Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance of Nigerian SMES: The Moderating Role of Environment

Transcription

1 ASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY Vol. 5 (1), Jan. 2015: ISSN (Print): Website: ISSN (Online): RESEARCH ARTICLE Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance of Nigerian SMES: The Moderating Role of Environment Mohammed Sanusi Magaji, Ricardo Baba and Harry Entebang Department of Economic and Business University of Malaysia, Sarawak, Malaysia Received: 26 th August 2014, Revised: 12 th Sept. 2014, Accepted: 29 th Sept ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to investigate how EO dimensions; innovativeness, proactiveness, risktaking and competitive aggressiveness, affect financial performance of SMEs in Nigeria. In doing so, the study examines the moderating impact of key environmental characteristics; dynamism and hostility on these relationships. The sample used was SMEs in Kano State-Nigeria. The respondents were the owner/managers of SMEs in the study area. A total of 352 owner/managers participated in the research. Data collected were analyzed, utilizing multiple regressions and hierarchical multiple regression analysis implemented in SPSS version 17, statistical program.our findings indicate, that hypotheses 1-4 are supported, while hypotheses 5-11 are partially supported except for that regarding the moderating impact of environmental dynamism on the proactive- performance relationship, which was not found to be significant. The implications of these findings for both researchers and managers are also discussed. The study contributes to the expanding field of EO research and provides additional insight into the strategic behaviour of firms in a variety of environmental contexts. Keywords: Entrepreneurial Orientation, Innovativeness, Proactiveness, Risk taking, Competitive aggressiveness, Environment, Dynamism, Hostility, SMEs Financial Performance, Nigeria. INTRODUCTION Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are recognized as a pivot on which economic growth, job creation, poverty reduction and industrial development can be built (Ogechukwu, 2008; Okpara, 2011; Terungwa 2012). Although it is difficult to accurately measure the impact of SMEs on the Nigerian economy due to dearth of records, it has been estimated that SMEs account for 97% of all businesses in the country. They employ over 50% of the nation s workforce and contribute about 46% to the Gross Domestic Product (National MSME collaborative survey, 2010; Taiwo et al. 2012). Despite their contribution to the National Economy, fast-changing and intense worldwide competitive environment have placed Nigerian SMEs in a vulnerable position. Previous research findings have suggested entrepreneurial orientation (EO) as a key ingredient for organizational success and have been found to lead to higher performance (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005). It is further argued that firms that possess higher levels of entrepreneurial orientation will perform better than those with lower levels of entrepreneurial orientation (Davis, 2007; Rauch, 2009). Entrepreneurial orientation represents strategy making processes that provides organizations with a basis for entrepreneurial decisions and actions (Rauch et al, 2009). The external environment of the firm has also been recognised as an important determinant of entrepreneurial orientation (Davis, 2007). Findings related to the influence of moderating variables on the EO-performance relationship have been mixed. For example, prior research has found both significant positive (Zahra and Garvis, 2000) and negative (Rauch et al. 2009) relationships between environmental hostility and EO. This does leave cause for concern and demands scholarly attention providing more conclusive evidence of the impact these variables have on the strength and direction of the EO-performance relationship. Most of the previous empirical studies were based in the West. Specifically, a coherent research linking four EO dimensions (innovativeness,

