This document discusses a study that explores the relationship between individual entrepreneurship, collective (team-based) entrepreneurship, and innovation in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The study develops a theoretical framework and tests relationships using structural equation modeling on survey data from 700 entrepreneurs in SMEs in Pakistan. The results confirm that both individual entrepreneur traits and collective team efforts contribute to innovation in SMEs. Specifically, entrepreneur personality traits directly impact innovation while centralized decision-making does not, and factors like communication and collaboration among team members contribute to collective entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation, which both directly impact innovation. The study aims to provide a more holistic view of entrepreneurship and innovation by considering both individual and collective dimensions.
The study sought to evaluate the predominant leadership styles, the leadership effectiveness,
and the relationship between leadership effectiveness and innovation management of a group
of executives of several organizations.
External Business Environment and Performance of Microfinance Institutions: E...AkashSharma618775
This study examined the intensity of competition in the microfinance industry and its relationship
performance of MFIs in Nigeria. From a sample of 121 MFIs in Nigeria, data was collected via a structured
questionnaire. Data collected was analyzed via Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM
3.0) using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS v22) and, findings suggest that MFIs were faced with
intense competition in the form of high cost and difficulty of entry, high operational cost and too many players in
the industry regardless of the type of product and services they offer or lending policies they embrace. The result
further reveal that the intensity of competition has significant negative influence on the amount of loans disbursed
and the amount disbursed to women. The study therefore recommends MFI managers to develop operational
mechanisms for cost and risk reduction to survive and excel.
The Relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Employee Engagement:...AI Publications
This research examined the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and employee engagement, using a sample of 372 employees from small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Syria. Our study aimed to provide an empirical understanding of the intricacies that interplay between the entrepreneurial orientation of firms and the level of employee engagement. The results indicate a positive correlation between these two factors. The insights provided by this study may be valuable for business owners, policymakers, and researchers alike.
Management research considers knowledge as one of the first sources of competitiveness of the company.
This observation is at the origin of development in recent years, the Knowledge-Based View (Grant, 1996),
resulting from the resource-based perspective approach.
This research examines the importance of internal sources of knowledge and its relationship with
organizational innovation and organizational performance. We did this research on a sample of 200
Tunisian companies operating in different sectors. Our study was built mainly on the basis of quantitative
method. The data collection method is the questionnaire as part of a hypothetical-deductive approach and
the mode of administration is self-administered survey and e-mail survey. The empirical verification of the
assumptions of this research has led us to confirm the relationship between internal and external sources of
knowledge with organizational innovation and organizational performance and to infirm the relationship
between organizational innovation and organizational performance.
Linking Theory & PracticeNavigating the innovation landsca.docxsmile790243
Linking Theory & Practice
Navigating the innovation landscape: past
research, present practice, and future trends
Shanthi Gopalakrishnan1,
Eric H Kessler 2,
Joanne L Scillitoe3
1School of Management, New Jersey Institute
of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA; 2Lubin School
of Business, Pace University, New York, USA;
3School of Management, New York Institute of
Technology, Old Westbury, NY, USA
Correspondence:
Shanthi Gopalakrishnan, School of
Management, New Jersey Institute of
Technology, Newark, NY 07102, USA.
Tel: þ973-596-3283;
Fax: þ973-596-3074
Abstract
The management of innovation is among the most critical capabilities
contributing to the success of modern organizations. It is also complex and
frequently misunderstood. In this paper we first provide a broad overview of
the organizational innovation literature [the Past] to distill five fundamental
themes: What is innovation, why is it important, where does it come from,
who engages in it, and how can it be best executed? Second, we illustrate how
these concepts are applied by three companies on the vanguard of innovation
management [the Present] – Google, Walt Disney, and Johnson & Johnson.
Third, we project the discussion forward by considering key issues and emerging
trends [the Future] of innovation management such as nanotechnology, ethical
dilemmas, information technology, globalization, and sustainability. Fourth,
we derive from the above analyses concrete guidelines for managers to
leverage these insights and enable more effective innovation practices.
Organization Management Journal (2010) 7, 262 –277. doi:10.1057/omj.2010.36
Keywords: innovation; management; industry; organization
Introduction
In today’s increasingly turbulent business environment, largely
attributed to continual and rapid globalization and technological
advancements, change has become a ubiquitous phenomenon.
Innovation has emerged as an important mechanism to facilitate
adaptation to this shifting competitive landscape. Although
considered controversial by some skeptics, innovation plays a
critical role in nurturing the economy, creating and radically
transforming industries, sustaining the competitive performance of
firms, and improving the standard of living and creating a better
quality of life for citizens. Understandably, research that is focused
on this climate of change displays a strong “pro-innovation”
perspective (Kimberly, 1981; Abrahamson, 1991) and visualizes
innovation as an inherently beneficial organizational activity with
profound consequences for multiple constituencies. Indeed, it is an
organization’s capability for sustained innovation that oftentimes
determines its success. However, when discussing the management
of innovation, one must also consider the more ambiguous,
potentially destructive, and less readily understood social and
ethical dynamics of the innovation process.
This paper attempts to provide a broad overview of the
innovation management landscape. First, we ...
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of financial distress, rewards and company performance using return on assets (ROA), managerial ownership, ownership concentration, directors' composition and leverage on directors' remuneration with company size, leverage and company age as control variables. The study population comprised manufacturing companies in the food and beverage sector listed on the ASEAN state stock exchange. The study used a purposive sampling method. The sample number consisted of 68 manufacturing companies. The data used are secondary data obtained from ASEAN state stock exchanges. Data analysis used multiple linear regression. The results indicate that ROA, managerial ownership, ownership concentration, firm size and leverage have a significant effect on directors' remuneration, while financial distress, reward, company age and state have no significant effect on directors' remuneration. The implications of study mean that boards of directors can conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the directors' remuneration system by establishing a team that has the authority to provide input and formulation of a remuneration system that meets the principle of fairness.
The study sought to evaluate the predominant leadership styles, the leadership effectiveness,
and the relationship between leadership effectiveness and innovation management of a group
of executives of several organizations.
External Business Environment and Performance of Microfinance Institutions: E...AkashSharma618775
This study examined the intensity of competition in the microfinance industry and its relationship
performance of MFIs in Nigeria. From a sample of 121 MFIs in Nigeria, data was collected via a structured
questionnaire. Data collected was analyzed via Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM
3.0) using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS v22) and, findings suggest that MFIs were faced with
intense competition in the form of high cost and difficulty of entry, high operational cost and too many players in
the industry regardless of the type of product and services they offer or lending policies they embrace. The result
further reveal that the intensity of competition has significant negative influence on the amount of loans disbursed
and the amount disbursed to women. The study therefore recommends MFI managers to develop operational
mechanisms for cost and risk reduction to survive and excel.
The Relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Employee Engagement:...AI Publications
This research examined the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and employee engagement, using a sample of 372 employees from small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Syria. Our study aimed to provide an empirical understanding of the intricacies that interplay between the entrepreneurial orientation of firms and the level of employee engagement. The results indicate a positive correlation between these two factors. The insights provided by this study may be valuable for business owners, policymakers, and researchers alike.
Management research considers knowledge as one of the first sources of competitiveness of the company.
This observation is at the origin of development in recent years, the Knowledge-Based View (Grant, 1996),
resulting from the resource-based perspective approach.
This research examines the importance of internal sources of knowledge and its relationship with
organizational innovation and organizational performance. We did this research on a sample of 200
Tunisian companies operating in different sectors. Our study was built mainly on the basis of quantitative
method. The data collection method is the questionnaire as part of a hypothetical-deductive approach and
the mode of administration is self-administered survey and e-mail survey. The empirical verification of the
assumptions of this research has led us to confirm the relationship between internal and external sources of
knowledge with organizational innovation and organizational performance and to infirm the relationship
between organizational innovation and organizational performance.
Linking Theory & PracticeNavigating the innovation landsca.docxsmile790243
Linking Theory & Practice
Navigating the innovation landscape: past
research, present practice, and future trends
Shanthi Gopalakrishnan1,
Eric H Kessler 2,
Joanne L Scillitoe3
1School of Management, New Jersey Institute
of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA; 2Lubin School
of Business, Pace University, New York, USA;
3School of Management, New York Institute of
Technology, Old Westbury, NY, USA
Correspondence:
Shanthi Gopalakrishnan, School of
Management, New Jersey Institute of
Technology, Newark, NY 07102, USA.
Tel: þ973-596-3283;
Fax: þ973-596-3074
Abstract
The management of innovation is among the most critical capabilities
contributing to the success of modern organizations. It is also complex and
frequently misunderstood. In this paper we first provide a broad overview of
the organizational innovation literature [the Past] to distill five fundamental
themes: What is innovation, why is it important, where does it come from,
who engages in it, and how can it be best executed? Second, we illustrate how
these concepts are applied by three companies on the vanguard of innovation
management [the Present] – Google, Walt Disney, and Johnson & Johnson.
