Factors affecting entrepreneurs' decision to enter new markets ...

Page 1 of 8 ANZMAC 2009
Factors Affecting Entrepreneurs’ Decision to Enter New Markets: Propositions and
Theorized Influences
Keith Perks email k.j.perks@brighton.ac.uk
Markus Steinhauser email m.steinhauser@brighton.ac.uk
Paurav Shukla p.shukla@brighton.ac.uk
University of Brighton Business School
Abstract
New market entry is an important strategic decision, yet relatively little research has
addressed the factors triggering the act. We seek to address this gap by evaluating the role of
entrepreneurs in the decision to enter new markets through a theorized set of influences
evaluated in a case study of a German financial services company. The findings suggest that
an entrepreneur’s tacit knowledge, networks, and the firm’s resources, networks and
customer contacts are important influences on their decision to enter new markets.
Key words: Entrepreneurs’; decision-making; new market entry; influences; propositions

ANZMAC 2009
Introduction
Entrepreneurship has been defined as the act of market entry and the entrepreneur as the
person in the firm who decides which markets to enter, when and how (Lumpkin and Dess,
1996). In today’s increasingly complex and dynamic business environment, the act of market
entry gains particular importance as a response to environmental changes (Hitt, 2000; Ireland
and Hitt, 1999). Earlier definitions in entrepreneurship research by Stevenson and Jarillo
(1990) and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) characterise the locus of entrepreneurial activity by the
mere act, rather than the firm or event and the decision to enter new markets is made by
entrepreneurs not the firm. Relatively few empirical studies have addressed the triggers
which influence entrepreneurs to take the decision to enter new markets (Perks and Hughes,
2008). By taking the decision to enter new markets the entrepreneur is influenced by factors,
which may either constrain or prompt the decision to exploit an opportunity. Thus we
summarise our paper in the research question “What factors influence entrepreneurs’
decision to enter new markets?” We now go on to elaborate our propositions and theorized
influences through the literature, followed by our methodology, analysis and discussion.
Literature and Propositions
Knowledge and Learning
Central to the entrepreneurial process is the actual identification of the new market
opportunity (Corbett 2007). In the entrepreneurial process of opportunity exploration, the role
of the individual’s tacit knowledge derived from experience of markets and customers is
crucial (Dimov and Shepherd, 2005; Davidsson and Honig, 2003). The entrepreneur
accumulates knowledge in order to reduce his or her ignorance threshold, which “captures a
trade-off between the time needed to increase legitimacy and the necessity to act now to
minimize competition” (Choi, Lévesque and Shepherd, 2008:333), i.e. the shift from
exploration to exploitation is dependent on the entrepreneur’s accumulated knowledge,
leading us to the following proposition:
P1: Entrepreneurs’ decisions to enter new markets are influenced by their tacit
knowledge and learning.
Resource Adequacy
A firm’s internal resources underpin strategy (Grant, 1991) and the relationship between
resources and company performance has been supported in the literature (Brush and Artz,
1999; Lee, Lee and Pennings, 2001; Miller and Shamsie, 1996). A firm’s resources lie at the
heart of a venture’s strategy however resource limitations prevent entrepreneurial managers
from leveraging novel combinations to generate new customer value (Sirmon, Hitt and
Ireland, 2007). However, others (Perks and Hughes, 2008) found that entrepreneurs in midsize
firms did not face problems of resource adequacy. Hence, we propose that:
P2: Entrepreneurs’ decisions to enter new markets are constrained by the firm’s
resources.
Entrepreneurs Networks and Relationships with Customers
Entrepreneurs use their networks of contacts to acquire resources and information that they
would not be able to access about customers (Witt, 2004). Further it is not only
entrepreneurial action that plays a role in new venture growth (Hansen, 1995), but also the
strength of the ties in relation to the different phases of the entrepreneurial process, e.g. firm
emergence (Jenssen and Greve, 2002; Singh, 2000), and firm maturity (Johannisson et al.,
Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8 ANZMAC 2009
1994; Ostgaard and Birley, 1996). Within the Service Dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch,
2004) the customer is seen as a co-creator of value, which underlies the premise that the
customer is treated as an operant resource, i.e. a resource that produces effects (Lusch, 2007).