2 proactiveness, risk-taking and competitive aggressiveness) with firm financial performance where environmental dynamism and hostility act as moderators variables is disappointingly scarce in Nigeria. Since very little research has been conducted on this study in Nigeria, undeniably, there is a knowledge gap in the understanding of this issue with regard to the Nigerian environment. This study is therefore an attempt to address knowledge gaps in the existing literature and to propose a conceptual framework for the inter-relationship of entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. After the introduction, the remaining section of this paper summarizes the most relevant literature upon which the conceptual model and hypotheses are based. Next the study presents the hypotheses developed to be tested and this is followed by research methodology employed in both data collection and analysis. In the final stage, the study discusses its findings, conclusion, contributions and implications for future research. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS 1. Entrepreneurship The term entrepreneurship has been for used for decades, yet there is little consensus among researchers regarding its definition (Williams et al.2010), many perspectives can be found in the literature. For instance Morris et al. (2008), defined entrepreneurship as the creation of wealth, creation of enterprise, creation of innovation, creation of change, creation of employment, creation value, and creation of growth. Entrepreneurship is also seen as the process of creating value by bringing together a unique package of resources to exploit an opportunity (Stevenson and Jarilo-Mossi, 1996).According to Kraus et al. (2011), entrepreneurial behaviour is not only possible in new ventures, but also in firms regardless of their size and age. Entrepreneurial activities of existing and established firms have been described as corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial orientation or intrepreneurship (Zahra 1993; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Wiklund 1999; Antoncicand Hisrich, 2004). In this study, entrepreneurial activities of an established firm will be referred to as its Entrepreneurial orientation (EO). Entrepreneurial orientation has its origin in strategy literature, and has been used to refer to the decision-making styles, practices, processes and behaviours that lead to entry into new or established markets with new or existing goods or services (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Wiklundand Shepherd, 2003; Walter et al. 2006). Entrepreneurial orientation has often been operationalized in terms of three dimensions identified by Miller (1983) through his definition of entrepreneurial organization as one that engages in product-market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with proactive innovations, beating competitors to the punch (Miller, 1983, p. 771). More recently, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) identified two additional dimensions autonomy and competitive aggressiveness to compliment the original three dimensions proposed by Miller (1983). Numerous studies (e.g. Kraus et al. 2005; Wiklundand Shepherd, 2005; Hughes and Morgan, 2007) have adopted Lumpkin and Dess (1996) five dimensional model in their various studies. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) further proposed that the dimensions can vary independently from each other. Consistent with the above several authors have shown that the dimensions can vary independently from each other (e.g. Kraus et al. 2002; Hughes and Morgan, 2007). However, the current study has opted not to include autonomy, given its limited application and the minimal amount of data available for the evaluation of this construct. Thus, each of this dimension will be separately discussed in more detail for our understanding of the concept. The first construct, Innovativeness is about pursuing and giving support to novelty, creative processes and the development of new ideas through experimentation. Radical innovation process that occurs when the introduction of new products or services disrupt the current market and cause a shift of resources is called creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942). The second construct, Proactiveness is conceptualized as processes which are aimed at seeking new opportunities which may or may not be related to the ~ 2 ~

3 present line of operations, introduction of new products and brands ahead of competition and strategically eliminating operations which are in the mature or declining stages of the life cycle (Venkatraman, 1989, p. 949). Proactiveness reflects a firm s ability to introduce strategic changes, adoption and elimination of operations based on their current stage in the life-cycle (Swierckand Ha, 2003; Green et al. 2008; Kreiserand Davis, 2010). The third construct, Risk-taking is often used to describe the uncertainty that results from entrepreneurial behaviour (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Low and Macmillan, 1988). Risktaking implies willingness for committing huge resources to opportunities which involves probability of high failure (Zahra, 1991; Wiklundand Shepherd, 2003). The fourth construct, Competitive Aggressiveness refers to a firm s propensity to directly and intensely challenge its competitors to achieve entry or improve position that is to outperform competitors in the market place (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, Kraus et al. 2005). Competitive Aggressiveness refers to the firm responsiveness directed toward achieving competitive advantage (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001: Frese et al, 2002; Grande et al. 2011). Over the years several studies have taken place on the relationship between EO and firm performance but their results have not always been clear (Kraus et al. 2012). While some studies found that organisations that adopt a strong EO perform better than firms that does not adopt an EO (Covinand Slevin, 1988; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003; Hult et al. 2004; Kraus et al. 2005; Covin et al. 2006; Kreiserand Davis, 2010). Other set of studies have failed to find a significant relationship between EO and firm performance (Covin et al, 1994; George et al. 2001; Hughes and Morgan, 2007). However, the broad thrust of the literature is that EO should be associated with improvements of firm performance in general (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Rauch et al, 2009).In line with results from earlier studies on EO, it is expected that all the four dimensions are positively related to firm performance. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1: There is a significant positive relationship between innovativeness and financial performance H2: There is a significant positive relationship between proactiveness and financial performance H3: There is a significant positive relationship between risk-taking and financial performance. H4: There is a significant positive relationship between competitive aggressiveness and financial performance 2. Environment Scholars have theorized that the relationship between EO and firm performance is contingent upon the firm s external environment (e.g. Covinand Slevin, 1989; Namanand Slevin, 1993; Zahra, 1993; Zahra and Covin, 1995). Prior studies have theorised that the relationship between EO- and firm performance is dependent on environmental factors (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Zahra et al. 1999). Lumpkin and Dess (2001) found a positive relationship between the sales growth and profitability of a firm and the link between proactiveness and dynamism. A number of studies (Davis, 2007) argued that dynamic environments require a greater level of risktaking in strategic decision-making and processes to more effectively and successfully respond to the invariable state of change. Budding on the above arguments, it is evident that a dynamic environment will positively impact the relationships between each of the EO dimensions and firm performance. Accordingly, this study proposes that: H5: Environmental dynamism moderates the relationship between innovativeness and financial performance. H6: Environmental dynamism moderates the relationship between proactiveness and financial performance. H7: Environmental dynamism moderates the relationship between risk-taking and financial performance. ~ 3 ~