Third, we project the discussion forward by considering key issues and emerging
trends [the Future] of innovation management such as nanotechnology, ethical
dilemmas, information technology, globalization, and sustainability. Fourth,
we derive from the above analyses concrete guidelines for managers to
leverage these insights and enable more effective innovation practices.
Organization Management Journal (2010) 7, 262 –277. doi:10.1057/omj.2010.36
Keywords: innovation; management; industry; organization
Introduction
In today’s increasingly turbulent business environment, largely
attributed to continual and rapid globalization and technological
advancements, change has become a ubiquitous phenomenon.
Innovation has emerged as an important mechanism to facilitate
adaptation to this shifting competitive landscape. Although
considered controversial by some skeptics, innovation plays a
critical role in nurturing the economy, creating and radically
transforming industries, sustaining the competitive performance of
firms, and improving the standard of living and creating a better
quality of life for citizens. Understandably, research that is focused
on this climate of change displays a strong “pro-innovation”
perspective (Kimberly, 1981; Abrahamson, 1991) and visualizes
innovation as an inherently beneficial organizational activity with
profound consequences for multiple constituencies. Indeed, it is an
organization’s capability for sustained innovation that oftentimes
determines its success. However, when discussing the management
of innovation, one must also consider the more ambiguous,
potentially destructive, and less readily understood social and
ethical dynamics of the innovation process.
This paper attempts to provide a broad overview of the
innovation management landscape. First, we ...
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of financial distress, rewards and company performance using return on assets (ROA), managerial ownership, ownership concentration, directors' composition and leverage on directors' remuneration with company size, leverage and company age as control variables. The study population comprised manufacturing companies in the food and beverage sector listed on the ASEAN state stock exchange. The study used a purposive sampling method. The sample number consisted of 68 manufacturing companies. The data used are secondary data obtained from ASEAN state stock exchanges. Data analysis used multiple linear regression. The results indicate that ROA, managerial ownership, ownership concentration, firm size and leverage have a significant effect on directors' remuneration, while financial distress, reward, company age and state have no significant effect on directors' remuneration. The implications of study mean that boards of directors can conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the directors' remuneration system by establishing a team that has the authority to provide input and formulation of a remuneration system that meets the principle of fairness.
Workforce Diversity Management towards Organizational Performance: The Case o...Dr. Amarjeet Singh
This study aims to assess the influence of workforce
diversity management to organizational performance with
particular emphasis on AlAujan Group Company. The Group
is one of the largest private sector companies in Bahrain, with
companies in the food, personal care, fashion and real estate
sectors. The study utilized a descriptive research design
involving 120 conveniently sampled respondents. An adopted
questionnaire was used as data gathering tool. The study
found that over-all organizational climate has a significant
impact on organizational performance. However, looking at
the individual indicators, only Top Management Support and
Personal Diversity Experience are significant at 0.05 while Coworkers Behaviour is significant only at 0.10.
Linking Theory & Practice Navigating the innovation landscape pas.docxSHIVA101531
Linking Theory & Practice Navigating the innovation landscape: past research, present practice, and future trends Shanthi Gopalakrishnan1 , Eric H Kessler 2 , Joanne L Scillitoe3 1 School of Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA; 2 Lubin School of Business, Pace University, New York, USA; 3 School of Management, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, NY, USA Correspondence: Shanthi Gopalakrishnan, School of Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NY 07102, USA. Tel: þ 973-596-3283; Fax: þ 973-596-3074 Abstract The management of innovation is among the most critical capabilities contributing to the success of modern organizations. It is also complex and frequently misunderstood. In this paper we first provide a broad overview of the organizational innovation literature [the Past] to distill five fundamental themes: What is innovation, why is it important, where does it come from, who engages in it, and how can it be best executed? Second, we illustrate how these concepts are applied by three companies on the vanguard of innovation management [the Present] – Google, Walt Disney, and Johnson & Johnson. Third, we project the discussion forward by considering key issues and emerging trends [the Future] of innovation management such as nanotechnology, ethical dilemmas, information technology, globalization, and sustainability. Fourth, we derive from the above analyses concrete guidelines for managers to leverage these insights and enable more effective innovation practices. Organization Management Journal (2010) 7, 262–277. doi:10.1057/omj.2010.36 Keywords: innovation; management; industry; organization Introduction In today’s increasingly turbulent business environment, largely attributed to continual and rapid globalization and technological advancements, change has become a ubiquitous phenomenon. Innovation has emerged as an important mechanism to facilitate adaptation to this shifting competitive landscape. Although considered controversial by some skeptics, innovation plays a critical role in nurturing the economy, creating and radically transforming industries, sustaining the competitive performance of firms, and improving the standard of living and creating a better quality of life for citizens. Understandably, research that is focused on this climate of change displays a strong “pro-innovation” perspective (Kimberly, 1981; Abrahamson, 1991) and visualizes innovation as an inherently beneficial organizational activity with profound consequences for multiple constituencies. Indeed, it is an organization’s capability for sustained innovation that oftentimes determines its success. However, when discussing the management of innovation, one must also consider the more ambiguous, potentially destructive, and less readily understood social and ethical dynamics of the innovation process. This paper attempts to provide a broad overview of the innovation management landscape. First, we survey the exi ...
A Mediated Model of Employee commitment: The Impact of Knowledge Management P...IJAEMSJORNAL
In this modern and competitive day, firms rely on innovative ideas to sustain and succeed. For today's management, it is critical to look for ways and means to knowledge management, and this study greatly emphasizes this aspect. This study investigates and investigates the impact of a knowledge management on organizational outcome as well as the role of employee commitment as a mediator. Essentially, it provides a framework via which a high-commitment work environment supports innovative work behavior in Kurdistan region of Iraq SMEs. Using the findings of this study, SMEs firms, particularly mobile network operators, can alter and innovate their services in order to thrive in a competitive market. All proven correlations are conceptually explained, practically tested, and supported by a survey of the literature. The findings revealed that all three variables in the study have a favorable association. All three hypotheses are accepted, and the association between knowledge management and organizational outcome is mediated by employee commitment.
Individual and Business Environment: How Effective Interaction Affects SME De...Dr. Amarjeet Singh
Exploring and conceptualizing different aspect of
entrepreneurship is top priority of policymakers at present
days. Importance of entrepreneurial research is increasing
day by day in the present complex and changing business
environment. In this regard, it has become absolutely
pertinent to re-examine the mechanism of interaction
between environment and personality in entrepreneurial
ecosystem to understand its impact on entrepreneurial
development on MSME perspectives. Perfect interaction of
personality characteristics with institutional variables can
lead towards sustainable development. Significant personality
characteristics or optimum business environment can’t alone
make any difference. It is the magnitude of proper interaction
between them which can increase the resultant vector in
many folds. An attempt has been made in this paper to
identify the significant interaction variables that can create
impact during different entrepreneurial growth stage. The
research is of a dynamic and multiregional structure and was
conducted on the target sample based on the longitudinal
study of GEDI (Global Entrepreneurship Development
Institute report) report 2012-2016. The study confirms that
interaction within ecosystem is complex as well as different in
nature for different stage of business. The present study also
explores the intricate situation and developed a suitable
model for each stage of business development. The most
notable part of this study is considering the heteroscedasticity
and autocorrelation of the data. Panel Corrected Standard
Error (PCSE) model has been used in our paper. The analysis
of the present study indicates the positive and negative
interaction variables for each stage of business development
that can be used for policy making considering the present
situation of the country.
Notation Used: In equation [1], [2], [3], i indicates
individual Country, t indicates year, indicate Nascent
Entrepreneurship Rate, Established Business Ownership Rate
and Sustainability. α and β are coefficients and € indicate
error term. In equation [4] X represents the explanatory
variables, whereas Ω is the covariance matrix for all error
terms.
Examining the Influence of Human Resource Practices on Entrepreneurial Orient...AI Publications
This study aims to investigate the influence of human resource practices on entrepreneurial orientation (EO) in the context of startups in Syria. The research focuses on 403 employees working in various startup organizations. By utilizing a quantitative approach, data will be collected through surveys to measure the perceptions of employees regarding human resource practices and entrepreneurial orientation. The findings of this study will contribute to the existing literature by providing insights into the relationship between human resource practices and entrepreneurial orientation in the unique context of startup organizations in Syria.