Prahalad and Ramasway (2000) argue that competitive advantage in the future will be tightly
linked to co-creating unique value with customers. As firms try to gain competitive
advantage as well as to satisfy their customers better than competition does, it can be argued
that the customer influences a firm’s strategic direction. Thus, the customer may be seen as a
key influence on the entrepreneur’s decision-making process of new market entry. Regardless
of the phase in which a venture is currently in, networks can be seen as an influential factor in
the firm’s overall decision-making, leading to the following proposition:
P3: Entrepreneurs’ decisions to enter new markets are influenced by their networks and
relationships with customers.
Mental Organizational and Strategic Flexibility in Fast Changing Industry
Environments
Major changes within an industry can force businesses to reshape and redefine the context of
their competitive strategies (D’Aveni, 1994). The rate of industry change driven by
endogenous factors can be captured using the concept of ‘Industry Clock Speed’ (Nadkarni
and Narayanan, 2007). Depending on the clock-speed of the industry in which a business
operates specific capabilities (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000), speed of decision-making
(Bourgeois and Eisenhardt, 1997), strategic responses and organization structures (D’Aveni
1994; Fine, 1998), strategic schemas and degrees of mental, organizational and strategic
flexibility (Nadkarni and Narayanan, 2007) are required. Thus, we propose that:
P4a: Entrepreneurs’ decisions to enter new markets are influenced by the industry
environment and the industry clock speed.
P4b: Entrepreneurs’ decisions to enter new markets are influenced by the mental,
organizational and strategic flexibility to respond in fast changing environments.
All of the propositions developed above are summarized in figure 1 below.
Methodology
In our study we adopt a mix of ‘theory-first’, or deductive approach to identify orienting
constructs and propositions from the extant literature to develop a theoretical framework.
This framework is then evaluated and developed using a ‘theory last’ or inductive approach
with analysis and interpretation of data from a case study (Miles and Huberman, 1994) to
answer our research question. The research focuses on entrepreneurs within an independent
financial advisory company operating in the German market with 108 employees, following a
single-case embedded design (Yin, 1994). We interviewed three entrepreneurs on the
management board. We triangulated the data captured from interviews using archival records,
such as company and strategy related internal documents and publicly available data. All
interviews were voice-recorded in German, transcribed and translated into English.
Additional notes regarding interview conditions, researcher memos (in bracket in the analysis
below) of observations of gestures, or expressions of the person when discussing issues
related to the propositions and other facts observed during the interview were taken into
account in order to enrich the data. The coding and analysis of the data followed a patternmatching
logic (Trochim 1989). In the first phase the empirical data was matched with
variables explaining the initial theory-derived propositions by using a colour-coding
technique.

P1 Tacit knowledge & experience
P2 Resources
P3 Personal networks and
customers
P4a Industry environment &
clockspeed
P4b Mental, organizational &
strategic response
ANZMAC 2009
Figure 1 Propositions Overview
Entrepreneurs’ decision to
enter new markets
Analysis and Discussion
P1: Entrepreneurs’ decisions to enter new markets are influenced by their tacit
knowledge and learning.
The influence of knowledge and learning to new market entry was indicated by statements
such as ‘I purchased a few books to see what works and how it works…so my goal got more
and more focused’, ‘over the past 30-40 years you could always see what worked and what
didn’t’ (experience) or ‘we’ve tried many different things (experience and learning)
(respondent 1). ‘When diversifying into a new business segment… If I say today, I am an
asset manager and then expand my business into the area of, let’s say, the automotive sector,
or in engineering, and start writing about that topic in the press or in public media, then my
perception is probably somehow untrustworthy, unless I’ve built up some special knowledge
in those areas via people who are experts in that area’ (experience) (respondent 1). Well, I
read a lot, and I must say, good journalists have good contacts, generating ides for
appropriate things we can then implement. In such cases, there is a ‘Book of Ideas’ or a ‘Box
of Ideas’, and no single idea must get lost… and that’s where I put all ideas, may the come
from employees, customers, from my readings, from conversations I’ve had, from seminars,
and so on…(learning) (respondent 2). These statements show that new market entry is based
on existing tacit knowledge the entrepreneur has acquired about the initial idea in order to
overcome the ignorance threshold (Choi, Lévesque and Shepherd, 2008) thus, giving
credence to proposition 1.