4 H8: Environmental dynamism moderates the relationship between competitive aggressiveness and financial performance. Past empirical studies have reported both positive (Zahra and Garvis, 2000; Covin et al., 2006) and negative (Bechererand Maurer, 1997; George et al., 2001) correlations between hostility and Entrepreneurial Orientation. McGee and Rubach (1997) found that environmental hostility moderated the relationship between competitive strategy and firm performance. Covin and Slevin (1989) seminal study found small entrepreneurial firms to perform best in hostile environment. Accordingly, this study hypothesized thus, H9: Environmental hostility moderates the relationship between innovativeness and financial performance. H10: Environmental hostility moderates the relationship between proactiveness and financial performance. H11: Environmental hostility moderates the relationship between risk taking and financial performance. H12: Environmental hostility moderates the relationship between competitive aggressiveness and financial performance. Fig. 1: Model of Hypotheses Figure 1 displays a theoretical model of the proposed relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, dynamism, hostility and firm financial performance. RESEARCH METHOD 1. SAMPLE Our sample comprises small and medium-sized enterprises operating in Dala, Fagge, Gezawa, Gwale, Kumbotso, Municipal, Tarauni, Nassarawa and Ungogo Industrial District of Kano State. These areas were selected due to the density of SMEs with a 30 mile radius. We identified a total of 986 SMEs from the data base and Directories of National Association of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (NASME) and data were gathered by means of a self-reporting survey questionnaire targeted at the owner/managers of SMEs. We chose owner/managers of SMEs as respondents, since such people are likely to have rich and accurate information due to their central control function within the organisation. Of those 986 SMEs, 376 responded and filled the questionnaire. Within the 376 respondents, 24 entrées were poorly completed and were dropped. This resulted in 352 valid responses, given a response rate of 35.24% for us in the statistical analysis. ~ 4 ~

5 The respondents were 76% Male and 23% Female, average age was 39 years approximately one third had higher education degree. Majority of the respondent 60% are active in the service industry 33% operate in the manufacturing industry and 5% came from mixed categories. A short overview of demographic profile of respondents and businesses can be found in table 1. Table 1: Demographic profile of Respondents and Businesses Respondents Gender Frequency Percent Male Female Age of Respondents under years years years years above Education Level Primary Secondary Diploma first degree Masters degree PhD Firms Employees Firm Age less 5 years years years years years and above Industry Categories Service Manufacture mixed nature Structure of Business sole proprietorship Partnership private limited company limited company ~ 5 ~

