Vol-7, Special Issue3-April, 2016, pp1209-1225 http://www.bipublication.com
Case Study
Relationship of entrepreneurial orientation and company performance:
Role of differentiation strategy and innovativeness performance
Mahmood Ahmadpour Daryani1 and MojtabaAbdollahi2
Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship Department, Tehran University1
MA Graduated In Public Administration, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Central Branch2
ABSTRACT:
Many of the studies have investigated the effect of entrepreneurship orientation on performance. The relationship between this variable by considering a third variable that can be internal or external factors has been investigated in recent researches. In this framework, mediating role of innovativeness performance and differentiation strategy on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and company performance is investigated in this research.Herbs Export Companies that are member of Tehran Association were investigated in this research. 130 employees and managers were investigated. The required information was collected by using standard questionnaire. The studied variables were tested by using PLS software. The results achieved from the analysis showed that the innovativeness performance is the mediator of relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and company performance. Differentiation strategy is also the mediator of relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and company performance.
Keywords: entrepreneurial orientation, company performance, performance, innovativeness, differentiation strategy:
INTRODUCTION:
In today's business environment, risk-taking, innovativeness and aggressiveness in the market is very important for entrepreneurial institutions where products' and services' life cycle are shortening and the future benefits is unspecified. In addition, institutions must better fulfill the needs of the market compared to their competitors for continuation of sustainable competitive advantage and creation of more benefits. They must be able to correctly predict market changes, so that they can provide the best values for their customers (Joo et al., 2012).With the rapid increase in global changes and transition from traditional society to informational society, attention to new strategies for optimal use of new opportunities and value have obligated institutions to be changed more than ever. Today entrepreneurial orientation is considered one of
dimensions.Oviatt and McDougall (2005) have stated the term entrepreneurship at the international level, applying, evaluation and utilization of opportunities. It is a basic part in international strategies of a company (Keupp and Gassmann, 2009). Entrepreneurship as the beginning of change is through creating innovativeness and risk-taking. Entrepreneurship is identification of opportunities in the organizations (Matsuura et al., 2015).
The term entrepreneurship is used in order to reflect the plans at the individual level. Its definition encounters with ambiguities at company level. This hinders the development of knowledge and expansion of cognition on entrepreneurship field at agency level. Khandwalla (1977) states the entrepreneurial orientation is related with innovativeness and hyperactivity in companies. Miller and Friesen (1982) have defined entrepreneurial orientation operationally in terms innovativeness, being active and risk-taking.In addition, Covin and Slevin (1989) have introduced the state of entrepreneurial orientation as technology development and extensive and repeated innovativeness of product for aggressive competition and willing to high risk-taking (Kantur, 2016).Literature existing in the field of entrepreneurial orientation shows that entrepreneurial orientation is one of the drivers for success in business. There are many criteria to measure entrepreneurial orientation.Covin and Slevin(1989) argues that it is the combination of innovativeness, high activity, and risk-taking that act beside each other, and includes a multi-dimensional and base strategicorientation. Lumpkin and Dess(1996) according to these dimensions states two dimensions of autonomy and aggressive competition at the level of a company structure as the main factor in strategic management and strategic decision-making process. Entrepreneurial orientation enables the company to penetrate the market and provide innovative products according to the hidden needs of customers (Gruber-Muecke and Hofer, 2015).
A number of researchers
reviewedentrepreneurship orientation on company performance in the literature related to strategy. The importance of organizational entrepreneurship has become very important due to globalized, global competitions by focusing on performance for profitability and inefficiency of traditional techniques in a changing management according to market conditions, (Zahir et al., 2015).