A Comparative Analysis of Organizational Structure and Effectiveness between ...inventionjournals
The nature of services in institutions of higher learning requires that all stakeholders play
positive roles in the sustainability of the institution’s survival and effectiveness in giving quality teaching,
research and learning. Structure and processes are core requirements for understanding organizational
effectiveness. The actual scenario in the field, however, raises concerns as to whether cases of pending work,
inefficiency, conflicts among others can be arrested by having proper structures and processes. The purpose of
the study was to assess the effect of organizational structure on organizational effectiveness, in public and
private universities in Kenya, using the case of Moi University and University of East Africa (UEA)-Baraton.
Based on the study, this paper undertakes a comparative analyisis of organizational structure and
organizational effectiveness between UEA-Baraton and Moi University and the extent to which the nature of
formalization and level of horizontal integration are antecedents to level of communication and locus of
decision-making. The study utilized a cross-sectional survey design that was descripto-explanatory in nature to
identify attributes of the study population using a small sample of individuals. Independent samples t-test was
used to test whether there was any significant difference in organizational structure and organizational
effectiveness between public and private universities. Further, the study used hierarchical regression analysis to
test the hypotheses. Based on the sample of 365 participants (300 from Moi University and 65 from UEABaraton),
the independent samples t-test confirmed that there were significant differences in organizational
structure and organizational effectiveness between public and private universities. The regression results
indicated that the locus of decision-making had positive and significant effects on productivity, stability,
resource acquisition and human resource satisfaction and development. The results highlight the need to
improve organizational structure which has positive impacts on organizational effectiveness under the
moderation of organizational processes. This move is necessitated by the accelerated pace of business
complexity today.
Dimensions and Characteristics of Organizational Behavior Impact and Competit...ijtsrd
The study of organizational behavior gives insight into how staff members behave and perform in the work environment. It helps us develop an understanding of the facets that can motivate staff members, enhance their efficiency, and help organizations establish a solid and also trusting relationship with their staff members. Human actions are inherent in each person which indicates his features, his way of behaving as well as assuming are his very own attributes while business actions are a group or company society special of each very own felt and also done. The study of Organizational Behavior OB is really intriguing as well as challenging too. It is related to individuals, a team of individuals collaborating in teams. The research ends up being a lot more challenging when situational factors connect. The research of organizational behavior connects to the expected behavior of an individual in the organization. No two individuals are likely to behave in the same manner in a certain work circumstance. It is the predictability of a supervisor concerning the expected behavior of an individual. There are no absolutes in human behavior. It is the human variable that is contributing to the performance hence the study of human practices is very important. Great value consequently must be affixed to the study. Dr. J. Jose Prabhu "Dimensions and Characteristics of Organizational Behavior: Impact and Competitive Advantage" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-4 | Issue-3 , April 2020, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd30632.pdf Paper Url :https://www.ijtsrd.com/management/organizational-behaviour/30632/dimensions-and-characteristics-of-organizational-behavior-impact-and-competitive-advantage/dr-j-jose-prabhu
Entrepreneurial Competencies as a Tool for Improve the Enterprise Growth and ...ijtsrd
Entrepreneurial competencies are important to entrepreneurship growth and enterprise development of the success. The purpose of this paper has to undertake a conceptual review of research on entrepreneurial competencies in order to functional and operational areas provide an included description of contributions relating to entrepreneurial competencies. The article research work towards review of the evaluation of the concept of competencies through particular reference to its use in the context of competencies for entrepreneur needs. Conceptual research draws together views on competence of an entrepreneur before exploring and summarizing research on the relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and business performance and growth. This report presents the state of the art on the topic of entrepreneurship competence identifying and comparing different theoretical and practical approaches from the academic and entrepreneurial world. Finally, the different perspectives adopted by researchers to the measurement of performance through entrepreneurial competencies are reviewed. Rajendra Prasad G R | Dr. Manjunath, K. R "Entrepreneurial Competencies as a Tool for Improve the Enterprise Growth and Entrepreneurial Activities: A Study" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-5 | Issue-2 , February 2021, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd38250.pdf Paper Url: https://www.ijtsrd.com/management/management-development/38250/entrepreneurial-competencies-as-a-tool-for-improve-the-enterprise-growth-and-entrepreneurial-activities-a-study/rajendra-prasad-g-r
The entrepreneurship, in today’s globalized economy, is linked with autonomy, venturing into new business, development of new products, pro-activeness, taking risks, innovation, strategic renewal, self-renewal, and competitive aggressiveness (Zahra and Garvis 1998). In this age of rapid developments in technology and the emerging global markets, the IT company has been able to utilize and develop its resources. The principles of corporate entrepreneurship are followed by prospering through the absorption of the pressures. It is a well known doctrine that the company’s performance is positively impacted by the involvement of corporate entrepreneurship (Wiklund 2009). The implication of this is by practicing entrepreneurship, the organizations would be successful in increasing the results that can be leading to the increase in GDP.
Similar to Diffusion of innovation through individual and collective entrepreneurship an empirical investigation in sm es (20)
Explore Sarasota Collection's exquisite and long-lasting dining table sets and chairs in Sarasota. Elevate your dining experience with our high-quality collection!
How to Build a Diversified Investment Portfolio.pdfTrims Creators
Building a diversified investment portfolio is a fundamental strategy to manage risk and optimize returns. For both novice and experienced investors, diversification offers a pathway to a more stable and resilient financial future. Here’s an in-depth guide on how to create and maintain a well-diversified investment portfolio.
What You're Going to Learn
- How These 4 Leaks Force You To Work Longer And Harder in order to grow your income… improve just one of these and the impact could be life changing.
- How to SHUT DOWN the revolving door of Income Stagnation… you know, where new sales come into your magazine while at the same time existing sponsors exit.
- How to transform your magazine business by fixing the 4 “DON’Ts”...
#1 LEADS Don’t Book
#2 PROSPECTS Don’t Show
#3 PROSPECTS Don’t Buy
#4 CLIENTS Don’t Stay
- How to identify which leak to fix first so you get the biggest bang for your income.
- Get actionable strategies you can use right away to improve your bookings, sales and retention.
When listening about building new Ventures, Marketplaces ideas are something very frequent. On this session we will discuss reasons why you should stay away from it :P , by sharing real stories and misconceptions around them. If you still insist to go for it however, you will at least get an idea of the important and critical strategies to optimize for success like Product, Business Development & Marketing, Operations :)
Reflect Festival Limassol May 2024.
Michael Economou is an Entrepreneur, with Business & Technology foundations and a passion for Innovation. He is working with his team to launch a new venture – Exyde, an AI powered booking platform for Activities & Experiences, aspiring to revolutionize the way we travel and experience the world. Michael has extensive entrepreneurial experience as the co-founder of Ideas2life, AtYourService as well as Foody, an online delivery platform and one of the most prominent ventures in Cyprus’ digital landscape, acquired by Delivery Hero group in 2019. This journey & experience marks a vast expertise in building and scaling marketplaces, enhancing everyday life through technology and making meaningful impact on local communities, which is what Michael and his team are pursuing doing once more with Exyde www.goExyde.com
Salma Karina Hayat is Conscious Digital Transformation Leader at Kudos | Empowering SMEs via CRM & Digital Automation | Award-Winning Entrepreneur & Philanthropist | Education & Homelessness Advocate
Best Crypto Marketing Ideas to Lead Your Project to SuccessIntelisync
In this comprehensive slideshow presentation, we delve into the intricacies of crypto marketing, offering invaluable insights and strategies to propel your project to success in the dynamic cryptocurrency landscape. From understanding market trends to building a robust brand identity, engaging with influencers, and analyzing performance metrics, we cover all aspects essential for effective marketing in the crypto space.
Also Intelisync, our cutting-edge service designed to streamline and optimize your marketing efforts, leveraging data-driven insights and innovative strategies to drive growth and visibility for your project.
With a data-driven approach, transparent communication, and a commitment to excellence, InteliSync is your trusted partner for driving meaningful impact in the fast-paced world of Web3. Contact us today to learn more and embark on a journey to crypto marketing mastery!
Ready to elevate your Web3 project to new heights? Contact InteliSync now and unleash the full potential of your crypto venture!
Textile Chemical Brochure - Tradeasia (1).pdfjeffmilton96
Explore Tradeasia’s brochure for eco-friendly textile chemicals. Enhance your textile production with high-quality, sustainable solutions for superior fabric quality.