P2: Entrepreneurs’ decisions to enter new markets are constrained by the firm’s
resources.
The availability of resources may influence the entrepreneur’s decision to enter new markets
(Sirmon and Hitt, 2003). The respondent was aware that he needed to manage the firms
resources (‘…entering the industrial sector is always very capital intensive…going
international would cost enormous resources…it just needs to be kept within a limit, so it
won’t constrain us’, ‘We would rather build up a stable infrastructure in the area of Asset
Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8 ANZMAC 2009
Management…instead of dissipating our energies’, (respondent 1). In certain cases, the
respondent was unable to take the decision to enter new markets, as the required resources
were not available at that time, i.e. ‘there have been products…which we couldn’t exploit
because the financial expenses would have been too high for us’ (respondent 2: memo said
with emphasis). Decisions with regards to new market entry depends on ‘the amount of
resources’ (respondent 3) and the unavailability of such may constrain the firm and the
entrepreneurs decision to diversify in new areas (‘I do obviously need relevant personnel…it
always depends on, I’d like to do it but I don’t have the appropriate partner’ (respondent 1:
showed signs of frustration at the lack of resources). Thus, there is some credibility for
proposition 2.
P3: Entrepreneurs’ decisions to enter new markets are influenced by their networks and
relationships with customers.
While discussing the role of networks and relationships, a respondent suggested that,
‘customer contacts are mutually important’. You may get offered personnel, or you get to
know people, and those people, as you’ve seen in my example when I left the bank, may show
you a completely new direction’ (respondent 1, memo earnest expression seemed to be
significant to him). As such, networks may be built up just for the purpose of gaining access
to new markets, i.e. ‘Mr. X…built up an adequate network (with regards to entering the new
market of Renewable Energies)’ (respondent 2). Networks not only enable the respondents to
gain access to new markets, but may also provide them with ideas of new markets to enter.
Network members can be as close as the family ‘my wife…was the innovator (respondent 1),
or may even come from a personal network ‘external people from outside the company
approach us and offer patents to extend or develop various business areas’ (respondent 2).
Therefore, ‘the company tries to build strong relationships with business partners’
(respondent 3), which may lead to new market opportunities. Customer satisfaction may even
serve as a trigger for taking the decision to enter new markets, i.e. ‘frustration of investors,
i.e. in their willingness to invest’ led to the development of new business areas, which were
‘separated from the stock market customer needs were growing at that time, so we started to
invest heavily in that area’ (respondent 3). At the centre of the entrepreneurs’ attention is
how the company is perceived by the customer, ‘that’s of major importance…the worst thing
that could happen, is that the customer does not know anymore what business the company is
in’ (respondent 1). The responses clearly highlight the importance of the top managers’
networks and customers in influencing their decision to enter new markets, thus giving
credence to proposition 3.
P4a: Entrepreneurs’ decisions to enter new markets are influenced by the industry
environment and the industry clock speed.
P4b: Entrepreneurs’ decisions to enter new markets are influenced by the mental,
organizational and strategic flexibility to respond in fast changing environments.
The company operates in a fast-paced industry (‘in the financial business speed may be quite
important’, (respondent 1), reflected in the company’s strategic flexibility (‘quite often
extensions happen by luck…we as a company want to grow…we’ve got absolute flexibility,
which enables us to use our human resources most efficiently’, (respondent 2, memo
emphasized the importance of this through a hand gesture), and its complex strategic schema
(‘try out five different things…we’ve tried many different things, starting from…’, respondent
3), i.e. a combination, which is proven successful in fast-paced industries (Nadkarni and
Narayanan, 2007). ‘I don’t need a panel or board. In a medium sized entrepreneurial

ANZMAC 2009
company you agree between the directors, and I don’t need to consult a works committee’
(respondent 2, memo real conviction in his voice). This enables the company to respond to
changes ‘you always need to be adaptive, because as your company grows, the dimensions
grow accordingly. Well, for my area decisions are still relatively fast (respondent 1, memo
expression of sincerity when making this point). Looking at the above evidence propositions
4a and 4b have credible support.