(2001) argues that technological innovativeness allows applying new methods to provide better operational progress and increase productivity and reduce costs. On the other hand the profit achieved from differentiation strategy causes provision of different products and services compared to the competitors. This leads to sustainable performance of the companies (Rajiv et al., 2014).Today, companies and institutions and individuals are encountering with intense global competition due to globalization. Companies should gain competitive advantage under this commercial pressure. Barney (1991) stated in this regard that the company needs to implement a strategy to create value compared to its potential competitors in order to have a sustainable competitive advantage.Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) stated that classification of cost leadership strategies is not possible as a long-term sustainable performance. Also Murray (1988) stated that cost management strategy is unavoidable. On the other hand differentiation strategy provides sustainable competitive advantage for companies. Recent studies by Banker, Mashruwala and Tripathy(2014) showed that differentiation strategy provides higher and more sustainable financial performance in long-term.On the other hand, innovativeness is one of the important subjects. It is one of the most important aspects in entrepreneurship orientation that implements differentiation strategy. It provides higher performance for the company. Researches have shown that there is a relationship between entrepreneurship orientation, innovativeness and differentiation strategy (Zahir et al., 2015).Small businesses are able to create technological innovativeness in different economic environments because of their inherent capability. simple organizational structure, appropriate internal communications, better centralization, quick decision-making, more flexibility and so on can be considered of their unique features. They have inherent advantages for technological innovativeness capabilities. These small businesses have dynamic and
innovative capability and can have appropriate profitability and growth.So, small businesses have a unique role to create technological innovativeness in the economy. However, capacities, innovativeness capabilities and ability to develop new products, and new services processes depend significantly on size, centralization, resources and commercial environment of small businesses. Several researchers investigated the effect of variables on innovativeness of small businesses. They achieved different results, which can indicate this fact that innovativeness has not been well understood (Krishnaswamy et al., 2014).The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and company performance: Role of differentiation strategy and innovativeness performance in Herbs Export Companies that are member of Tehran Association is investigated in this research. Concepts of entrepreneurial orientation, innovativeness and differentiation strategy and company performance have been given in continue. Then research hypotheses are tested by using structural equations method.
1. Theoretical framework and research hypotheses:
1.1. Entrepreneurship orientation:
strategy have features such as innovativeness in market and product, risk-taking and initiative. This plays the main role in achieving the organization's strategic position in the competitive environment. Generally entrepreneurship orientation is a key concept in understanding whether a company has adopted entrepreneurship activities or not? (Franco et al., 2013)Most academic studies consider entrepreneurial orientation with complex nature. They consider distinct key triple elements for it as following: Innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness; Innovativeness includes an interest in ideas, new experiences, and creative processes. Its result may be development and creation of new product / services or new technologies. Risk-taking refers to support projects despite the possibility of failure. Proactiveness also means to pioneer for dealing with possible future events and overcoming the activities of competitors.Lumpkin, G. T., Dess(2000) were also added two other elements as elements of entrepreneurial orientation. The first one is autonomy in implementing new ideas or adventurous actions. The other one is competitive aggressiveness or challenging orientation to competitors who try to whether improve their position or enter into new markets. In short, entrepreneur companies tend to development of creative and innovative projects through predicting opportunities in the market and overcoming the competitors.These companies have high expectations of their actions but they also consider risks. But the non-entrepreneur companies tend to reactive reaction, conformity and avoiding risk based on the policy of adherence and following competitors. In other words, companies without entrepreneurial orientation stand and watch. However, the multi-dimensional nature of entrepreneurship orientation has been remained as a disputable subject (Benito et al., 2009).The companies' strategic situation can be assorted along a continuous framework from conservatism to entrepreneurship (Covin, 1991). Conservative companies are risk-averse, passive and non-innovative; while entrepreneur companies
are risk-taker, innovative and active. The concept of conservatism and entrepreneurship is according to the primary developed concept in the organizational and management literature. For example, the companies that search are similar to entrepreneur companies in terms of strategy (Miles and Snow, 1978) and defensive companies are like conservative companies (Lafont et al. (2015)Entrepreneurial orientation shows a strategic situation of the companies to survive. In a particular situation, entrepreneurship orientation can be a useful structure for understanding the company capabilities to promote the company performance. However, environmental turbulence may have a negative effect on the company reputation and is associated with change in competitive advantage and market environment. This situation shows that there is a complex relationship between company performance and entrepreneurial orientation (Pratono&Rosli, 2016).Entrepreneurial orientation shows the company's strategic situation that indicates innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking of the company. The conducted studies have investigated the effect of entrepreneurial orientation on performance. The studies' results have shown that the entrepreneurial orientation has a significant effect on performance. Other studies have shown no significant relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance. Most studies have potentially investigated the relationship between performance and entrepreneurship orientation. The effects of innovativeness and the pace of innovativeness in this regard have not been investigated in these studies (Shan et al., 2016).
