Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands

Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) is often mentioned as an antecedent of growth, competitive advantage and superior performance, and prior empirical research has often shown a positive relationship between EO and performance appears to exist. However, an important question that remains unanswered is what effect EO might have on firm performance during periods of economic crisis, and the severe environmental turbulence that accompany such crises. This research is a first investigation towards the effects of EO on the performance of small and medium sized firms during the current global economic crisis. In this study we use the multidimensional model of EO and test a series of hypotheses pertaining to its performance effects using survey data gathered from 164 Dutch SMEs. The present research shows that proactive firm behavior positively contributes to SME performance during the economic crisis. We further show that innovative SMEs do perform better in turbulent environments, but those innovative SMEs should minimize the level of risk and should take action to avoid projects that are too risky

Institutional distance and foreign subsidiary performance in emerging markets: moderating effects of ownership strategy and host-country experience

Institutional distance has been known to be an important driver of Multinational Enterprises’ strategies and performance in host countries. Based on a large panel dataset of 10562 firms operating in 17 emerging markets and spanning 80 home countries, we re-examine the relationship described by Gaur and Lu (2007) between regulatory institutional distance and subsidiary performance. We extend this research by (1) examining this relationship in the context of emerging markets, (2) examining the moderating effects of ownership strategy and host-country experience within the context of emerging markets and (3) accounting for a greater variety of institutions by including a large number of home and host countries. We find that institutional distance negatively affects subsidiary performance in emerging markets. Our findings also show that the negative effects of institutional distance on subsidiary performance are lesser for subsidiaries with partial ownership (than for subsidiaries with full ownership) and for subsidiaries with greater host-country experience. We discuss our findings with respect to Gaur and Lu’s model, which explores the relationships between these variables in a general context

Corporate Entrepreneurship:From Structures to Mindset

Corporate entrepreneurship dispersed throughout an organization and leveraging the entrepreneurial potential of all its employees bears significant benefits for those organizations that embrace it. However, it appears more difficult to instill and requires strong investment in the development of human capital and entrepreneurial mindset among the employees and across the organization. In this chapter, we discuss the essence of corporate entrepreneurship mindset and show that across an organization, there might be different entrepreneurial mindsets that correspond to different people, opportunities, and contexts. Although different, they all lead to enactment of entrepreneurial projects. This chapter, thus, contributes to the discussion regarding the nature of corporate entrepreneurial mindsets, and their development and stimulation within an organization, from both academic and practical view

Prosociality in business: a human empowerment framework

This study introduces a human empowerment framework to better understand why some businesses are more socially oriented than others in their policies and activities. Building on Welzel’s theory of emancipation, we argue that human empowerment—comprised of four components: action resources, emancipative values, social movement activity, and civic entitlements—enables, motivates, and entitles individuals to pursue social goals for their businesses. Using a sample of over 15,000 entrepreneurs from 43 countries, we report strong empirical evidence for two ecological effects of the framework components on prosociality. We find that human empowerment (1) lifts entrepreneurs’ willingness to choose a social orientation for their business, and (2) reinforces the gender effect on prosociality in business activity. We discuss the human empowerment framework’s added value in understanding how modernization processes fully leverage the potential of social business activities for societies

International entrepreneurship in SMEs: a study of influencing factors in the textile industry

