

14

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

learning research and proposals for its measurement. British Journal of Management, 12(2), 113–129. Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. The Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863. Latacz-Lohmann, U., & Hamsvoort, C. P. (1998). Auctions as a means of creating a market for public goods from agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(3), 334–345. Lee, S., Courtney, J. F., & O’Keefe, R. M. (1992). A system for organizational learning using cognitive maps. OMEGA International Journal of Management Science, 20(1), 23–36. Leonidou, L. C., Barnes, B. R., & Talias, M. A. (2006). Exporter–Importer relationship quality: The inhibiting role of uncertainty, distance, and conflict. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(5), 576–588. Leonidou, L. C., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2010). Integrative assessment of exporting research articles in business journals during the period 1960-2007. Journal of Business Research, 63(8), 879–887. Leonidou, L. C., Katsikeas, C. S., & Coudounaris, D. N. (2010). Five decades of business research into exporting: A bibliographic analysis. Journal of International Management, 16(1), 78–91. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340. Li, T., Nicholls, J. A. F., & Roslow, S. (1999). The relationships between market-driven learning and new product success in export markets. International Marketing Review, 16(6), 476–503. Li, T., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2000). Decomposing the effects of market knowledge competence in new product export: A dimensionality analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 34(1/2), 57–80. Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 822–846. Ling-yee, L. (2004). An examination of the foreign market knowledge of exporting firms based in the People’s Republic of China: Its determinants and effect on export intensity. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(7), 561–572. Ling-yee, L. (2006). Relationship learning at trade shows: Its antecedents and consequences. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(2), 166–177. Lisboa, A., Skarmeas, D., & Lages, C. (2011a). Entrepreneurial orientation, exploitative and explorative capabilities, and performance outcomes in export markets: A resource-based approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1274–1284. Lisboa, A., Skarmeas, D., & Lages, C. (2011b). Innovative capabilities: Their drivers and effects on current and future performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1157–1161. Lisboa, A., Skarmeas, D., & Lages, C. (2013). Export market exploitation and exploration and performance: Linear, moderated, complementary and non-linear effects. International Marketing Review, 30(3), 211–230. Love, J. H., & Ganotakis, P. (2013). Learning by exporting: Lessons from high-technology SMEs. International Business Review, 22(1), 1–17. Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Experience, age and exporting performance in UK SMEs. International Business Review, 25(4), 806–819. Mac, L., & Evangelista, F. (2016). The relative impact of market orientation and entrepreneurship on export performance: Do we really know enough? Journal of Global Marketing, 29(5), 266–281. Mac, L., & Evangelista, F. (2017). Transforming learning into export performance by Chinese firms. Asia Pacific Business Review, 23(4), 493–508. Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Howell, R. (1996). The quality and effectiveness of marketing strategy: Effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict in intraorganizational relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 299–313. Moini, A. H. (1997). Barriers inhibiting export performance of small and medium-sized manufacturing firms. Journal of Global Marketing, 10(4), 67–93. Monreal-Pérez, J., Aragón-Sánchez, A., & Sánchez-Marín, G. (2012). A longitudinal study of the relationship between export activity and innovation in the Spanish firm: The moderating role of productivity. International Business Review, 21(5), 862–877. Morgan, N. A., Kaleka, A., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2004). Antecedents of export venture performance: A theoretical model and empirical assessment. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 90–108. Morgan, N. A., Katsikeas, C. S., & Vorhies, D. W. (2012). Export marketing strategy implementation, export marketing capabilities, and export venture performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(2), 271–289. Morgan, N. A., Zou, S., Vorhies, D. W., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2003). Experiential and informational knowledge, architectural marketing capabilities, and the adaptive performance of export ventures: A cross-national study. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 287–321. Morgan-Thomas, A., & Bridgewater, S. (2004). Internet and exporting: Determinants of success in virtual export channels. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 393–408. Navarro, A., Acedo, F. J., Losada, F., & Ruzo, E. (2011). Integrated model of export activity: Analysis of heterogeneity in managers’ orientations and perceptions on strategic marketing management in foreign markets. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 187–204. Navarro, A., Acedo, F. J., Robson, M. J., Ruzo, E., & Losada, F. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of firms’ export commitment: An empirical study. Journal of International Marketing, 18(3), 41–61. Navarro-García, A. (2016). Drivers of export entrepreneurship. International Business Review, 25(1), 244–254. Navarro-García, A., Rondán-Cataluña, F. J., & Acedo-González, F. J. (2013). The importance of an export-oriented culture for export performance. European Journal of International Management, 7(3), 254–277.