6 2. MEASURES 2.1 Entrepreneurial Orientation 2.2 Entrepreneurial Orientation Scale Within the present research, the scale developed by Covin and Slevin (1989) and subsequently modified and expanded by Lumpkin and Dess ( ), Dess and Lumpkin (2005) will be used to measure the level of EO. The scale includes four dimensions of EO discussed before: innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking and competitive aggressiveness. All skills are 7-point Likert-type scale in which respondents are obligated to choose between pairs of opposing statements. 2.3 Environmental Scale The measurement scale developed by Millar (1987) will be used to measure environmental dynamism and hostility. These scales have been proven to be valid and reliable (e.g. Covinand Slevin, 1989: Namanand Slevin, 1993). The scales are a seven point Likert-type in which interviewees are obligated to choose between pairs of opposing statements. 2.4 Financial performance scale In this study, financial performance based upon Aktan and Buhut (2008) will be used. These scales are chosen because of their reliability and common use in the literature. The authors used four indicators to capture financial performance: (a) market share growth (b) profitability (c) return on assets (d) return on sales. Within the present research, a seven point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. 2.5 Control Variable Firm age, firm size, respondent age and respondent gender were used as control variables in the model as they can affect the resource base of the firm as well as firm behaviour. These variables have been widely used as control variables in numerous studies on entrepreneurship (e.g. Davis, Bell, Payne and Kreiser, 2010). DATA ANALYSIS 1. FACTOR ANALYSIS To determine the construct validity of entrepreneurial orientation and its dimensions, environmental factors as well as financial performance items are used in the present study. Some preliminary factor analysis was conducted, using the principal components method with varimax rotation. The first factor that was run consists of 12 EO scales. The analyses yielded one component and accounted for % of the total variance. The Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy was.954 and the probability associated with the Barletts test of sphericity was.000, indicating that the data are sufficient to proceed for factor analysis (Tabachnickand Fidell, 2007). (See table 2). The next factor was the environmental dynamism and hostility scales. The analysis was run with 6 items. All the factors were loaded on one component and accounted for % of the total variance. The Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy was.882 and the probability associated with the Barlett s Test of Sphericity was.000, indicating that the data is sufficient to proceed for factor analysis (Tabachnickand Fidell, 2007) (Table 3). The last factor was the financial performance scales which contained four items. The factor was loaded on one component and accounted for % of the total variance as shown in table The Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy for firm financial performance was.828 and the probability associated with the Barlett s Test of Sphericity was.000, indicating that the data is sufficient to proceed for factor analysis (Tabachnickand Fidell, 2007) (Table 4). 2. RELIABILITY Prior to performing multiple regression and hierarchical regression analysis, the internal consistency or reliability of each scale is estimated by Cronbach alpha test. A Cronbach ~ 6 ~

7 alpha above 0.70 is generally prepared (Nunnallyand shows that most scales are internally consistent. Bernstein, 1994). The present Table 2: Factor Analysis for Entrepreneurial Orientation Variable In dealing with competitors, my firm typically adopts a very competitive undo-the competitors posture. In dealing with competitors, my firm is very often the first business to introduce new product/services, administrative techniques, operating technology etc In general, top managers in my firm favour a strong emphasis on Rand D, technological leadership and innovations In dealing with competitors, my firm establishes competitive position and vigorously exploits opportunities to achieve profitability. Component In dealing with competitors, my firm typically initiates actions which competitors.834 then respond to Very many new lines of product or services in the last five years..789 Changes in product or services line have usually been quite dramatic.787 When confronted with decision involving uncertainty, my firm typically adopts a bold.775 aggressive posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting opportunities. In dealing with competitors, my firm is very aggressive and intensely competitive.752 In general the top managers of my firm have a strong tendency to be ahead of others in introducing novel ideas or products. In general, the top managers in my firm believes that, owing to the nature of the environment, bold, wide-ranging acts are necessary to achieve objectives In general, the top managers in my firm have a strong proclivity for high risk projects (with chances of very high returns) Eigen value Percentage of explained variance Variable Table 3: Factor Analysis for Environmental Factors Component Market activities of our key competitors now affects the firm in many more areas.854 (pricing, marketing, production etc) Market activities of our key competitors have become far more predictable.810 Market activities of our key competitors have become far more hostile.816 Growth opportunities in the environment has increased dramatically.777 Rate of innovations of new operating process and new product or services has.780 dramatically increased Production/service technology has changed very much.768 Eigen value Percentage of explained variance STATISTICALCHECKS To determine whether the usage of common data sources was resulting in method effects, the researcher tested the possible effects of common method variance for the construct variables, using Harman s (1976) one factor test: All the 22 items, consisting of 12 entrepreneurial orientation variables, 6 environmental variables and 4 financial performance measure of the research model were factors analysed, using principal axis 1 ~ 7 ~