innovativeness and international has been provided through the analysis of macro-economic factors regardless of the primary studies such as Seto (1987), Porter (1990) or Dess et al (1990). Generally the studies in the field of attention to companies' internal abilities and innovativeness performance have been mainly considered for economic evaluation. According to evaluation approaches, innovativeness behavior (Rodil et al., 2015)Managerial researches have stated the importance of innovativeness. There are different definitions of this concept in the research literature. Thompson (1956) has stated to define innovativeness: "it is the creation, acceptance and applying new ideas, processes, new products or services." Linder et al. (2003) has also defined innovativeness as applying new idea that creates value. In most of the recent researches, innovativeness is creation and applying products, new services and new products and / or improvement of the existing methods, which aims to increase the company's competitive advantage (Forsman, 2011).According to the view of Kevin and Slevin (1989), entrepreneurship orientation is as a managerial attitude with three dimensions: integration of continuous innovativeness and radical innovativeness, competitive orientation, aggressive or active decisions with a high level of risk. The companies' strategic situation can be assorted along a continuous framework of conservatism to entrepreneurship (Covin, 1991). Conservative companies are risk-averse, passive and non-innovative; while entrepreneur companies are risk-taker, innovative and active. The concept of conservatism and entrepreneurship is according to the primary developed concept in the organizational and management literature. For example, the companies that searchare similar to entrepreneur companies in terms of strategy (Miles and Snow, 1978) and defensive companies are like conservative companies (Lafont et al. (2015). The process of innovativeness is full of difference and contradiction. Integration of these contradictions is a challenge that anyone is trying to manage innovativeness. The companies' leaders
are trying to find a way to use this innovativeness tools to fulfill the needs of different parties. These contradictory expectations require creation of a balanced process to fulfill the expectations
through innovativeness management (Gümüş et
strategy, cost leadership and centralization). It has a close relationship with innovativeness and performance (Zahir et al., 2015).He considers entrepreneurship perception as innovativeness performance. He claims that the distinction of entrepreneur and non-entrepreneur companies is in the innovativeness level of them. Thus it can be claimed based on the stated literature that entrepreneurial orientation can be considered as a background for innovativeness performance of small businesses (Fernandez et al., 2015).Porter (1980, 1985) has provided three major strategies: differentiation strategy, cost leadership and centralization to maintain a competitive advantage. Each of these strategies needs skills, resources, organizational arrangements and different cost systems. The objective of differentiation is to ensure about products and services that are different from the competitors in an industry, which is provided by offering a unique strategy. This may be evaluated from the distinct needs and advantages through quality, confidence, after-sale services, availability, etc.Cost leadership aims to achieve a low cost position compared to its competitors in the industry, with low price and good services to the customers. Resources of competitive advantage from cost leadership, an economic scale, superior technology and so on require measuring productivity and use of capacity. Centralization strategy is on a specific market, such as a specific group of customers, production line and / or a part of the market (Nimtrakoon&Tayles, 2015). Accordingly, Barney and Hesterly (2006) consider differentiation reflector of work individuals and groups in a company. Differentiation strategy reduces price sensitivity and prevents entering of powerful people and decreases the threat of substitute products when it provides higher profitability by creating brand loyalty and low price sensitivity. The reason is that distinct product and services lead to higher payments for the customers.Brand position, innovativeness in marketing techniques, controlling high quality distribution channels, improvement of brand
image and company reputation are the signs of differentiation strategy. So, gaining unique products and services that cannot be easily imitated by competitors are of the advantages of differentiation strategy (Zahir et al., 2015).
mechanisms have an important effect on company performance. Bachmann et al. (2016) also evaluated the relationship between strategic planning and entrepreneurial orientation due to the role of national culture. They showed that strategic planning and strategic skills have an effect on the companies' performance. Entrepreneurship orientation should be regarded to determine the effectiveness of strategic planning. Maritz Alex, Donovan (2016) also evaluated entrepreneurship orientation and innovativeness. They showed that there is a significant relationship between innovativeness and entrepreneurship.
1.3 Entrepreneurial orientation and company performance
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) due to the dispersed nature of the resources existing in the field of entrepreneurship orientation believes that the different dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation on performance should be evaluated in order to deeper perception of entrepreneurship orientation. The existing literature shows that companies can achieve superior performance and competitive advantage by using entrepreneurship orientation (Jyafng et al., 2014).Measurement of performance and goals is done based on quantitative indices. Generally financial indices are based on organizational goals. On the other hand, measurement of grant depends on the subjective judgment of the respondents.
This encompasses the same financial and non-financial indices. Gonzalez-Benito (2005) showed that the use of subjective criteria complicates dimensions of measurement of the performance (Zahir et al., 2015).Gruber-Muecke& Hofer (2014) investigated market-orientation and entrepreneurship orientation as drivers on performance.