2. Introduction
Entrepreneurship is an emerging research field, and within a few decades, it has appealed a
large number of scholars around the world (Déry and Toulouse, 1996; Busenitz et al., 2003;
Schildt and Sillanpää, 2004; Bruton et al., 2008; Welter and Lasch, 2008; Hindle and Moroz,
2010; Audretsch et al., 2016). A number of research scholars proclaim that entrepreneurship
plays a central role in the economic development of a country. As per Schumpeter (1934)
study, the entrepreneur is the main pillar of economic structure who plays a central role in
the economic development by transforming innovation into a new, efficient and valuable
product and service. According to (Bygrave and Hofer, 1992; Drucker, 2006; Gartner, 1990),
innovation emerges from entrepreneurship. Widespread research studies focus on the role of
an individual entrepreneur to bring innovation and a limited number of studies shed light on
the importance of collective entrepreneurship (Stewart, 1989; Reich, 1987; Yan and Sorenson,
2003; Yan and Yan, 2016). In the present study, we have made an effort to fill the gap in
existing literature by studying the simultaneous impact of individual and team-based
entrepreneurship to bring innovation within a firm. The study explores the association
between communication and collaboration within a firm and collective entrepreneurship.
Further, we found controversies in literature in the context of centralized decision-making
and innovation. Some scholars suggest a positive relationship between centralized decision-
making and innovation (Jansen et al., 2006; Cardinal, 2001), while others such as Yan and
Yan (2016) proclaim that entrepreneur’s centralized decision-making hurts innovation from
both the individual and team-based efforts. These findings entail some further investigation
that will explore whether the conflicting results are due to different cultural backgrounds,
the nature of business environment or industry-specific characteristics.
In addition, previous studies (Stewart, 1989; Covin and Slevin, 1989; Bennis and
Biederman, 2007; Yan and Yan, 2016) explore the association between collective
entrepreneurship and innovation and proclaim that through team-based entrepreneurship, it
is easy to develop and produce radical innovations within small and medium enterprises
(SMEs). The present study tends to explore the interaction between the two types of
entrepreneurship, i.e. individual and collective and innovation. A number of research studies
support leadership imperative theory of Miller (1983) with empirical findings that the
entrepreneur as an individual with his/her distinct personality traits has a direct
contribution in the innovativeness of SMEs (Miller, 1983; Kickul and Gundry, 2002; Greve
and Salaff, 2003). Apart from Lindgren and Packendorff’s (2003) individualistic orientation
of entrepreneurship theory, it is important to explore and investigate the collective
dimensions of entrepreneurship because studying entrepreneurship as collective efforts and
taking further step toward entrepreneurial teams lead to construct such an entrepreneurship
framework that will allow us to have a more realistic image of the phenomenon. So
primarily, the present study is aimed at investigating the entrepreneurship field for
collective action and further demonstrating its importance for the innovation performance.
To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first empirical investigation on the
nexus of entrepreneurship and innovation performance in the context of SME sector of
Pakistan. Section 1 will review the relevant literature of our study and specify all the
hypothesized relationships, Section 2 will describe the methodology to approach the
objectives of the study; Section 3 will report results of the analysis; finally, Section 4 will
cover the implications, limitations and the new dimensions originating from the research.
Literature review
The following section will cover literature relevant to our study, encompass the individual
entrepreneurship, team-based entrepreneurship and its importance to bringing innovation
APJIE
13,1
90
3. in SMEs. After a brief review of the literature, we will present our hypotheses to examine the
hypothetical relations of the research variables.
The conceptual definition of innovation performance
Schumpeter (1934) describes the term innovation as:
Any attempt carried out for the introduction of a new (or improved) product, a new method of
production, an opening of a new market, exploitation of a new source of supply and the re-
engineering of business management processes.
Innovativeness is an organization-wide recognition of unique creation: an introduction of
new products, processes or services and application of distinctive administrative systems, or
any combinations of these factors that influence the overall firm performance (Bulut and
Yilmaz, 2008). Innovative performance can be defined as the tendency of a firm to bring
novelty in the product and production process, support new ideas and explore a creative
solution to the complex issues (Raghuvanshi and Garg, 2018). By above conceptions, one can
conclude that innovation performance comprises of an introduction of new products,
searching out unique working methods and techniques, exploring new ideas to solve
complex issues, identifying performance gaps, mobilizing support for innovative ideas and
transforming innovative ideas into useful applications (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007;
Janssen, 2000; Yeoh and Mahmood, 2013).
Individual entrepreneurship and innovation in the context of small and
medium enterprises
A wide range of researchers (McClelland and Winter, 1969; Hull et al., 1980; Cuervo, 2005;
Turkina and Thai, 2015; Yan and Yan, 2016) tend to analyze the characteristics of a
successful entrepreneur to identify distinctive traits in their personality, and in this attempt
they find that entrepreneurial behavior tend to have such characteristics: extroversion,
desire for accomplishment, desire for independence, need for power, need for achievement,
creativity, innovation, risk-taking, and proactive (Hussain, 2018). Further, most of the
studies hold the opinion that centralized decision-making by the entrepreneur tends to
benefit innovation, particularly exploitative innovation that is based on existing knowledge
of the entrepreneur (Cardinal, 2001; Jansen et al., 2006). A more recent study by Yan and Yan
(2016) postulate that with scarce resources held by SMEs, the entrepreneur’s centralized
decision-makings tend to bring more incremental innovation then radical. A large number of
researchers explore the psychological characteristics of the successful entrepreneur to
identify distinctive traits in their personality, which distinguish entrepreneurs from rest of
the individuals in a society (Yan and Yan, 2016). The entrepreneurial behavior should have
three characteristics that comprised of innovative, proactive and risk-taking that determine
the capacity of entrepreneurs to change the way in which things are done, assume the
uncertainty associated with change and take the initiative (McClelland, 1961; Kihlstrom and
Laffont, 1979; Cuervo, 2005). Albeit, a large number of studies have examined different
aspects of personality traits of entrepreneurs and innovation, the results of the studies are
still mixed and inconclusive, and require further investigation (Zali and Chaychian, 2017). In
the recent era, we find large-scale studies on the nexus of personality trait and business
success (Rauch and Frese, 2007; Brandstätter, 2011; Leutner et al., 2014), but only a limited
number of scholars explored the association between entrepreneur’s personality traits and
innovation performance in SMEs (Bello, 2017).
Diffusion of
innovation
91
4. Communication, collaboration and collective (team-based) entrepreneurship
In the current dynamic era, communication and collaboration within a firm enable it to be
entrepreneurial and continuously innovative by exploring new markets. In
entrepreneurship literature, communication and collaboration emphasize the creation of
economic values based on novel and mutually generated ideas that emerge from the
sharing of information and knowledge (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000a, 2000b).
According to Miles et al. (2005), knowledge creation and its proper utilization lead to
innovation. It is obvious that effective knowledge management within a firm depends on
its ability to communicate and collaborate inside the organization. In a collaborative
environment, employees frequently share information with their colleagues that brings
innovations in a given firm in a result of shared ideas. In the meantime, it is
acknowledged that networks within the firm could be the basis for collective
entrepreneurship in the context of decision-making process. Johannisson (2017) examines
entrepreneurship in the context of a network. He stated that “entrepreneurs in owner-
managed firms have to supplement internal resources in order to adapt to increasingly
turbulent environments.” In this sense, “the personal network of the entrepreneur
supplies resources on conditions which do not conflict with the small business’ need for
flexibility.” Collective entrepreneurship requires a network that allows for sharing and
exchange of ideas and resources at the cognitive (e.g. team mental models, networked
organizations), affective (e.g. social support) and behavioral (e.g. teamwork) levels. The
collective capability of a firm depends on communication and collaboration in an
entrepreneurial team. In fact, it has been found that innovative potential, along with
collective capability, serves as the most important reasons for collective entrepreneurship
(Antoncic, 2007). In his study, Reich (1987) advocates that a firm should put an end to the
“myth of the entrepreneurial hero” and acknowledges collective entrepreneurship that
emerges from synergetic contributions from employees, as the collective capacity to
identify and respond to opportunities is an important component of collective
entrepreneurship.
Communication, collaboration and entrepreneurial orientation
Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) can be defined as a strategic posture of a firm that displays
its propensity to be innovative, that is, to generate novel ideas, proactive to beat competitors
in recognition of new market opportunities, and open to take risk in exploration of new
products, services, and markets (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Firm’s ability to convert its
innovative, proactive and risk-taking behavior into performance advantage is influenced by
the amount and quality of knowledge exchange that takes place across all the employees of
an organization. Entrepreneurial orientation can be defined as the firm’s innovative,
proactive and risk-taking behaviour, as well as its internal collective capability (Anderson
et al., 2015; Cho and Lee, 2018; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Miller, 2011; Thorgren et al., 2012;
Wales, 2016). The collective capability depends on the quality of knowledge exchange in the
entrepreneurial team that is based on proper communication and collaboration. A high level
of cross-functional communication and a close information flow play a critical role in
sharing and integrating knowledge across different departments, which is considered as an
important source of development of new and innovative products. So, internal collaboration
and knowledge exchange across different functional boundaries boost the firm’s
innovativeness. To be proactive, communication and collaboration build up a firm’s
capability to identify new market opportunities by increasing the level of market
intelligence generation and market responsiveness (Brettel et al., 2015).