8 factoring where the un-rotated factor solution was examined (Podsakoff et al, 2003). Factor analytic results indicated the existence of two distinct factors with Eigen values greater than one and explained 61% of the variance among the 22 items. These results suggest that common method variance is not a serious problem within the present study. Table 4: Factor Analysis for Financial Performance Variable Please compare the performance of your organizations during the last three years with that of your main competitors based on market share growth Please compare the performance of your organizations during the last three years with that of your main competitors based on return on assets Component Please compare the performance of your organizations during the last three years with that of your main competitors based on return on sales.864 Please compare the performance of your organizations during the last three years with that of your main competitors based on profitability.845 Eigen value Percentage of explained variance RESULTS Correlation analysis was carried out to ascertain the association between entrepreneurial orientation dimensions, environmental variables, control variables and firm financial performance. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for all variables in the present study. Given that the data was collected from one respondent in each firm, we performed a single factor test to assess possible threat of common method variance using procedure developed by Harmann (1976). The test reveals that no assumption of common method variance was violated. Further, test of outliers, multicollinearity and normality were also carried out and the results indicate no significance influence on the variables being investigated in the study. We used multiple regressions and moderated regression analyses to test the hypotheses. H1, H2, H3 and H4 tested the direct relationship between each of the four EO dimensions (innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking and competitive aggressiveness) and firm financial performance. The results confirmed a significant positive relationship between the four EO dimensions and firm financial performance. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to test H5, H6, H7 and H8 in which environmental dynamism was employed as a moderator variable. Prior to hierarchical regressions analysis, the independent and moderator variables were centred before the computation of the interaction terms. H5, H7 and H8 were partially supported, while H6 predicted a negative relationship. H9, H10, H11 and H12 were also tested using environmental hostility as a moderator variable. Our findings indicated partial support for this relationship. Implications of these findings and further discussion are provided in the following sections. DISCUSSION This study investigated the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation dimensions (innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking and competitive aggressiveness) and SMEs financial performance. Based on both theoretical and empirical literature, an integrative ~ 8 ~

9 model that linked the four EO dimensions with the two environmental variables was developed to serve as a road map for the current study. Hypotheses were formulated concerning the relationships between these variables in the context of Nigeria SMEs and questionnaires were adopted from previous studies to measure the variables. The questionnaire items were sent to 986 owner/managers of SMEs in the area of research. A total of 352 completed questionnaires were returned leading to a response rate of 35.24%. The data collected was used to test the hypotheses through simple and multiple regression analysis using hierarchical analysis implemented in SPSS version 17. Although the results do not support all the hypotheses, they reveal causality between some of the variables in the model. All the EO dimensions: innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking and competitive aggressiveness had positive and significant effects on financial performance of SMEs in Nigeria. This implies that behaviours associated with innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking and competitive aggressiveness when taken as an overall strategic may indeed help SMEs in Nigeria to grow. Further, the results suggests that EO-oriented activity within an organization not only result in better financial performance but also assist owner managers of SMEs to make better decision regarding the choice of strategic resources acquired. With respect to moderating variables, we found partial support for the moderator relationships, except dynamism with proactiveness-performance relationship which have failed to achieve statistical significance. Table 5: Decriptive Stattics and Correlation Variable M SD Ƴ Ƴ Financial Performance ** 1 Innovativeness **.820 ** 1 Proactiveness 3 Risk-taking **.788**.836** 1 4 Competitive **.811**.858**.780** 1 Aggressiveness **.804**.834**.786**.816** 1 Environmental Dynamism **.751**.799**.806**.735**.750** 1 Environmental Hostility 7 Gender Age Number of Employees 10 Business Age ** * ** ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). CONCLUSION These findings add to our understanding of the effects of environmental dynamism and hostility on the relationship between EO and financial performance of SMEs and represent an important contribution to the body of knowledge in the field of entrepreneurship. The study also provides validation of different scales used in this study in the context of Nigeria firms. RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION The findings of this study can be practically applied in an organization through training programmes aimed at providing an understanding of the importance of acting in an ~ 9 ~