They showed that market-orientation and entrepreneurship orientation strategies have a positive effect on companies' performance. Jyafng
(2014) also investigated the entrepreneurship orientation on companies' performance. He also showed that there is a positive relationship between entrepreneurship orientation and companies' performance. Organizational innovativeness is the mediator between these two variables. Kantur(2016) investigated the effect of entrepreneurship orientation and organizational performance. He showed that entrepreneurship orientation has an effect on companies' financial and non-financial performance.
2. Research plan:
According to the studies by Lumpkin and Dess (2000), they found that entrepreneurship orientation has an effect on company performance. The relationship between performance and entrepreneurship orientation has been confirmed in many studies. The studies' results have also shown that the effect of entrepreneurship orientation on performance increases over time. But some studies have not shown a significant relationship between entrepreneurship orientation and performance.Lumpkin and Dess (2001), Hughes and Morgan (2007) and Irland et al. (2005) concluded that entrepreneurship orientation has a direct effect on innovativeness and organizational performance. The following hypotheses are tested with regard to the theoretical principles posed in this research:
First hypothesis: differentiation strategy is the mediator of relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and company performance.
Second hypothesis: innovativeness performance is the mediator of relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and company performance.
Third hypothesis: differentiation strategy is the mediator of relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and innovativeness.
Figure 1: Research conceptual model (by patterning from the research of Zahir et al., 20115)
The present study type is a descriptive - applied, which has been conducted in survey method. The statistical population of this research is the members of Herbs Exporters Association in Tehran priovince, which are 17 companies. They referred to central office of the intended companies in the interval of conducting the research. It was tried to determine the validity and reliability of the questionnaire after formulating the preparatory plan of the questionnaire. Data collection tool of this research is a questionnaire derived from the research of Zahir et al. (2015). 10 questionnaires were distributed in each of the Herbs Export Companies. 130 questionnaires were collected after a week.
3. Research variables and model
3.1 Validity and reliability of research variables' models
Reliability of the research variables with standard rate above 0.7 (Cronbach, 1951); and composite Reliability (CR) with standard rate above 0.7; and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) with standard rate above 0.5 (Fornell and Lacker, 1981) were examined by Cronbach's alpha indices by using Smart-PLS software. It can be seen in Table 1 that research variables have reliability and
convergent validity.
Table 1: Reliability and convergent validity of the research model variables
Number of questions No. of Questions Cronbach's
alpha AVE CR
Autonomy 3 0.868 0.791 0.919
Competitive
aggressiveness 4 0.859 0.705 0.905
Differentiation
strategy 14 0.972 0.736 0.975
Innovativeness 6 0.920 0.717 0.938
Risk-taking Proactiveness
Competitive aggressiveness
Innovativeness
Autonomy
Entrepreneurship o rientat io n
Innovativenessperfor mance
Differentiation strategy
performance
Innovativeness 5 0.916 0.749 0.937
Proactiveness 4 0.876 0.730 0.915
Risk-taking 4 0.883 0.741 0.920
Entrepreneurial
orientation 5 0.905 0.727 0.930
Company
performance 7 0.927 0.695 0.941
3.2 Divergent validity (Fornell and
Lackermethod):
The level of difference between the indices of a structure is compared with other structures' indices in the model in section of divergent validity. This is calculated through comparing the square root of each structure AVE with correlation coefficients'
values between structures. A matrix should be formed to do this. The values of the matrix main diagonal are the square root of each structure AVE coefficients. The values that are lower and higher than the main diagonal are correlation coefficients between each structure with other structures. This matrix has been shown in Table (2):
Table 2: Matrix of comparison of AVE square root and structures' correlation coefficients
Number of questions Cronbach's alpha AVE CR
Autonomy 3 0.868 0.791 0.919
Competitive
aggressiveness 4 0.859 0.705 0.905
Differentiation strategy 14 0.972 0.736 0.975
Innovativeness
performance 6 0.920 0.717 0.938
Innovativeness 5 0.916 0.749 0.937
Proactiveness 4 0.876 0.730 0.915
Risk-taking 4 0.883 0.741 0.920
Entrepreneurial
orientation 5 0.905 0.727 0.930
Company performance 7 0.927 0.695 0.941
As is specified from the above matrix, AVE square root of each structure has become greater than the correlation coefficients of that structure with other structures. This suggests the acceptability of structures' divergent validity.
3.3 Research findings
Relationship of the studied variables in each of the research hypotheses has been tested based on a causal structure with a partial least squares technique (PLS). Measurement model (relationship of each of the visible variables to latent variable) and route model (latent variables relations with each other) have been calculated in research overall model that has been drawn in Figure (2).