Filatotchev, I., Liu, X., Buck, T., & Wright, M. (2009). The export orientation and export performance of high-technology SMEs in emerging markets: The effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entrepreneurs. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(6), 1005–1021. Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813. Friedlander, F. (1983). Patterns of individual and organizational learning. The executive mind: New insights on managerial thought and action. San Francisco: JosseyBass192–220. García, F., Avella, L., & Fernández, E. (2012). Learning from exporting: The moderating effect of technological capabilities. International Business Review, 21(6), 1099–1111. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(JulyAugust), 78–91. Gentry, D. L., & Hoftyzer, J. (1977). The misuse of statistical techniques in evaluating sampling data. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 5(1), 106–112. Glänzel, W. (2006). On the opportunities and limitations of the h-index. Science Focus, 1(1), 10–11. Guan, J., & Ma, N. (2003). Innovative capability and export performance of Chinese firms. Technovation, 23(9), 737–747. Gunawan, J., & Rose, E. L. (2014). Absorptive capacity development in Indonesian exporting firms: How do institutions matter? International Business Review, 23(1), 45–54. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706. He, X., Brouthers, K. D., & Filatotchev, I. (2013). Resource-based and institutional perspectives on export channel selection and export performance. Journal of Management, 39(1), 27–47. Helm, R., & Gritsch, S. (2014). Examining the influence of uncertainty on marketing mix strategy elements in emerging business to business export-markets. International Business Review, 23(2), 418–428. Henri, J. F. (2006). Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective. Accounting Organizations and Society, 31(6), 529–558. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102(46), 16569–16572. Hortinha, P., Lages, C., & Filipe Lages, L. (2011). The trade-off between customer and technology orientations: Impact on innovation capabilities and export performance. Journal of International Marketing, 19(3), 36–58. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115. Hult, G. T. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1997). Global organizational learning capacity in purchasing: Construct and measurement. Journal of Business Research, 40(2), 97–111. Hung, R. Y. Y., Lien, B. Y. H., Yang, B., Wu, C. M., & Kuo, Y. M. (2011). Impact of TQM and organizational learning on innovation performance in the high-tech industry. International Business Review, 20(2), 213–225. Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1996). The resource-advantage theory of competition: Dynamics, path dependencies, and evolutionary dimensions. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 107–114. Ibeh, K., Brock, J. K. U., & Zhou, Y. J. (2004). The drop and collect survey among industrial populations: Theory and empirical evidence. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(2), 155–165. İpek, İ. (2017). The resource-based view within the export context: An integrative review of empirical studies. Journal of Global Marketing, XX(X), 1–23. Jer, R. (2014). What makes export manufacturers pursue functional upgrading in an emerging market? A study of Chinese technology new ventures. International Business Review, 23(4), 741–749. Jerez-Gómez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational learning capability: A proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 715–725. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm-a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32. Kafouros, M. I., Buckley, P. J., Sharp, J. A., & Wang, C. (2008). The role of internationalization in explaining innovation performance. Technovation, 28(1), 63–74. Kaleka, A., & Berthon, P. (2006). Learning and locale: The role of information, memory and environment in determining export differentiation advantage. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 1016–1024. Klein, S., & Roth, V. J. (1993). Satisfaction with international marketing channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 39–44. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. USA: Sage Publications Inc. Kropp, F., Lindsay, N. J., & Shoham, A. (2006). Entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5), 504–523. Kungwansupaphan, C., & Siengthai, S. (2014). Exploring entrepreneurs’ human capital components and effects on learning orientation in early internationalizing firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(3), 561–587. Lages, L. F., Jap, S. D., & Griffith, D. A. (2008). The role of past performance in export ventures: A short-term reactive approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 304–325. Lages, L. F., & Montgomery, D. B. (2005). The relationship between export assistance and performance improvement in Portuguese export ventures: An empirical test of the mediating role of pricing strategy adaptation. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 755–784. Lages, L. F., Silva, G., & Styles, C. (2009). Relationship capabilities, quality, and innovation as determinants of export performance. Journal of International Marketing, 17(4), 47–70. Lähteenmäki, S., Toivonen, J., & Mattila, M. (2001). Critical aspects of organizational