10 innovative, proactive and competitively aggressive manner along with the need to embrace risk-taking propensity within an organization. Additionally, the results of this study will serve as a guide for venture capitalist and public policy makers regarding where to direct resources when considering growth potential for SMEs. Finally, venture capitalist and policy makers can use the outcome of this study as additional evidence that environmental forces need to be monitored. LIMITATION OF THE STUDY First, the study relied on self-reported data from single respondent in each organization. Some data in particular, financial performance was measured by owner/managers satisfaction level. Using objective financial data along with subjective performance data may provide a better understanding of the relationships among EO constructs and financial performance. Secondly, the sample used in the current study is not representative of the entire SMEs in Nigeria; it is specific to selected SMEs. As such, the results cannot be generally applied to SMEs that were not part of this study. Also, by using the survey method for data collection in line with previous studies on EO, it does highlight the lack of variability in methodological approach in the stream of literature. The study s cross-sectional design is also a limitation because cross-sectional do-not allow for causal interpretations among variables. A final limitation is that, the current study examined only four of the EO dimensions. The five-dimensional model of Lumpkin and Dess (1996) was not examined. FUTURE RESEARCH The current study focused only on SMEs in Kano-Nigeria; future research may look at other States in Nigeria, for example, Abuja, Kaduna, Lagos and Port Harcourt to validate the findings of this study. The model presented in this study incorporates the role of contingency factors such as dynamism and hostility; future research may look at some other contingency factors such as Munificence, heterogeneity and industry life cycle. Future studies may consider including other dimensions of EO notably autonomy (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) and larger samples. Future research are also encouraged to compare the three model of Covin and Slevin to theother performance variables that also deserve some further research in the EO performance study include learning orientation, operational performance, innovative performance and marketing orientation. REFERENCES 1. Aktan B. and Buhut C. (2008): Financial performance impacts of corporate entrepreneurship in emerging markets: A case of Turkey. European J. Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 12: Antoncic, B., and Hisrich, R. D. (2001), Entrepreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural validation, journal of business venturing, 16: Antoncic, B., and Hisrich, R. D. (2004): Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organizational wealth creation.journal of Management Development, 23(6): Becherer, R. C., and Maurer, J.G. (1997): The moderating effects of environmental variables on the entrepreneurial and marketing orientation of entrepreneur-led firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, 22 (1), Covin, J. G., and Slevin, D. P. (1988): The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25, no. 3, Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., and Schultz, R. L. (1994): Implementing strategic missions: Effective strategic, structural, and tactical choices. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 31, No. 4, Covin, J., Green, K.M., and Slevin, D.P. (2006): Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation-sales growth rate relationships.academy of Management Journal, 6: Covin, J., and Miles, M. P. (1999): Corporate entrepreneurship and pursuit of competitive advantage.entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 23, no. 3, Covin, J., and Slevin, D. (1989): Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.strategic Management Journal, 10, Davis J.L. (2007): Firm-level entrepreneurship and performance: An examination and extension of relationships and measurements of the entrepreneurial orientation construct. Unpublished Thesis, University of Texas. ~ 10 ~

11 11. Dess, G., and Lumpkin, T. (2005): The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship Academy of Management Executive, 19; 1: Geoge, G., Wood, Jr., D. R., and Khan, R. (2001): Networking Strategy of board: Implications for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 13 (3): Grande,J., Madsen, E. L., and Borch, O. J. (2011):The relationship between resources, entrepreneurial orientation and performance in farm-based ventures. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23 (3-4), Green, K., Covin, J., and Slevin, D. (2008): Exploring the relationship between strategic reactiveness and entrepreneurial orientation: The role of structural-style fit. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, Harman, H. H. (1976): Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 16. Hult G.T.M., Hurley, R.F., and Knight, G.A. (2004): Innovativeness, it antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5): Kemelgor B.H. (2002): A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation between selected firms in the Netherlands and the USA.Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 14(1), Khandwalla, P. N. (1977): The Design of Organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace. 19. Kiggundu, M. (2002): Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship in Africa: what is known and what needs to be done. Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 No. 3, Knight, G., and Kim, D. (2009): International business competence and the contemporary firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 4(2): Knight, G. A. (1997):Cross-Cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation.journal of Business Venturing, vol. 12, no. 3, Kraus, S. (2013): The role of entrepreneurial orientation in service firms: the case of new Spanish firms. Strategic Management Journal, 10 (10, Kraus, S. (2013): The role of entrepreneurial orientation in service firms: empirical evidence from Austria. The Service Industries Journal, 33(5), Kraus S., Kauranen I. and Reschke C.H. (2011): Identification domains for a new Conceptual model of Strategic Entrepreneurship using the configuration approach. Manag. Research Review, 34(1): Kraus, S., Rigtering, J. P. C., Hughes, M., and Hosman, V. (2012): Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands. Review of Managerial Science, 6(2012), Krauss, S., Frese, M., Friedrich, C., and Unger, J. (2005): Entrepreneurial Orientation; Psychological model of success among Southern Africa Small business owners. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(3); Kreiser, P. M., and Davis, J. (2010): Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance: The Unique Impact of Innovativeness, Proactiveness and Risk Taking. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 23, No. 1, Low, M., and Macmillan, I. (1988): Entrepeneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management 14(2): Lumpkin G.T. (1996): The Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) of New Entrants: Performance Implication of Alternative Configurations of EO, Environment, and Structure. Unpublished PhD, University of Texas Arlington. 30. Lumpkin, G. T. (1998): Do new entrant firms have an entrepreneurial orientation? Paper presented at the Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, CA. 31. Lumpkin, G. T., and Dess, G. G. (1996): Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, vol. 21, no. 1, Lumpkin G.T. and Dess G.G. (2001): Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and lifecycle. J. Business Venturing, 16: Lumpkin, G. T., Cogliser, C. C., and Schneider, D. R. (2009): Understanding and Measuring Autonomy: An Entrepreneurial Orientation Perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, McGee, J.E., and Rubach, M.J. (1997): Responding to increased environmental hostility; A study of the competitive behavior of small retailers. Journal of Applied Business Research, 13(1); Miller, D., and Friesen, P. (1983): Strategy-making and environment. The third link Strategic Management Journal, 4: Miller, D. (1983): The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manag. Sci., 24(9): Miller, D., and Friesen, P. H. (1982): Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), Miller, D. (2011) Miller, (1983): Revisited: A Reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(6), Morgan, R. E., and Strong, C. A. (2003): Business performance and dimensions of strategic orientation. Journal of Business Research, 56 (3), Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., and Covin, J. G. (2008):Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation (2nd ed.): Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning 41. MSMEs Survey Report (2010): A collaborative report on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Nigeria, by National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN): ~ 11 ~