Figure 2: Partial Least Squares technique of research overall model
First hypothesis: Differentiation strategy is mediator of relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and company performance.
The strength of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation variable and company performance has been calculated equal to 0.353. The test statistic has been also obtained 3.381. This is greater than t critical value at error level of 1% means 2.58. This shows the observed correlation is significant. So, entrepreneurial orientation has a positive and significant effect on company performance with 99% confidence. These two variables have relationship with each other through another route that passes through differentiation strategy. The mediating role of differentiation strategy is confirmed if this route is significant. The strength of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation variable and differentiation strategy has been calculated equal to 0.701. The test statistic has been also obtained 12.190. This is greater than t critical value at error level of 1% means 2.58. This shows the observed correlation is significant. So, entrepreneurial orientation has a positive and significant effect on differentiation strategy with 99% confidence. The strength of the relationship between differentiation strategy variable and company performance has been also calculated equal to 0.290. The test statistic has been also obtained 3.942. This is greater than t critical value at error level of 1% means 2.58. This shows the observed correlation is significant. So, differentiation strategy has a positive and significant effect on company performance with 99% confidence.So, mediating role of differentiation strategy is accepted and the first hypothesis is confirmed. The results achieved from this hypothesis are consistent with the research of Zahir et al. (2015).
Second hypothesis: Innovativeness performance is the mediator of relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and company performance.
Strength of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation variable and company
performance has been calculated equal to 0.353. The test statistic has been also obtained 3.381. This is greater than t critical value at error level of 1% means 2.58. This shows the observed correlation is significant. So, entrepreneurial orientation has a positive and significant effect on company performance with 99% confidence. These two variables have relationship with each other through another route that passes through innovativeness performance. The mediating role of innovativeness performance is confirmed if this route is significant. The strength of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation variable and innovativeness performance has been calculated equal to 0.250. The test statistic has been also obtained 3.765. This is greater than t critical value at error level of 1% means 2.58. This shows the observed correlation is significant. So, innovativeness performance has a positive and significant effect on entrepreneurial orientation with 99% confidence. The strength of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation variable and company performance has been also calculated equal to 0.325. The test statistic has been also obtained 3.934. This is greater than t critical value at error level of 1% means 2.58. This shows the observed correlation is significant. So, entrepreneurial orientation has a positive and significant effect on company performance with 99% confidence.So, mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation is accepted and the second hypothesis is confirmed. The results achieved from this hypothesis are consistent with the research of Zahir et al. (2015).
confidence. These two variables have relationship with each other through another route that passes through innovativeness performance. The mediating role of innovativeness performance is confirmed if this route is significant. The strength of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation variable and differentiation strategy has been calculated equal to 0.701. The test statistic has been also obtained 12.190. This is greater than t critical value at error level of 1% means 2.58. This shows the observed correlation is significant. So, entrepreneurial orientation has a positive and significant effect on differentiation strategy with 99% confidence. The strength of the relationship between differentiation strategy variable and innovativeness has been also calculated equal to 0.639. The test statistic has been also obtained 9.757. This is greater than t critical value at error level of 1% means 2.58. This shows the observed correlation is significant. So, differentiation strategy has a positive and significant effect on innovativeness with 99% confidence.So, mediating role of differentiation strategy is accepted and the third hypothesis is confirmed. The results achieved from this hypothesis are in line with the research ofZahir et al. (2015).