APJIE
13,1
92
5. Collective (team-based) entrepreneurship and innovation in the context of
small and medium enterprises
Innovation performance cannot be led by a single entrepreneur/owner, and to view an
entrepreneur/owner as a single driver of innovation activities leads to a strong
individualistic assumption about entrepreneurship (Miller, 1983; Reich, 1987; Man et al.,
2002) that ignores the collective efforts made by all the members of an entrepreneurial team.
To some extent, it maybe possible that this assumption may create such an individualistic
culture that will favor individual efforts and contributions and ignore the collective efforts
and contributions made by all the business members (Reich, 1987). Management scholars
proclaim that collective action lies at the heart of management sciences and remind us that a
collective action perspective in these sciences “cannot ignore the entrepreneurial process at
the origins of the organizational processes” (Brechet and Desreumaux, 1999). While, the
scholars in the field of entrepreneurship seem to ignore the notion of collectivism, as most of
the scholars place an undue focus on a stereotypical entrepreneur, lone and heroic (Ben-
Hafaïedh, 2017). Along with an individualistic orientation of entrepreneurship theory and
the practical need for role models in the society (Lindgren and Packendorff, 2003), it is
important to study entrepreneurship in collective perspective and explore its collective
dimensions because viewing entrepreneurship as team-based, and then taking another step
toward entrepreneurial teams, will lead to construct such an entrepreneurship framework
that will allow us to have a more realistic image of the phenomenon. So, the present study
primarily aims at searching the entrepreneurship field for collective action and further
demonstrating its importance for the innovation performance.
Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in the context of small and
medium enterprises
In recent literature, Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) has been recognized as one of the most
important factors for firm growth, profitability and competitiveness. Further, in an attempt
to avoid the adverse effects of short product life cycle and innovative efforts made by the
competitors, and to compete in a dynamic environment with continuously changing
customers’ priorities, it is important for a firm to adopt EO proactively. Miller (1983, p. 771)
defined an entrepreneurial firm as “a firm that engaged in product market innovation,
undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with “pro-active” innovations,
beating competitors to the punch.” Miller’s definition provides the basic understanding of
the underlying field of entrepreneurial firms and acts as a groundwork for the development
of unified EO construct. Furthermore, it formalizes the prime components attached to the
firm’s forward-looking behavior regarding product market innovation (innovativeness) to
take proactive initiatives (proactiveness) and a firm’s propensity to bear the corresponding
risks (risk-taking). A wide range of literature adopts the definition and formal
conceptualization of Miller, and it is also supported by a large number of empirical findings.
A more recent study conducted by Arunachalam et al. (2018) proclaims that the three
aspects of EO (innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking) act as catalysts to the
continual development of product innovations. According to Rubera and Kirca (2017),
entrepreneurial firms are those which are creative in nature and support new ideas and
consider environmental dynamics as opportunities rather than threats. Further, along with a
high enthusiasm to depart from already existing patterns and practices, these firms also
show high willingness to initiate joint innovation development activities with their partners
(Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Proactiveness stimulates such a robust culture that gives a
competitive edge to outperform competitors and boost the firm’s ability to grab new
opportunities by knowing the newer needs of customers. It also increases the likelihood of
Diffusion of
innovation
93
6. the firm to become a pioneer in serving customers’ new needs by initiating strategic actions
and to gain first-mover advantages (Conant et al., 1990). Proactive firms are those that are
future orientated and have a propensity to identify new trends in the market to find out
substitutes for their products which are going at the end of their life cycles (Lumpkin and
Dess, 1996). Finally, a firm’s risk-taking propensity enriches the firm’s willingness to
experiment with new ideas and learn from failures. It is a firm’s critical capability to actively
serve the dynamic needs of the customer at the marketplace (Day, 2011). Moreover, the
strategy to allocate substantial resources to deal with the uncertain consequences of creative
actions increases the introducing speed of new products and ideas (Eisenhardt, 1989). The
three-dimensional EO activities have a significant positive association with the innovation
output of firms while venturing into uncertain arenas. Innovativeness provides the intent,
proactiveness provides the direction, and risk-taking provides the will (Arunachalam et al.,
2018). So, it is argued that taken together, firms with higher levels of EO will have greater
success in the level of innovations they generate.
Small and medium enterprises in the context of Pakistan
Literature proclaims that SMEs have a decisive role in the economic development of a
country. This sector of the economy is not only important for generation of employment,
alleviation of poverty, equal distribution of income, development of enterprises and the
development of rural sector, but it also has a major contribution to the gross domestic
product (GDP) of a country (Wu et al., 2017). According to Khan (2015), in Pakistan, SMEs
act as a catalyst to the structural changes and play a critical role in the macro-economic
development and support sustainable growth. In Pakistan, SMEs are a prime sector and
Pakistan’s economy heavily depends on SMEs for industrial productivity, export earnings,
foreign investments, jobs and its overall economic prosperity (Jan Khan and Khalique, 2014).
The statistics of State Bank of Pakistan (2016) indicate that 99 per cent (3 million)
enterprises in Pakistan are SMEs and they employ 78 per cent of industrial labor force.
Pakistan’s SME sector contributes 30 per cent to the GDP and 25 per cent to the export of
manufacturing goods (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2016/2017). To improve SMEs’
establishment and their productivity, Pakistan government has established various
institutions and schemes such as Small and Medium Enterprise Development Authority
(SMEDA), Small and Medium Enterprise Banks (SMEs Banks), Prime Minister’s Youth
Business Loan, Microloan Insurance Scheme, etc. As per Pakistan SMEs Policy (2007), small
and medium enterprises are defined as follows (Table I):
After an in-depth study of the literature, we propose the following theoretical framework
that presents possible relations among different variables developed on the basis of a
rigorous study of the underlying field (Figure 1).
Hypothesis development
On the basis of a rigorous examination of relevant aspects of entrepreneurship literature, we
have developed following research hypotheses to test the hypothetical relations among
Table I.
SME definition
Enterprise category Employment size Annual sales
Small and medium enterprise (SME) Up to 250 Employees Up to Rs. 250m
Source: Pakistan SMEs Policy (2007)
APJIE
13,1
94
7. entrepreneurship and innovation that were depicted in the theoretical framework of the
study:
H1. Entrepreneurial personality traits are positively associated with innovation in
SMEs.
H2. Centralized decision-making is positively associated with innovation in SMEs.
H3. Centralized decision-making is negatively associated with communication.
H4. Centralized decision-making is negatively associated with collaboration.
H5. Communication is positively associated with entrepreneurial orientation.
H6. Communication is positively associated with collective entrepreneurship.
H7. Collaboration is positively associated with entrepreneurial orientation.
H8. Collaboration is positively associated with collective entrepreneurship.
H9. Entrepreneurial orientation has direct positive impact on innovation in SMEs.
H10. Collective entrepreneurship has direct positive impact on innovation in SMEs.
Methodology
Measurement scale (see Appendix)
Entrepreneurial traits – To measure entrepreneurial traits, we applied a higher-order
construct adopted from (Eggers et al., 2013), that is built by three lower order constructs
(risk-taking, innovativeness and proactiveness), all measured on three items.
Entrepreneurial Orientation – The scale for entrepreneurial orientation was adopted from
Tajeddini (2010), to measure the firm’s tendency to involve in entrepreneurial orientation
activities. Centralization – Following the literature, we measured centralization by widely
used five-item questionnaire of Hage and Aiken (1967), regarding the extent to which the
decision-making authority is concerted at the firm’s top-level management. Collaboration –
To measure the collaborative behavior among business members, we used six items scale
developed by Rahim (1983). Communication – To measure communication among the
business members, we adopted the eight-item scale developed by House and Rizzo (1972),
and three items were dropped due to poor factor loading. Collective entrepreneurship – To
measure collective entrepreneurial tendency of the respondent firms, we applied an eight-
item scale developed by Yan and Yan (2016). This scale was developed based on the
definition of collective entrepreneurship and previous studies of Yan and Sorenson (2003)
Figure 1.
Theoretical
framework for
individual and
collective
entrepreneurship for
SMEs
Entrepreneurial
trait
Risk-taking
Proacve
Innovave
Centralized
decision-making
Collaboraon
Innovaon
Communicaon Collecve
entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial
orientaon
Diffusion of
innovation
95
8. and Stewart (1989). Innovation – To measure the product, process and market-related
innovations, we used five-item innovation scales developed by Kickul and Gundry (2002).
Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent the business was engaged in the three
listed types of innovation. All the constructs’ items were measured by seven-point Likert
scales, from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Data collection
In Pakistan, more than 85 per cent of the manufacturing companies can be classified as
SMEs that have a great potential to promoting economic growth and competiveness (Jan
Khan and Khalique, 2014). When we study the regional SMEs establishment of Pakistan, we
come to know that Punjab has the largest share of 65.26 per cent, Sindh has 17.82 per cent,
Khyber Pakhtoon Khwa (KPK) has 14.21 per cent, and Balochistan has 2.09 per cent share of
the total 2.96 million establishment. The number of SMEs (manufacturing) in the country is
over 400,000, whereas the number of all other units is less than 10,000. Hence, SMEs
constitute more than 98 per cent of total number of manufacturing units (SME Base Line
Survey, SMEDA Pakistan, 2019). On the basis of above figures, we took manufacturing
SMEs as our population. Further, as mentioned above, comparing to other regions, Punjab
had the largest share of 65.26 per cent in the total 2.96 million SMEs establishment;
therefore, we decided to select this region as the sample frame of our study. Based on
Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (2005) (Census of Manufacturing Industries-2013 District-Wise
Report), we selected five major industrial cities of Punjab named Lahore, Multan,
Faisalabad, Gujranwala and Sialkot as a sample frame. The Chamber of Commerce and
Industry of each district maintained a register for listed (manufacturing, services and retail)
SMEs in that region which provided holistic approach for sample selection. Simple random
technique was applied to select sample and a total of 700 major registered SMEs were
selected as the sample frame. The survey instruments were distributed through email
among selected firms and target respondents of the survey were owners or top-level
managers. A total of 480 survey instruments were returned with the response rate of 68.57
per cent, which is considered a good response rate in Pakistan. The sample distribution is
depicted in Table II.
Analyses and results
In the present study, we have used SEM technique as this technique is particularly suitable
to test a multilevel theoretical framework and makes it possible to evaluate several
relationships between observed and latent variables simultaneously (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012).
As suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we used a two-step SEM approach. In the
first step, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the validity of the
measurement model and the discriminant validity of individual constructs. In the second
step, a structural model was developed to estimate the path coefficients for hypothetical
relationships between the constructs.
Measurement model validity
Before going to test hypothetical relationships between different variables of the study, we
estimated the validity of all construct measures. For this purpose, confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was carried out using the software solution AMOS 21. CFA results of
measurement construct, entitled entrepreneurial traits, stated a good fit, goodness-of-fit
indexes: (x2
/df = 7.71; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987; comparative fit index (CFI) =
0.989; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.975; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.039,
P 0.05. Results of CFA for centralized decision-making construct also showed a good fit,
APJIE
13,1
96
9. Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x2
/df = 3.51; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.994; comparative fit
index (CFI) = 0.995; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.993; root mean square of approximation
(RMSEA) = 0.072, P 0.05. Results of CFA for collaboration measurement construct also
indicated a good fit, Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x2
/df = 2.61; goodness of fit index (GFI) =
0.987; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.990; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.985; root mean
square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058, P 0.05. CFA results of measurement
construct, entitled communication, showed a good fit, Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x2
/df =
4.31; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.989; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.981; normed fit
index (NFI) = 0.976; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.080. P 0.05.
Results of CFA for entrepreneurial orientation measurement construct also indicated a
good fit, Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x2
/df = 3.98; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987;
comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.983; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.978; root mean square of
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.078. P 0.05. Results of CFA for collective
entrepreneurship measurement construct also indicated a good fit, Goodness-of-fit
indexes: (x2
/df = 2.24; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.990; comparative fit index (CFI) =
0.993; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.988; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) =
0.051. P 0.05. Results of CFA for innovation measurement construct also specified a
good fit, Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x2
/df = 3.86; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.984;
comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.967; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.935; root mean square of
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.077. P 0.05. The standardized factor loading (SFL) of each
items for all the constructs is exceeding the threshold value of 0.50, alpha coefficients of
each measurement construct are also greater than 0.70 and statistically significant at a
level of 5 per cent (Tables III-IX).
Table II.
Sample descriptive
statistic and
distribution
Variables Items Frequency (%)
Gender Male 410 85.42
Female 70 14.58
Age of owner/manager 20-30 years 115 23.95
31-40 years 150 31.25
41-50 years 96 20.00
51-60 years 85 17.70
Above 60 years 34 07.08
Educational qualification Matric 120 25.00
Entre/Equal 135 28.12
Bachelor/Equal 98 20.41
Master/Equal 75 15.62
Other Tech. Education 52 10.83
Respondent’s status Owner 320 66.67
Manager 160 33.33
Regional distribution Lahore 229 47.70
Multan 63 13.12
Faisalabad 77 16.05
Gujranwala 76 15.83
Sialkot 35 07.30
No. of employees 1-100 396 82.50
101-250 84 17.50
Business age 1-10 years 181 37.70
11-20 years 234 48.80
Above 20 years 65 13.50
Diffusion of
innovation
97
10. Test of hypotheses
The CFA results specified that our model is an acceptable measurement model, so we
proceed to evaluate the structural model with the help of AMOS 21. Figure 2 depicts that the
overall fit statistics indicate an adequate fit for the model, structural model goodness-of-fit
indexes: (x2
/df = 17.72; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.967; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.982;
non-normed fit index (NNFI) = 0.941; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.071;
AGFI = 0.982). P 0.05. Table X depicts the path analyses results for the main variables of
the study that provide a partial support to hypothetical relationships of our study. As per
SEM results, entrepreneurial traits are found to have a significant positive association with
Table III.
Construct measure
and validity
assessment
(entrepreneurial
traits)
Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) Alpha
Entrepreneurial traits ET1 0.564 0.679
ET2 0.546
ET3 0.654
ET4 0.732
ET5 0.746
ET6 0.538
ET7 0.675
ET8 0.742
ET9 0.737
Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x2
/df = 7.71; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987; comparative fit index (CFI) =
0.989; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.975; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.039. P 0.05
Table IV.
Construct measure
and validity
assessment
(centralized decision-
making)
Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) a
Centralized decision-making CD1 0.675 0.698
CD2 0.653
CD3 0.548
CD4 0.639
CD5 0.664
Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x2
/df = 3.51; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.994; comparative fit index
(CFI) = 0.995; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.993; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.072. P
0.05
Table V.
Construct measure
and validity
assessment
(Collaboration)
Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) a
Collaboration CB1 0.576 0.665
CB2 0.653
CB3 0.632
CB4 0.548
CB5 0.687
CB6 0.751
Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x2
/df = 2.61; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987; comparative fit index
(CFI) = 0.990; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.985; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058.
p 0.05
APJIE
13,1
98
11. innovation in SMEs (b = 0.02, p 0.05). Our study postulates that centralized decision-
making has a negative association with collaboration but the results specify an insignificant
positive association between two variables (b = 0.70, p 0.05). We supposed that
centralized decision-making has a negative association with communication, and the results
also provide a support to our supposition (b = 0.06, p 0.05). Our study suggests that
there is a negative association between centralized decision-making and innovation in
SMEs, but SEM results state that there is no any association between centralized decision-
making and innovation (b = 0.00, p 0.05). The SEM analysis also suggests positive
Table VI.
Construct measure
and validity
assessment
(Communication)
Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) Alpha
Communication CM1 0.538 0.712
CM2 0.639
CM3 0.612
CM4 0.589
CM5 0.615
Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x2
/df = 4.31; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.989; comparative fit index
(CFI) = 0.981; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.976; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.080.
P 0.05
Table VII.
Construct measure
and validity
assessment
(entrepreneurial
orientation)
Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) Alpha
Entrepreneurial orientation EO1 0.687 0.731
EO2 0.586
EO3 0.664
EO4 0.597
EO5 0.574
EO6 0.583
EO7 0.677
Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x2
/df = 3.98; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987; comparative fit index
(CFI) = 0.983; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.978; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.078.
P 0.05
Table VIII.
Construct measure
and validity
assessment
(collective
entrepreneurship)
Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) Alpha
Collective entrepreneurship CE1 0.529 0.626
CE2 0.547
CE3 0.652
CE4 0.576
CE5 0.535
CE6 0.598
CE7 0.612
CE8 0.593
Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x2
/df = 2.24; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.990; comparative fit index
(CFI) = 0.993; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.988; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.051. p 0.0
Diffusion of
innovation
99
12. relationships between elements of the two sources of innovation in SMEs. Communication
among business members was found to have a positive significant association with the
entrepreneurial orientation (b = 0.59, p 0.05), and in the meantime it was found to be
positively associated with collective entrepreneurship (b = 0.02, p 0.05). Collaboration
among the business members has a positive association with entrepreneurial orientation
(b = 0.64, p 0.05), and it is also significantly associated with collective entrepreneurship
(b = 0.02, p 0.05).