15

International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

İ. İpek

Sørensen, H. E., & Madsen, T. K. (2012). Strategic orientations and export market success of manufacturing firms: The role of market portfolio diversity. International Marketing Review, 29(4), 424–441. Souchon, A. L., Sy-Changco, J. A., & Dewsnap, B. (2012). Learning orientation in export functions: Impact on export growth. International Marketing Review, 29(2), 175–202. Sousa, C. M., Martínez-López, F. J., & Coelho, F. (2008). The determinants of export performance: A review of the research in the literature between 1998 and 2005. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 343–374. Sraha, G., Raman Sharma, R., & Crick, D. (2017). Ghanaian exporters’ international experience and performance: The mediating role of export commitment. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25(4), 353–365. Tan, Q., & Sousa, C. M. (2011). Research on export pricing: Still moving toward maturity. Journal of International Marketing, 19(3), 1–35. Toften, K. (2005). The influence of export information use on export knowledge and performance: Some empirical evidence. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(2), 200–219. Torbert, W. R. (1994). Managerial learning, organizational learning: A potentially powerful redundancy. Management Learning, 25(1), 57–70. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004. Tse, C. H., Yu, L., & Zhu, J. (2017). A multimediation model of learning by exporting: Analysis of export-induced productivity gains. Journal of Management, 43(7), 2118–2146. Villar, C., Pla-Barber, J., & Alegre, J. (2012). Unravelling the moderating effects of size and experience on product innovations and exports: A study in a medium knowledgeintensive industry. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24(2), 219–238. Villar, C., Alegre, J., & Pla-Barber, J. (2014). Exploring the role of knowledge management practices on exports: A dynamic capabilities view. International Business Review, 23(1), 38–44. Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 635–657. Weerawardena, J., Mort, G. S., Salunke, S., Knight, G., & Liesch, P. W. (2015). The role of the market sub-system and the socio-technical sub-system in innovation and firm performance: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 221–239. Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2001). The internationalization of new and small firms: A resource-based view. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 333–358. Wu, F., Sinkovics, R. R., Cavusgil, S. T., & Roath, A. S. (2007). Overcoming export manufacturers’ dilemma in international expansion. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 283–302. Yang, Z., Wang, X., & Su, C. (2006). A review of research methodologies in international business. International Business Review, 15(6), 601–617. Yeoh, P. L. (2004). International learning: Antecedents and performance implications among newly internationalizing companies in an exporting context. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 511–535. Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 341–363. Zahra, S. A. (2005). A theory of international new ventures: A decade of research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 20–28. Zhang, M., Tansuhaj, P., & McCullough, J. (2009). International entrepreneurial capability: The measurement and a comparison between born global firms and traditional exporters in China. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(4), 292–322. Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 763–771. Zhou, T., Lin, G. J., & Li, Y. (2010). Determinants of interest in the acquisition of export skills for Chinese exporters. Journal of Technology Management in China, 5(3), 196–212. Zou, S., & Stan, S. (1998). The determinants of export performance: A review of the empirical literature between 1987 and 1997. International Marketing Review, 15(5), 333–356.

Nguyen, T. T. M., Barrett, N. J., & Nguyen, T. D. (2006). The role of market and learning orientations in relationship quality: Evidence from Vietnamese exporters and their foreign importers. Advances in International Marketing, 17, 107–133. Nguyen, T. T., & Nguyen, T. D. (2010). Learning to build quality business relationships in export markets: Evidence from Vietnamese exporters. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(1-2), 203–220. Ogasavara, M. H., Ogasavara, M. H., Boehe, D. M., Boehe, D. M., Barin Cruz, L., & Barin Cruz, L. (2016). Experience, resources and export market performance: The pivotal role of international business network ties. International Marketing Review, 33(6), 867–893. Papadopoulos, N., & Martín, O. M. (2010). Toward a model of the relationship between internationalization and export performance. International Business Review, 19(4), 388–406. Piercy, N. F., Kaleka, A., & Katsikeas, C. S. (1998). Sources of competitive advantage in high performing exporting companies. Journal of World Business, 33(4), 378–393. Pla-Barber, J., & Escribá-Esteve, A. (2006). Accelerated internationalisation: Evidence from a late investor country. International Marketing Review, 23(3), 255–278. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. Rashman, L., Withers, E., & Hartley, J. (2009). Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 463–494. Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1651–1655. Robey, D., Boudreau, M. C., & Rose, G. M. (2000). Information technology and organizational learning: A review and assessment of research. Accounting Management and Information Technologies, 10(2), 125–155. Rodriguez, C. M., Wise, J. A., & Ruy Martinez, C. (2013). Strategic capabilities in exporting: An examination of the performance of Mexican firms. Management Decision, 51(8), 1643–1663. Salomon, R. M. (2006). Spillovers to foreign market participants: Assessing the impact of export strategies on innovative productivity. Strategic Organization, 4(2), 135–164. Salomon, R., & Jin, B. (2008). Does knowledge spill to leaders or laggards? Exploring industry heterogeneity in learning by exporting. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1), 132–150. Salomon, R. M., & Shaver, J. M. (2005). Learning by exporting: New insights from examining firm innovation. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 14(2), 431–460. Samiee, S., & Walters, P. G. (1999). Determinants of structured export knowledge acquisition. International Business Review, 8(4), 373–397. Schmidt, T., & Sofka, W. (2009). Liability of foreignness as a barrier to knowledge spillovers: Lost in translation? Journal of International Management, 15(4), 460–474. Senge, P. M. (1998). The leader’s New work. Leading organizations. USA: Sage439–457. Seringhaus, F. R. (1988). Export knowledge, strategy and performance. Proceedings of the 1988 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference97–101 Springer. Shankarmahesh, M. N., Ford, J. B., & LaTour, M. S. (2004). Determinants of satisfaction in sales negotiations with foreign buyers: Perceptions of US export executives. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 423–446. Sharma, C., & Mishra, R. K. (2012). Export participation and productivity performance of firms in the Indian transport manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 23(3), 351–369. Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45. Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305–318. Skarmeas, D., Lisboa, A., & Saridakis, C. (2016). Export performance as a function of market learning capabilities and intrapreneurship: SEM and FsQCA findings. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5342–5347.

16