4. CONCLUSION
Entrepreneurial orientation and conversion to an entrepreneur organization is one of the main effective strategies for the organizations in today's changing world to be able to adapt themselves rapidly with changes and to be survived in dynamic and live form due to the increase of environmental uncertainty, constant changes and many challenges. Many organizations have realized the importance and necessity of entrepreneurship in the organization and the entrepreneurial orientation.In fact, such a change in strategy is in response to a need that has been created as a result of extensive changes and threats. So, the society and organization that can use the coming opportunities timely and properly can move forward rapidly in the development
toward risk-taking are of the actions that will help the company to increase its performance by promoting risk-taking spirit.Proactiveness in work is considered of the positive managerial features. This feature leads to innovative actions, proactiveness in production and development of products, proactiveness in breaking tradition and producing new products. The results of the present investigation also showed the effect of this feature on commercial performance. Training and education of this feature will help improvement of the people's efficiency and consequently increase of commercial performance.Aggressive competition is considered the highest extent of daring and proactive actions of each company. daring actions in the market, hunting opportunities and attracting new customers, contest toward the competitors, fast reaction against competitors' strategy and dealing with it can be considered of the behaviors that refer to aggressive competition. This feature has a great positive effect on organizations' performance. Existence of this feature in organization requires strong and progressive managers. Therefore, determination of such managers for organizational posts and education of this feature to managers will have a great positive effect for increasing commercial performance of the company.Sum of four dimensions of innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness and aggressive competition introduce organizational entrepreneurship in the present investigation. The research results also show the positive effect of entrepreneurship on commercial performance. Development of these features and increase of organizational entrepreneurship will improve commercial performance and increase the rate of sale compared to the competitors, market share, attract new customers, increase number of customer and customer retention and provide their needs and orders.Meanwhile innovativeness performance and applying differentiation strategy have also decisive role in creating a positive effect on performance. It is recommended to the managers to use research and development groups, market
researches teams to identify hidden needs in line with differentiation strategy, and provide products and services aligned to their needs.Companies should have a closer relationship with customers to better implement differentiation strategies; and find the factors that differentiate them from the customer's viewpoint by a continuous survey from them; and increase the quality of their products according to their customers' needs.It is suggested that all companies establish special unit for research and development to analyze the needs and demands of customers constantly considering that there is a significant and positive relationship between differentiation strategy and performance. Creative methods should be used in organization to collect creative ideas of managers and employees for providing them. Think rooms and problem-solving sessions can be useful in this way.
REFERENCES:
1. Hejazi, Seyyed Reza HosseiniMoghaddam, Seyyed Mohammad Reza. 2013. Effect of Entrepreneurship orientation on the performance of banks with emphasis on mediating role of marketing, (Case Study: public and private banks of Gilan province), social, economic, scientific and cultural monthly of work and community - No. 166 - March 2013
2. Benito, Óscar González; Benito, Javier González; Muñoz-Gallego, Pablo (2009), Role of entrepreneurship and market orientation in firms› success, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, No. 3/4, pp.500-522
3. Fernandez-Mes.aAnabel ,Alegre
.Joaquı.(2015 ). Entrepreneurial orientation and export intensity: Examining the interplay of organizational learning and innovation, International Business Review, Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , Pages 148 – 156
5. Forsman, H. (2011), “Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors”, Research Policy, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 739-750
6. Franco, Mário and Haase, Heiko (2013), Firm Resources and Entrepreneurial Orientation as Determinants for Collaborative Entrepreneurship, journal of Management Decision, Volume:51, Issue:3, p 4.
7. Gruber-Muecke.Tina ,Hofer. Katharina Maria, (2015),"Market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and performance in emerging markets", International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 10 Iss 3 pp. 560 - 571
8. Hair, J. E; W. C. Black; B. J. Babin; R. E. Anderson & R. L. Tatham. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis (6th edn). Upper Saddle River, HJ: pearson Education.
9. Hulland, J., 1999. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), Pp:195–204. 10.JianfengJiaGuofeng Wang Xi’nan Zhao Xifeng
Yu , (2014),"Exploring the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and corporate performance", Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 326 - 344
11.Joo Ma, Yoon; Jae Kim, Min; SeokHeo, Jun; Joo Jang, Lee (2012), The Effects Entrepreneurship and Market Orientation on Social Performance of Social Enterprise, International Conference on Economics Marketing and Management, IPEDR Vol.28, IACSIT Press, Singapore, p 61.
12.Kantur.Deniz, (2016),"Strategic entrepreneurship: mediating the entrepreneurial orientationperformance link", Management Decision, Vol. 54 Iss 1 pp. 24 - 43
13.Keupp, M.M. and Gassmann, O. ( 2009 ), “The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: a review and suggestions for developing the field”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 3 , pp. 600 - 633
14.Kline, R. B. 2010. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
15.Krishnaswamy K.N., M. Mathirajan, M.H. BalaSubrahmanya.(2014).Technological innovations and its influence on the growth of auto component SMEs of Bangalore: A case study approach, Technology in Society 38 (2014) 18–31
16.Lafuente.Esteban Maria-Cristina StoianJosepRialp , (2015),"From export entry to deinternationalisationthrough entrepreneurial attributes", Journal of Small Business and EnterpriseDevelopment, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 21 - 37
17.Lumpkin, G. T., Dess, G. (2001). Linking Two Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation to Firm Performance: the moderating role of environment. Journal of Business Venturing, (16), pp 429-431.