Collective entrepreneurship is found to have a significant positive association with
innovation in SMEs but the relationship is very weak (b = 0.02, p 0.01). We have also
Figure 2.
Path diagram
Table IX.
Construct measure
and validity
assessment
(Innovation)
Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) Alpha
Innovation INN1 0.653 0.695
INN2 0.587
INN3 0.743
INN4 0.648
INN5 0.579
Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x2
/df = 3.86; goodness off it index (GFI) = 0.984; comparative fit index
(CFI) = 0.967; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.935; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.077. p
0.05
APJIE
13,1
100
13. found a weak but significant positive association between entrepreneurial orientation and
innovation in SMEs (b = 0.01, p 0.05). Overall findings of the study support our presented
model; eight out of ten hypotheses were empirically supported with the data of four hundred
and eighty enterprises.
Discussion
The study aimed at exploring the association between individual and team-based
entrepreneurship and their simultaneous impact on innovation in the context of SMEs. It
cannot be presumed that either leadership imperative theory of Miller (1983) or the collective
entrepreneurship theory of Reich (1987) and Stewart (1989) alone is able to offer a broad
explanation to the sources of innovation for SMEs. So, the present study is intended to fill
the gap in existing entrepr eneurship literature that either stresses on the individual
entrepreneur’s role to bring innovation or only focuses on the significance of team-
based entrepreneurship. The results of SEM analyses unravel the contribution of the
individual entrepreneur and also depict the importance of collective entrepreneurship to
bring innovation in SMEs. Entrepreneur’s personality traits have a direct positive impact on
innovation, while opposed to the previous research finding (Yan and Yan, 2016), centralized
decision-making has no significant association with innovation. Centralized decision-
making has a negative association with communication among business members and has
an insignificant positive association with collaboration. In line with previous research
findings of (Stewart, 1989; Yan and Yan, 2016), collective entrepreneurship is positively
associated with innovation. What is more, our findings suggest that collective efforts have a
strong association with innovation than individual efforts. Factors associated with team-
based entrepreneurship (communication and collaboration among business members of
SMEs) contribute to entrepreneurial orientation and collective entrepreneurship and
ultimately to bringing innovation in SMEs. On the other hand, the factors that are associated
with individual entrepreneurship, like centralized decision-making, negatively influence the
collective entrepreneurship. Also, centralized decision-making discourages both
communication and collaboration among business members of SMEs, ultimately hindering
the process of innovation by discouraging collective effort within the firm. Factors that
center to collective entrepreneurship, i.e. communication and collaboration, also improve the
entrepreneur’s individual contribution to innovation by enhancing his/her knowledge about
new markets, products, processes and technology.
Table X.
Path analyses
From Path To Standardized b P value Results
CD ! COMU 0.06 * H3 Supported
CD ! CB 0.70 0.34 H4 Not Supported
CD ! INN 0.00 0.98 H2 Not Supported
COMU ! CE 0.02 *** H6 Supported
CB ! EO 0.64 * H7 Supported
COMU ! EO 0.59 *** H5 Supported
CB ! CE 0.02 *** H8 Supported
ETR ! INN 0.02 * H1 Supported
EO ! INN 0.01 *** H9 Supported
CE ! INN 0.02 *** H10 Supported
Notes: ***p = 0.01; *p = 0.05
Diffusion of
innovation
101
14. Research implications
In line with the previous research findings, the present study proclaimed with the help of
empirical evidence that the individual entrepreneur and team-based entrepreneurship
contribute to innovation in SMEs. At the same time, the study exposed a mechanism that
helps to understand the complexity in relationships between the two sources of innovation
in SMEs. Factors that lead to collective entrepreneurship, i.e. communication and
collaboration, boost the entrepreneur’s individual contribution to innovation by enhancing
his/her knowledge about new products, markets, processes and technology. Findings of this
study provide empirical support to the collective entrepreneurship theory which suggests
that collective entrepreneurial capability makes a significant and distinctive contribution to
innovation. In contrast, the factors that are associated with individual entrepreneurship, like
centralized decision-making by the entrepreneur, have a negative impact on collective
entrepreneurship, as they hinder the process of communication and collaboration among
business members which ultimately discourages innovation within the firm. So, one of the
most important implications of this study is that the SMEs in pursuit of innovation should
create such an environment that encourages communication and collaboration among
business members, empowers all employees and promotes decentralized decision-making
process. Consistent with the leadership imperative theory of entrepreneurship (Miller, 1983),
the present study also confirms it empirically that the entrepreneur as an individual acts as
a catalyst to bring innovation in small enterprises. So, the second practical implication for
the entrepreneur is that he/she as a leader of a small business should neither underestimate
his/her own potentials and downplay his/her efforts and nor should act as an only
“organizing genesis” because the collective entrepreneurship has a significant contribution
to innovation in SMEs. The third managerial implication generating form this study is that
the SMEs who want to improve entrepreneurial orientation activities within the firm should
do their best to promote communication and collaboration both horizontally and vertically
and encourage decentralized organizational structure because such activities have a direct
positive impact on entrepreneurial orientation activities within the firm. The study also
suggests that entrepreneurial personality traits have a direct positive impact on innovative
activities. So, another important implication for the entrepreneur is also generated that he/
she should be proactive, innovative and risk-taker, as these traits also encourage innovation.
Conclusion
Despite a number of implications originate from the present study, there are also some
limitations associated with this research. First, the present study is based on cross-sectional
data that makes it difficult to draw a causal relationship between investigated variables. So
the future research can be based on the longitudinal approach for a better understanding of
causal relationships between individual entrepreneurship, team-based entrepreneurship,
and innovation in SMEs. Second, most of the data about each of the research variables are
collected directly from entrepreneurs; in future, data about different variables may be
collected from different sources, like data about factors that comprise of collective
entrepreneurship should be collected from other members (employees) of an organization.
Third, in our study, we used a sample of manufacturing SMEs only; in future research, the
sample frame can encompass manufacturing, service and retail businesses that will improve
the generalizability of the results. Fourth, the model used in our study comprises only a few
factors related to individual entrepreneurship and team-based entrepreneurship; in future
studies, more variables can be considered to explore the complex relationships between
individual entrepreneurship, team-based entrepreneurship and innovation. Finally, the
intervening impact of environmental and cultural factors on the association of collective
APJIE
13,1
102
15. entrepreneurship and innovation may be studied in the future research. The present study
sheds new light on the existing entrepreneurship literature that either advocates the
individual entrepreneur’s role in innovation (Miller, 1983) or only supports the collective
entrepreneurship (Reich, 1987; Stewart, 1989; Yan and Sorenson, 2003). This study
overcomes this weakness by exploring the complexity in relationships between the two
major sources of innovation in SMEs. Further, the model in our study investigates the
simultaneous impact of individual and team-based entrepreneurship on innovation and
suggests that these two sources have important, but not complementary, contributions to
innovation in SMEs. Findings of this study also confirm that the combined effect of
individual and collective entrepreneurship on innovation is neither additive nor subtractive.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, p. 411.
Anderson, B.S., Kreiser, P.M., Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. and Eshima, Y. (2015), “Reconceptualizing
entrepreneurial orientation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1579-1596.
Antoncic, B. (2007), “Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation modeling study”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 309-325.
Arunachalam, S., Ramaswami, S.N., Herrmann, P. and Walker, D. (2018), “Innovation pathway to
profitability: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing capabilities”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 744-766.
Audretsch, D.B., Kuratko, D.F. and Link, A.N. (2016), “Dynamic entrepreneurship and technology-
based innovation”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 603-620.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation
models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34.
Bello, S.M. (2017), “Personality trait and innovation performance of micro and small enterprises”, Leadership,
Innovation and Entrepreneurship as Driving Forces of the Global Economy, Springer, Berlin, 663-669.
Ben-Hafaïedh, C. (2017), Entrepreneurial Teams Research in Movement. Research Handbook on
Entrepreneurial Teams: Theory and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Bennis, W. and Biederman, P.W. (2007), Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration, Basic
Book, New York, NY.
Brandstätter, H. (2011), “Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: a look at five Meta-analyses”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 222-230.
Brechet, J.P. and Desreumaux, A. (1999), “Theories of the firm to the dynamics of collective action, for a
socio-economy of productive projects”, Research Papers of the Research Center in Management
Sciences of the University of Nantes.
Brettel, M., Chomik, C. and Flatten, T.C. (2015), “How organizational culture influences innovativeness,
proactiveness, and risk-taking: fostering entrepreneurial orientation in SMEs”, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 868-885.