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0242-3International entrepreneurship is an incipient research area with a rapidly increasing body of knowledge and contributions. An important part of this literature has focused on the analysis of the contributing factors to IE development. From these studies, this work attempts to analyse and validate through an integrative model the effect on this construct in SME of some of the main factors proposed by the literature such as Skills and Competences, Attitude and Proactiveness, Creativity and Innovation, Networking, Employees and Activity. To proceed with this aim, we conducted an empirical research focused on 174 textile SME in Spain. The results obtained confirm a positive relationship between the studied factors and the IE development. In consequence, this work agrees with previous literature that point out the need to use multi-theoretical perspectives, combining multiple factors.Gil Pechuán, I.; Expósito Langa, M.; Tomas Miquel, JV. (2013). International entrepreneurship in SMEs: a study of influencing factors in the textile industry. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 9(1):45-57. doi:10.1007/s11365-012-0242-3S455791Akgün, A., Keskin, H., & Byrne, J. (2012). Organizational emotional memory. Management Decision, 50(1), 95–114.Andersén, J. (2011). Strategic resources and firm performance. Management Decision, 49(1), 87–98.Anderson, A. R., Dodd, S. D., & Jack, S. L. (2012). Entrepreneurship as connecting: some implications for theorising and practice. Management Decision, 50(5), 958–971.Appelbaum, S. H., Roy, M., & Gilliland, T. (2011). Globalization of performance appraisals: theory and applications. Management Decision, 49(4), 570–585.Arribas, I., Hernández, P., Urbano, A., & Vila, J. E. (2012). Are social and entrepreneurial attitudes compatible? A behavioral and self-perceptional analysis. Management Decision, 50(10), 1739–1757.Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50(5), 755–764.Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 909–924.Bannon, L. (1998). Mattel plans to double sales abroad. Wall Street Journal, February 11, (A3 and A8).Battistella, C., Biotto, G., & De Toni, A. (2012). From design driven innovation to meaning strategy. Management Decision, 50(4), 718–743.Bell, J., McNaughton, J., Young, R., & Crick, D. (2003). Towards an integrative model of small firm internationalization. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 339–362.Bonzo, P., Valadares de Oliveira, P., & McCormarck. (2012). Planning, capabilities, and performance: an integrated value approach. Management Decision, 50(6), 1001–1021.Bossak, J., & Nagashima, S. (1997). Corporate strategies for a borderless world: sharpening your competitive edge. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.Cambra-Fierro, J., Florin, J., Perez, L., & Whitelock, J. (2011). Inter-firm market orientation as antecedent of knowledge transfer, innovation and value creation in networks. Management Decision, 49(3), 444–467.Cantarello, S., Nosella, A., Petroni, G., & Venturini, K. (2011). External technology sourcing: evidence from design-driven innovation. Management Decision, 49(6), 962–983.Chang, Y. Y., Hughes, M., & Hotho, S. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs’ innovation ambidexterity outcomes. Management Decision, 49(10), 1658–1676.Chaston, I., & Scott, G. J. (2012). Entrepreneurship and open innovation in an emerging economy. Management Decision, 50(7), 1161–1177.Coviello, N. E., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 485–508.Coviello, N. E., & McAuley, A. (1999). Internationalization and the smaller firm: a review of contemporary empirical research. Management International Review, 39, 223–256.Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 7–25.Davis, D., Morris, M., & Allen, J. (1991). Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on selected entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(1), 43–51.Dean, C. C., Thibodeaux, M. S., Beyerlein, M., Ebrahimi, B., & Molina, D. (1993). Corporate entrepreneurship and competitive aggressiveness. A comparison of U.S. firms operating in eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States with U.S. firms in other high-risk environments. Advances in International Comparative Management, 8, 31–54.Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of privately held firms and conglomerate business units. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 265–273.Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 677–695.Díaz-Casero, J. C., Díaz-Aunión, A., Sánchez-Escobedo, M. C., Coduras-Martinez, A., & Hernández-Mogollón, R. (2012). Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity. Management Decision, 50(9), 1686–1711.Dimitratos, P., & Plakoyiannaki, E. (2003). Theoretical foundations of an international entrepreneurial culture. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 187–215.Dubini, P., & Aldrich, H. (1991). Personal and extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 305–313.Felício, J. A., Rodrigues, R., & Caldeirinha, V. R. (2012). The effect of intrapreneurship on corporate performance. Management Decision, 50(10), 1717–1738.Goktan, A. B., & Miles, G. (2011). Innovation speed and radicalness: are they inversely related? Management Decision, 49(4), 533–547.Gómez-Haro, S., Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2011). Differentiating the effects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship. Management Decision, 49(10), 1677–1693.Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, L. D. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation [Special Issue]. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6), 479–492.Hotho, S., & Champion, K. (2011). Small businesses in the new creative industries: innovation as a people management challenge. Management Decision, 49(1), 29–54.Hu, Y.-S. (1995). The international transferability of competitive advantage. California Management Review, 37(4), 73–88.Huarng, K. H., & Yu, T. H. K. (2011). Entrepreneurship, process innovation and value creation by a non-profit SME. Management Decision, 49(2), 284–296.Jones, M. V. (1999). The internationalization of small UK high technology based firms. Journal of International Marketing, 7, 15–41.Jones, M. V., & Coviello, N. E. (2005). Internationalization: conceptualising and entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3):284–303.Khandwalla, P. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organization capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 124–141.Kropp, F., Lindsay, N. J., & Shoham, A. (2006). Entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5), 504–523.Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 93–107.Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–172.McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International entrepreneurship: the intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 902–908.McDougall, P. P., Shane, S., & Oviatt, B. M. (1994). Explaining the formation of international new ventures: the limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 469–487.McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., & Venkataraman, S. (1995). Global dimensions of new competencies. In S. Birley & I. C. MacMillan (Eds.), International entrepreneurship. New York: Routledge.McNaughton, R. B. (2001). The export mode decision-making process in small knowledge- intensive firms. Market Intelligence and Planning, 19, 12–20.McNaughton, R. B. (2003). The number of export markets that a firm serves: process models versus the born-global phenomenon. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 297–311.Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1984). Organizations: a quantum view. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Morrow, J. F. (1988). International entrepreneurship: a new growth opportunity. New Management, 3, 59–61.Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C. (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Research, 36, 15–23.Naman, J. L., & Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 137–153.Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55–72.Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1999). A framework for understanding accelerated international entrepreneurship. In R. Wright (Ed.), Research in global strategic management (pp. 23–40). Stamford: JAI Press.Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internalization. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(5), 537–554.Peiris, I.K., Akoorie, M.E.M., & Sinha, P.N. (2012). International entrepreneurship: A critical analysis of studies in the past two decades and future directions for research. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Article in press.Pinchot, G., III. (1985). Intrapreneuring: why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become entrepreneur. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: Collier-Macmillan.Renko, M., Shrader, R. C., & Simon, M. (2012). Perception of entrepreneurial opportunity: a general framework. Management Decision, 50(7), 1233–1251.Sandulli, F. D., Fernandez-Menendez, J., Rodriguez-Duarte, A., & Lopez-Sanchez, J. I. (2012). Testing the Schumpeterian hypotheses on an open innovation framework. Management Decision, 50(7), 1222–1232.Santos, F. J., Romero, I., & Fernández-Serrano, J. (2012). SMEs and entrepreneurial quality from a macroeconomic perspective. Management Decision, 50(8), 1382–1395.Shama, A. (1995). Entry strategies of U.S. firms to the former Soviet Bloc and Eastern Europe. California Management Review, 37(3), 90–109.Simon, H. (1996). Hidden champions: lessons from 500 of the world’s best unknown companies. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Singh, S., Darwish, T. K., Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. (2012). Measuring HRM and organisational performance: concepts, issues, and framework. Management Decision, 50(4), 651–667.Smart, T. (1996). GE’s Welch: ‘Fighting like hell to be No. 1’. Business Week, July 8, 48.Snow, C., & Hrebiniak, L. (1980). Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 317–336.Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.Styles, C., & Seymour, R. G. (2006). Opportunities for marketing researchers in international entrepreneurship. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 126–145.Turner, R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2012). Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: tailoring the practices to the size of company. Management Decision, 50(5), 942–957.Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801–814.Vlasic, B. (1998). The little car that could carry Chrysler overseas. Business Week, 19, 39.Welbourne, T. M., Neck, H., & Meyer, G. D. (2012). The entrepreneurial growth ceiling: using people and innovation to mitigate risk and break through the growth ceiling in initial public offerings. Management Decision, 50(5), 778–796.Williamson, P. J. (1997). Asia’s new competitive game. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 55–67.Yeoh, P. L. (2004). International learning: antecedents and performance implications among newly internationalizing companies in an exporting context. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 511–535.Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship. An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259–285.Zahra, S. A. (1993a). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance. A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–340.Zahra, S. A. (1993b). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: a critique and extensión. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(4), 5–21.Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). International entrepreneurship: the current status of the field and future agenda. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: creating a new mindset. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D. F., & Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship: the state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 45–63.Zhou, L. (2007). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and foreign market knowledge on early internationalization. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 281–293

Sequencing and timing of strategic responses after industry disruption: evidence from post-deregulation competition in the U.S. railroad industry

This paper examines the sequencing and timing of firms’ strategic responses after significant industry disruption. We show that it is not the single strategic choice or response per se, but the sequencing and patterns of consecutive strategic responses that drive a firm’s adaptation and survival in the aftermath of a shift in the industry. We find that firms’ renewal efforts involved differential adaptability in finding balance at the juxtaposition of responding to demand-side pressures and choosing a path of new capability acquisition efficiently. Our study underscores the importance of taking a sequencing approach to studying strategic responses to industry disruption

Ownership identity, strategy and performance:business group affiliates versus independent firms in India

We consider whether the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on business performance is moderated by the company affiliation with business groups. Within business groups, we explore the trade-off between inter-firm insurance that enables risk-taking, and inefficient resource allocation. Risk-taking in group affiliated firms leads to higher performance, compared to independent firms, but the impact of proactivity is attenuated. Utilizing Indian data, we show that risk-taking may undermine rather than improve business performance, but this effect is not present in business groups. Proactivity enhances performance, but less so in business groups. Firms can also enhance performance by technological knowledge acquisition, but these effects are not significantly different for various ownership categories