18.Maritz. Alex, Donovan. Jerome, (2015),"Entrepreneurship and innovation", Education + Training, Vol. 57 Iss 1 pp. 74 - 87 19.MasturaJaafar , MostafaRasoolimanesh , Ku'
Azam Tuan Lonik .(2015).Tourism growth and entrepreneurship: Empirical analysis ofdevelopment of rural highlands, Tourism Management Perspectives 14 (2015) 17–24 20.Neupane, R. (2014), Relationship between
customer satisfaction and
businessPerformance, International Journal of Social Sciences and Management 1(2): 74-85 21.Newton. Sandra K., Armand GilinskyJr ,
Douglas Jordan.(2015).Differentiation Strategies and Winery Financial Performance:An Empirical Investigation, Wine Economics and Policy Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2015, Pages 88–97
22.Nielsen, S. (2010), “Top management team internationalisation and firm performance: themediating role of foreign market entry”, Management International Review, Vol. 50 No. 2,pp. 185-206
practices andstrategy in Thailand", Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 269 - 298
24.Pratono. Aluisius,
RosliMahmood.(2016).Entrepreneurial
orientation and firm performance: How can small and medium-sized enterprises survive environmental turbulence?, Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences xxx (2016) 1e7
25.Rajiv D. Banker Raj
MashruwalaArindamTripathy , (2014),"Does a differentiation strategy lead to more sustainable financial performance than a cost leadership strategy?", Management Decision, Vol. 52 Iss 5 pp. 872 - 896
26.Rodil .Óscar, Xavier Vence, María del Carmen Sánchez.(2015).The relationship between innovation and export behaviour: The case of Galician firms, Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
27.Shan .Peng, , Song .Michael, , , XiaofengJu .(2015). Entrepreneurial orientation and performance: Is innovation speed a missing link?, Journal of Business Research Volume 69, Issue 2, February 2016, Pages 683–690
28.Zehir. Cemal, Esin Can,
TugbaKarabog.(2015). Linking entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: the role of differentiation strategy and innovation performance,
29.Zhang. Jing A., Fiona Edgar , Alan Geare, ConorO'Kane.(2016).The interactive effects of entrepreneurial orientation and capability-based HRMon firm performance: The mediating role of innovation ambidexterity 30.Karam Pour, Abdol Al-hossseinEbrahami,
competition and innovation strategy Abvalqasm.2014.tbyyn technical knowledge on export performance, strategic management studies in fifth summer of 2014 No. 18
31.Berets, K; Darzi Aziz, Abdul Hadi 0.1392. Evaluation of the impact of entrepreneurship development on export performance of SMEs, Second International Conference on
Management, Entrepreneurship and Economic Development
32.Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49, 571-582.
33.Balabanis, G., Theodosiou, M., &Katsikea, E. (2004). Export marketing: Developments and a research agenda. International Marketing Review, 21, 353-377.
34.Bengtsson, L. (2004). Explaining born globals: An organisational learning perspective on the internationalisation process. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 1 (1), 28-41.
35.Brouthers, L. E., Nakos, G., Hadjimarcou, J., &Brouthers, K. D. (2009). Key success factors for successful export performance for small firms. Journal of International Market-ing, 17 (3), 21-38.
36.Cassiman, B. and Golovko, E. (2011), "Innovation and internationalization through exports", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 56-75.
37.Chiva, R., &Alegre, J. (2009). Organizational learning capability and job satisfaction: An empirical assessment in the ceramic tile industry. British Journal of Management, 20 (3), 323-340.
38.Cireraa Xavier, AnabelMarinb, Ricardo Markwaldc Explaining. (2015). export diversification through firm innovation decisions: The case of Brazil, Research Policy 44 (2015) 1962-1973
39.Covin, J. G. (1991). Entrepreneurial versus conservative firms: A comparison of strate- gies and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 28 (5), 439-462.
41.Evers, N. (2011), "International new ventures in 'low tech' sectors: a dynamic capabilities perspective", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 502-528
42.Fernandez-Mes.aAnabel, Alegre .Joaquı.
(2015). Entrepreneurial orientation and export intensity: Examining the interplay of organizational learning and innovation, International Business Review, Volume 24, Issue 1, February 2015, Pages 148 - 156 43.Fletcher, D. E., & Watson, T. J. (2007).
Entrepreneurship, management learning and negotiated narratives: 'Making it otherwise for us-otherwise for them'. Manage-ment Learning, 38 (1), 9-26.