Conclusions and Future Research
We set out to address a gap in our cumulative understanding of triggers which influence an
entrepreneur to take the decision to enter new markets. Our case evidence suggests that four
theory-derived propositions appear to give credible explanations of the decision to enter new
markets taken by the entrepreneurs’ in the case study. The next challenge is to quantitatively
examine these propositions to whether they hold for a population of firms. Our work is
constrained by a single-case design despite its advantages in terms of data and insight
enrichment. Therefore, quantitative analysis would enable us to learn whether these
combinations of strategic and entrepreneurial factors do indeed explain differences in new
market decisions and generalize more broadly. Since our propositions bring together multiple
literature streams, our analysis helps us to determine the broader network of factors affecting
entrepreneurs new market entry decision-making. Future research might also benefit from
examining which set of factors (entrepreneurial versus strategic versus marketing for
example) receive greater bias or emphasis from entrepreneurs.
Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8 ANZMAC 2009
References
Bourgeois, L.J. III., Eisenhardt, K.M. 1988. Strategic decision processes in high velocity
environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34, 816-835
Brush, T. H., Artz, K. W. 1999. Toward a contingent resource-based theory: The impact of
information asymmetry on the value of capabilities in veterinary medicine. Strategic
Management Journal, 20, 223-250.
Choi, Y. R., Lévesque, M., Shepherd, D. A. 2008. When should entrepreneurs expedite or
delay opportunity exploitation? Journal of Business Venturing, 23(3), 333-355.
Corbett, A. C. 2007. Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial
opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 97-118.
D'Aveni, R. A. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering.
New York: Free Press.
Davidsson, P., Honig, B. 2003. The role of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301-331.
Dimov, D. P., Shepherd, D. A. 2005. Human capital theory and venture capital firms:
exploring “home runs” and “strike outs”. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 1-21.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21 (10-11), Special Issue, pp. 1105-1121
Fine, C. H. 1998. Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary
Advantage. Reading: MA: Perseus Books.
Grant, R. M. 1999. The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for
Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
Hansen, E. L. 1995. Entrepreneurial Networks and New Organization Growth.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 19(4), 7-19.
Hitt, M. A. 2000. The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium.
Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 7-17.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A.1999. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the
21 stcentury: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), 63-
77.
Jenssen, J. I., Greve, A. 2002. Does the degree of redundancy in social networks influence
the success of business start-ups? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 8(5), 83-99.
Johannisson, B., Alexanderson, O., Nowicki, K., Senneseth, K. 1994. Beyond anarchy and
organization: entrepreneurs in contextual networks. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 6(4), 329-356.
Lee, C., Lee, K., Pennings, J. M. 2001. Internal capabilities, external networks, and
performance: a study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7),
615-640.
Lumpkin, G. T., Dess, G. G.1996. Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and
Linking it to Performance. Academy of Management Review 21, 135-172.
Lusch, R. F. 2007. Marketing's Evolving Identity: Defining Our Future. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 261-268.
Miles, M., Huberman, A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2 ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, D., Shamsie, J. 1996. The Resource-Based View of the Firm in Two Environments:
The Hollywood Film Studios from 1936 to 1965. The Academy of Management Journal,
39(3), 519-543.
Nadkarni, S., Narayanan, V. K. 2007. Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm
performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management Journal,
28(3), 243.

ANZMAC 2009
Ostgaard, T. A., Birley, S. 1996. New venture growth and personal networks. Journal of
Business Research, 36(1), 37-50.
Perks, K. J., Hughes, M. 2008. Entrepreneurial decision-making in internationalization:
Propositions from mid-size firms. International Business Review, 17(3), 310-330.
Prahalad, C. K., Ramaswamy, V. 2000. Co-opting Customer Competence. Harvard Business
Review, 78(1), 79-90.
Singh, R. P. 2000. Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition Through Social Networks.
London: Garland Publishing.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A. 2003. Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources,
Management, and Wealth Creation in Family Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
27(4), 339-358.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D. 2007. Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic
Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the black Box. The Academy of Management
Review, 32(1), 273-292.
Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial
management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Summer Special Issue), 17–27.
Trochim, W. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 12(4), 355-366.
Vargo, S., Lusch, R. 2004. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(January), 1-17.
Witt, P. 2004. Entrepreneurs’ networks and the success of start-ups. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 16(5), 391-412.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research design and methods Applied Social Research Methods
Series. London: Sage.
Page 8 of 8