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D. and Obloj, K. (2008), “Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: where are
we today and where should the research go in the future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Bulut, C. and Yilmaz, C. (2008), “Innovative performance impacts of corporate entrepreneurship: an
empirical research in Turkey”, Proceedings of Academy of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Conference, Beijing, pp. 414-417.
Busenitz, L.W., West, G.P., III, Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G.N. and Zacharakis, A. (2003),
“Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future directions”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 285-308.
Diffusion of
innovation
103
16. Bygrave, W.D. and Hofer, C.W. (1992), “Theorizing about entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 13-22.
Cardinal, L.B. (2001), “Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use of organizational
control in managing research and development”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 19-36.
Cho, Y.H. and Lee, J.-H. (2018), “Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial education and
performance”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 124-134.
Conant, J.S., Mokwa, M.P. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1990), “Strategic types, distinctive marketing
competencies and organizational performance: a multiple measures-based study”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 365-383.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Cuervo, A. (2005), “Individual and environmental determinants of entrepreneurship”, The International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 293-311.
Day, G.S. (2011), “Closing the marketing capabilities gap”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 183-195.
De Jong, J.P. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-64.
Déry, R. and Toulouse, J.M. (1996), “Social structuration of the field of entrepreneurship: a case study”,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de
L’administration, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 285-305.
Drucker, P.F. (2006), Classic Drucker: essential Wisdom of Peter Drucker from the Pages of Harvard
Business Review, Harvard Business Press, Brighton, Boston.
Eggers, F., Kraus, S., Hughes, M., Laraway, S. and Snycerski, S. (2013), “Implications of customer and
entrepreneurial orientations for SME growth”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 524-546.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Gartner, W.B. (1990), “What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Greve, A. and Salaff, J.W. (2003), “Social networks and entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000a), “Knowledge flows within multinational corporations”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-496.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, vV. (2000b), “Knowledge management’s social dimension: lessons from
nucor steel”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, p. 71.
Hage, J. and Aiken, M. (1967), “Relationship of centralization to other structural properties”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 72-92.
Hindle, K. and Moroz, P. (2010), “Indigenous entrepreneurship as a research field: developing a
definitional framework from the emerging canon”, International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 357-385.
House, R.J. and Rizzo, J.R. (1972), “Toward the measurement of organizational practices: scale
development and validation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 5, p. 388.
Hull, D.L., Bosley, J.J. and Udell, G.G. (1980), “Renewing the hunt for the heffalump: identifying
potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics”, Journal of Small Business Management
(Pre-1986), Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 11.
Hussain, S. (2018), “Towards nurturing the entrepreneurial intentions of neglected female business
students of Pakistan through proactive personality, self-efficacy and university support factors”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 363-378.
APJIE
13,1
104
17. Jan Khan, W.M. and Khalique, M. (2014), “An overview of small and medium enterprises in Malaysia and
Pakistan: past, present and future scenario”, Business and Management Horizons, Vol. 2 No. 2, p. 38.
Jansen, J.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2006), “Exploratory innovation, exploitative
innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental
moderators”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1661-1674.
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 287-302.
Johannisson, B. (2017), “Networking and entrepreneurial growth”, The Blackwell Handbook of
Entrepreneurship, Blackwell Publisher Ltd, Oxford, pp. 368-386.
Khan, S. (2015), “Impact of sources of finance on the growth of SMEs: evidence from Pakistan”,
DECISION, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Kickul, J. and Gundry, L. (2002), “Prospecting for strategic advantage: the proactive entrepreneurial
personality and small firm innovation”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 85-97.
Kihlstrom, R.E. and Laffont, J.-J. (1979), “A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation
based on risk aversion”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 719-748.
Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R. and Chamorro-premuzic, T. (2014), “The relationship between
the entrepreneurial personality and the big five personality traits”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 63, pp. 58-63.
Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2003), “A project-based view of entrepreneurship: towards action-
orientation, seriality and collectivity”, Entrepreneurship: New Movements, pp. 86-102.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking
it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-172.
Mcclelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, D. Van Norstrand Company, Princeton, NJ.
Mcclelland, D.C. and Winter, D.G. (1969), “Motivating economic achievement”.
Man, T.W., Lau, T. and Chan, K. (2002), “The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises: a
conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 123-142.
Miles, A., Matthews, B., Wilson, M. and Brickley, D. (2005), “SKOS core: simple knowledge organisation
for the web”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata
Applications.
Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms”, Management Science,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 770-791.
Miller, D. (2011), “Miller (1983) revisited: a reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the
future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 873-894.
Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (2005), “Census of manufacturing industries district-wise report”, available
at: www.pbs.gov.pk/content/census-manufacturing-industries-2005-district-wise-report
Pakistan Economic Survey (2016/2017), available at: www.finance.gov.pk/survey_1617.html
Pakistan SMEs Policy (2007), available at: https://smeda.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload
view=categoryid=46Itemid=566
Raghuvanshi, J. and Garg, C.P. (2018), “Time to get into the action: unveiling the unknown of
innovation capability in Indian MSMEs”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 279-299.
Rahim, M.A. (1983), “A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 368-376.
Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2007), “Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: a meta-
analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and
success”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 353-385.
Diffusion of
innovation
105
18. Reich, R.B. (1987), “Reconsidered: the team as hero”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 77-83.
Rubera, G. and Kirca, A.H. (2017), “You gotta serve somebody: the effects of firm innovation on customer
satisfaction and firm value”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 5,
pp. 741-761.
Schildt, H.A. and Sillanpää, A. (2004), “The field of entrepreneurship: a bibliometric assessment”,
Conference Paper, Babson Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference Glasgow.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
SME Base Line Survey, SMEDA Pakistan (2019), “Small and medium enterprise development
authority”, available at: https://smeda.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownloadview=
categoryid=46:smedapublicationsItemid=566#
Stewart, A. (1989), “Team entrepreneurship”.
Tajeddini, K. (2010), “Effect of customer orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on innovativeness:
evidence from the hotel industry in Switzerland”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 221-231.
Thorgren, S., Wincent, J. and Örtqvist, D. (2012), “Unleashing synergies in strategic networks of SMEs:
the influence of partner fit on corporate entrepreneurship”, International Small Business Journal,
Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 453-471.
Turkina, E. and Thai, M.T.T. (2015), “Socio-psychological determinants of opportunity entrepreneurship”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 213-238.
Wales, W.J. (2016), “Entrepreneurial orientation: a review and synthesis of promising research
directions”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Welter, F. and Lasch, F. (2008), “Entrepreneurship research in Europe: taking stock and looking
forward”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 241-248.
Wu, P., Yao, X. and Muhammad, S. (2017), “The effect of female participation in top management teams
on the growth performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) evidence from a
panel-data analysis in Chinese-listed SMEs”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 108-119.
Yan, J. and Sorenson, R.L. (2003), “Collective entrepreneurship in family firms: the influence of
leader attitudes and behaviors”, New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 37-51.
Yan, J. and Yan, L. (2016), “Individual entrepreneurship, collective entrepreneurship and innovation in
small business: an empirical study”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1053-1077.
Yeoh, K.K. and Mahmood, R. (2013), “The relationship between pro-innovation organizational climate,
leader-member exchange and innovative work behavior: a study among the knowledge workers
of the knowledge intensive business services in Malaysia”, Business Management Dynamics,
Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 15-30.
Zali, M.R. and Chaychian, A.S. (2017), “Business startup in Iran: entrepreneurial skills, personality, and
motivation of Iranian nascent entrepreneurs”, Iranian Entrepreneurship, Springer, Berlin,
pp. 55-71.
Further reading
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2004), “The development and validation of the organisational
innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis”, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 303-313.
APJIE
13,1
106
19. Appendix
Entrepreneurial orientation scale: Tajeddini (2010)
EO1 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher propensity to take risks.
EO2 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher tendency to engage in
strategic planning activities.
EO3 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher ability to identify customer
needs and wants.
EO4 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher level of innovation.
EO5 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher ability to persevere in
making our vision of the business a reality.
EO6 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher ability to identify new
opportunities.
Entrepreneurial personality traits scale (Eggers et al., 2013)
Innovativeness
We highly value new product lines.
We consider ourselves as an innovative company.
Competitors in this market recognize us as leaders in innovation.
Proactiveness
We work to find new businesses or markets to target.
We consistently look for new business opportunities.
Our marketing efforts try to lead customers, rather than respond to them.
Risk-taking
We encourage people in our company to take risks with new ideas.
We value new strategies/plans even if we are not certain that they will always work.
To make effective changes to our offering, we are willing to accept at least a moderate
level of risk of significant losses.
Corresponding author
Cai Li can be contacted at: gscaili@ujs.edu.cn
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Diffusion of
innovation
107