44.Freixanet, J. (2012), "Export promotion programs: their impact on companies' internationalization performance and competitiveness", International Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1065-1086
45.Ganitsky, J. (1989). Strategies for innate and adoptive exporters: Lessons from Israels case. International Marketing Review, 6 (5), 50-65 46.Golovko, E., &Valentini, G. (2011). Exploring
the complementarity between innovation and export for SMEs growth. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 362-380. 47.Griffith, D.A. and Czinkota, M. (2012),
"Release the constraints: solving the problems of export financing in troublesome times", Business Horizons, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 251-260. 48.Hortinha, P., Lages, C. and Lages, L.F. (2011), "The trade-off between customer and technology orientations: impact on innovation capabilities and export performance", Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 36-58.
49.Johnston, W. J., &Czinkota, M. R. (1982). Managerial motivations as determinants of industrial export behavior. In M. R. Czinkota& G. Tesar (Eds.), Export management: An international context. New York, NY: Praeger. 50.Lachenmaier, S., &Wo¨ßmann, L. (2006).
Does innovation cause exports? Evidence from
exogenous innovation impulses and obstacles using German micro data. Oxford Economic Papers, 58 (2), 317-350
51.Lafuente .Esteban Maria-Cristina StoianJosepRialp, (2015), "From export entry to deinternationalisation through entrepreneurial attributes", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 21-37
52.Leonidou, L., Palihawadana, D. and Theodosiou, M. (2011), National export promotion programs as drivers of organizational resources and capabilities: effects on strategy, competitive advantage, and performance ", Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 1-29.
53.Liesch, P.W., Welch, L.S. and Buckley, P.J. (2011), "Risk and uncertainty in internationalization and international entrepreneurship studies: review and conceptual development", Management International Review, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 851-873
54.Martincus, C.V. and Carballo, J. (2010), "Export promotion: bundled services work better", World Economy, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 1718-1756
55.McGraw-Hill. Mintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy-making in three modes. California Management Review, 16 (2), 44-53.
56.Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York, NY:
57.Monreal-Pe' rezJoaquı', Antonio Arago' n -Sa'nchez, Gregorio Sa'nchez-Marı'n. (2012). A
longitudinal study of the relationship between export activity and innovation in the Spanish firm: The moderating role of productivity, International Business Review, Volume 21, Issue 5, October 2012, Pages 862-877
59.Morgan, N.A., Kaleka, A. and Katsikeas, C.S. (2004), "Antecedents of export venture performance: a theoretical model and empirical assessment", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 90-108.
60.Nassimbeni, G. (2001). Technology, innovation capacity, and the export attitude of small manufacturing firms: A logit / tobit model. Research Policy, 30 (2), 245-262. 61.Nielsen, S. (2010), "Top management team
internationalisation and firm performance: the mediating role of foreign market entry", Management International Review, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 185-206
62.Omri, W., &Becuwe, A. (2014). Managerial characteristics and entrepreneurial inter-nationalization: A study of Tunisian SMEs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1-35.
63.Quinta' s, M. A., Va'zquez, X. H., Garcı'a, J.
M., & Caballero, G. (2009). International generation of technology: An assessment of its intensity motives and facilitators. trategic Management, 21, 743-763.
64.Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., &Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33, 761-780
65.Rodil .Óscar, Xavier Vence, Maríadel Carmen Sánchez. (2015) .The relationship between innovation and export behaviour: The case of Galician firms, Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx-xxx
66.Rogers, M. (2004). Networks firm size and innovation. Small Business Economics, 22, 141-153.
67.Sousa, C.M.P., Martínez-López, F.J. and Coelho, F. (2008), "The determinants of export performance: a review of the research in the literature between 1998 and 2005",
68.Tippins, M. J., &Sohi, R. S. (2003). IT competency and firm performance: Is
organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal, 24, 745-761.
69.Vicente. Margarida José
LuísAbrantesMárioSérgio Teixeira, (2015), "Measuring innovation capability in exporting firms: the INNOVSCALE", International Marketing Review, Vol. 32 Iss 1 pp. 29-51 70.Weaver, K., Berkowitz, D. and Davies, L.
(1998), "Increasing the efficiency of national export promotion programs: the case of Norwegian exporters", Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1-11 71.Wu, C. H., & Fang, K. (2010). Improving
project performance through organizational learning: An empirical study in Taiwan. Technology Analysis & Strategic Manage-ment, 22, 261-276.
72.Vicente. Margarida José
LuísAbrantesMárioSérgio Teixeira, (2015), "Measuring innovation capability in exporting firms: the INNOVSCALE", International Marketing Review, Vol. 32 Iss 1 pp. 29-51 73.Krishnaswamy K.N., M. Mathirajan, M.H.