12 42. Naman, J. L., and Slevin D. P. (1993): Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit a model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14; Ogechukwu, O. L. (2008): Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Development under Trade Liberalization: A survey of Nigerian experience. International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 3 No Okpara, J.O. (2011): Factors constraining the growth and survival of SMEs in Nigeria.Implications for poverty alleviation.management Research Review, Vol. 34 No Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003): Common method Biased in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), Podsakoff, P. M., and Organ, D.W. (1986): Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12 (2): Rauch, A., and Frese, M. (2007): Born to be an entrepreneur Revisiting the personality approach to entrepreneurship in the psychology of entrepreneurship: Baun J. R., Frese, M., and Baron, R. A. EDS. Mahwah, N. J., Erlbaum, Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Freese, M., and Lumpkin, G. T. (2004): Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: Cumulative empirical evidence, paper presented at the 23 rd Babson college entrepreneurship Research conference. Glasgow, UK. 49. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., and Frese, M. (2009): Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), Schumpeter, J. (1934): The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 51. Stevenson, H.H. Jarillo-Mossi, J.C. (1986): Preserving entrepreneurship as business growth: Journal of Business Strategy 7(1): Swiersczek, F. W., and Ha, T.T. (2003): Entrepreneurial Orientation, Uncertainty Avoidance and Firm Performance: An Analysis of Thai and Vietnamese SMEs. Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007): Using multivariate statistics (5 th Edition), Boston: Pearson. 54. Tabacknick, B. G., and Fidell, L.S. (2001): Using multivariate statistics, (4 th Edition) Boston: Allynand Bacon. 55. Taiwo, A., Ayodeji, A. M., and Yusuf, A. B. (2012): Impact of Small and Medium Enterprises on Economic Growth and Development. American Journal of Business and Management 1(1), Terungwa, A. (2012): Risk Management and Insurance of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria. International Journal of Financial and Accounting 1(1), Venkatraman, (1989): Strategic orientation of Business Enterprises The construct dimensionality and measurement. Management Sciences, 35, Walter, A., Auer, M., and Ritter, T. (2006): The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university Spin-off performance Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21, No Wang, C.L. (2008): Entrepreneurial Orientation, Learning Orientation, and Firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice Wiklund, J., and Shepherd D. (2008): Portfolio entrepreneurship: Habitual and novice founders, new entry, and mode of organizing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32, (4), Wiklund, J., and Shepherd, D. (2005): Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1): Wiklund, J. (1999): The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation Performance relationship.entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 24, no Williams C. C., Round J., and Rodjers, P. (2010): Explaining the off-their book enterprise culture of Ukraine: reluctant or willing entrepreneurship? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 10(2): Zahra, S. A., and Garvis, D. M. (2000): International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: Zahra, S. A. (1991): Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: an exploratory study, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 6, no. 4, Zahra, S. A. (1993): A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior; Acritique and extension.entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, vol. 17, no. 4, Zahra, S. A. (1996): Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of industry technological opportunities, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 39, no. 6, Zahra, S.A., Nielsen, A.P. and Bogner, W.C. (1999): Corporate entrepreneurship knowledge and competence development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice: Zahra, S. A., and Bogner, J. G. (2000): Technology strategy and software new ventures performance: exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 15: Zahra, S. A., and Covin, J. G. (1995): Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurshipperformance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10: ~ 12 ~