More management of SMEs

Citation

Jones, O. (2007), "More management of SMEs", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 13 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr.2007.16013caa.001

More management of SMEs

This issue has two papers which focus on very different problems related to SMEs in Spain. The research by Acedo and Casillas uses face-to-face interviews with over 100 managers to investigate the “age of entry” into international markets. The second paper by Duréndez and Pérez de Lema uses a postal survey to investigate managerial differences between family and non-family firms. Finally, Gaddefors uses an in-depth case study to examine the use of metaphor during the entrepreneurial process.

Acedo and Casillas investigate the internationalization of SMEs by combining ideas from international entrepreneurship and institutional theory to highlight the influences on the age of small and medium enterprises at entry into international markets. They consider this a significant area of research because the internationalization of business activities is one of the most common growth models used by SMEs. Existing research reveals that international entrepreneurship involves both “born global” firms that internationalise from their inception and SMEs that access international markets after acquiring appropriate resources and capacities. Therefore, these two very different models of growth make the age of entry into international markets an important consideration. The researchers use a random sample of 104 SMEs, relying on personal interviews with managers and company presidents based on a structured questionnaire. Their research reveals that previous experience of internationalization did not necessarily encourage SMEs to strive for more global trading; instead more influential variables included experience in several industries and, to a limited extent, the educational levels of owner-managers. Moreover, the greater their knowledge of other firms engaged in international activity the more likely firms were to favour the “imitation process” in entering international markets. Interestingly, this imitation behaviour in internationalizing their business activities was not related to the perceived risks of internationalizing.

Duréndez and Pérez de Lema present an empirical study to highlight the main differences in managerial behaviour between family and non-family small/medium sized businesses – also in Spain. The authors identify this as an important area of research because the survival of family firms hinges on their managerial competitiveness encompassing variables such as strategy, strategic planning, human resource policies and other managerial tools. Existing literature has revealed that not only do family firms follow multiple patterns of strategic behaviour but their managerial behaviour is often relatively conservative compared to non-family enterprises. In order to explore these purported differences the authors identified and researched a sample of 639 private small and medium Spanish enterprises, 456 family and 183 non-family, using a postal questionnaire. The results indicate that while family firms still pursue conservative strategic policies, particularly with respect to investment decisions, the overall strategic orientation was similar between family and non-family firms. However, on other competitiveness factors such as personnel training and strategic planning (with particular reference to management accounting techniques and systems, and cash budgets) family firms were found lacking compared to non-family enterprises – leading the authors to recommend “management development” and enhancement of managerial skills in family firms.

In the final paper, Gaddefors investigates the use of metaphor in the entrepreneurial process particularly in the construction of the environment as a precondition for creating business opportunities. Research was based on a management consultancy firm and one of their clients, a large staffing firm, in order to highlight links between an organization’s internal issues and the external environment. Specific metaphors were “rapid growth” and “platform” with an emphasis on the implications each metaphorical statement held for the firm itself rather than their broader definition in the entrepreneurial literature. This approach was grounded in the scholarly position that treats the entrepreneurial process as a “mode of thinking and organizing”. Existing research on organizational use of metaphors highlights their often dual and contradictory nature – while they facilitate learning and communication they are also often long-lived irrespective of their positive or negative connotations within the work environment. While metaphors can be credited with the generation of new ideas their use simultaneously limits and excludes other ideas. Since the focus of the study was on language use in the entrepreneurial process a qualitative approach was adopted and ethnographic fieldwork was used to highlight cultural and linguistic patterns over time. Understanding metaphor use was based on a two-day meeting as part of a more extensive empirical study including interviews, observation, official documents, and media print information. Research revealed that management consultants in particular were frequent users of metaphors reaping distinct advantages such as providing flexibility and focus, inviting conversation, and allowing sub-ideas to surface rather than having consensus as the only outcome. Thus, metaphors are seen not as a tool of compromise but instead as a possible approach to understanding organizations and building an environment necessary for the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities.

Oswald Jones