گرایش کارآفرینی شرکت های کوچک و متوسط، نوآوری محصول و عملکرد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|9623||2007||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7430 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Research, Volume 60, Issue 5, May 2007, Pages 566–575
This paper looks beyond the entrepreneurial orientation (EO)-performance link and focuses on identifying EO profiles of SMEs to suggest variations in product innovativeness dimensions of different performance potential. Based upon a sample of 149 manufacturing companies, the study identifies two opposite groups with the help of a cluster analysis, namely the active entrepreneurs and the passive entrepreneurs. The particular results verify the viewpoints stated by industry experts in Greece, but also facilitate further understanding of firms following a similar duality observed in other studies. Taking a step further, subsequent analysis of variance demonstrates that these groups consist of product innovators, who take equal care of reducing customers' burden (e.g. time, effort, purchase risk) in adopting new products. However, the entrepreneurial attitude instilled in active entrepreneurs as compared with passive entrepreneurs is primarily mirrored in new products, which embody in their characteristics higher uniqueness; an ingredient found to act as an important contributor to product performance. This article, apart from its contribution to the entrepreneurship research, has meaningful implications for managers and policy-makers.
The concept of an entrepreneurial orientation (EO) to explain the mindset of firms engaged in pursuing new ventures provides a useful framework for researching entrepreneurial activity (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001). Based on the extant literature, organizations can show divergent EOs, which array on opposite ends of a spectrum. Since innovation is a condition inherent in the domain of entrepreneurship, a company's ability to launch successful product innovations should be considered in parallel. Hence, EO profiles of firms suggesting variations in product innovativeness dimensions of different performance potential may be crucial to become subject of investigation, in order to provide additional explanations of how the firms adapt to a state of flux where the very basis of competition within the corporate environment is constantly and globally redefined. Adaptation to shifting landscapes through aspects of entrepreneurship and successful product innovation is of major concern for all enterprises, especially for small and medium-sized (SMEs) that are dominant in most European economies. This paper explores two research questions in the area of SMEs: Are EO profiles of SMEs identifiable? Do these profiles differ in product innovativeness, and if yes how and what this would possibly suggest in terms of performance? To answer these questions, SMEs are clustered on the basis of the EO construct. After validating the clusters, an analysis of variance is performed to detect differences, if any, across product innovativeness dimensions on EO profiles of SMEs. In a rather supportive way, multiple linear regression analysis is run to detect possible effects of product innovativeness dimensions on product performance. This study contributes to entrepreneurship research in three respects. First, unlike the numerous studies, which place a major emphasis on explaining the complexity in the EO-performance link (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005), this study focuses exclusively on EO by classifying firms according to its dimensions. Such a focus follows the suggestion of Lumpkin and Dess (2001) to direct further empirical research at this important construct. Second, this study attempts to provide more in-depth understanding of how specific dimensions of product innovativeness along with performance potential connect to EO profiles of firms. The evidence reported here goes beyond the knowledge base built primarily around either the effect of EO on product innovativeness (e.g., Salavou and Lioukas, 2003 and Zhou et al., 2005) or the effect of product innovativeness on product performance (e.g., Danneels and Kleinschmidt, 2001). Third, this study focuses on SMEs. Despite the widely acknowledged importance of EO in small business research (e.g., Naman and Slevin, 1993 and Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005), the empirical literature lacks evidence regarding the way SMEs are classified according to EO and approach product innovativeness for responding to expectations of better performance. The present study could serve as a starting point to this important issue, drawing data from two traditional industries of a country, such as Greece, endued with unique capabilities in the entrepreneurial act. This country represents an interesting case given the dominance of SMEs under the integration processes within the Euro Zone, which are underway. The article has the following structure. After this introductory section, the article presents the research framework taking into consideration the specific Greek context. Section 3 is a brief presentation of the research method and the empirical findings. Finally, a Concluding section summarizes the results along with their implications.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper explores two research questions focusing on the identification of SMEs' EO profiles to suggest variations in product innovativeness dimensions of different performance potential. Regarding the first research question pertaining to EO profiles, the evidence shows two opposite groups of SMEs according to the EO construct, namely the active and the passive entrepreneurs, verifying the viewpoints stated by industry experts in the context of Greece. The findings suggest that active entrepreneurs unlike passive entrepreneurs adopt a more aggressive orientation characterized by willingness to undertake action of high risk and before that of competition. Nonetheless, proactiveness contrary to risk-taking is found to be an important contributor to the performance of new products introduced by both groups. Regarding the second research question pertaining to differences across product innovativeness dimensions on EO profiles, the evidence shows that active and passive entrepreneurs differ significantly in one dimension of product innovativeness, namely new product uniqueness. In particular, entrepreneurial attitude instilled in active entrepreneurs as compared with passive entrepreneurs is mirrored in new product introductions, which embody in their characteristics higher uniqueness; an ingredient found to act as an important contributor to product performance. Given the lack of evidence on the second research question, the specific results help to streamline the viewpoints of industry experts posing a simple positive relationship between EO and product innovativeness in the case of Greek SMEs. The findings of this study make three worthy contributions to the entrepreneurship research. First, the evidence based on the approach to classify firms in terms of EO allows for a deeper understanding of this important construct and contributes to the enhancement of empirical literature, beyond that stemming from the intensively explored EO-performance link. Second, the specific results build on previous work related to either the effect of EO on product innovativeness or the effect of product innovativeness on product performance, advancing thus the knowledge base concerning EO, product innovativeness and product performance. By combining these concepts, this study sheds some new light on how specific dimensions of product innovativeness with different performance potential are pursued by divergent EO profiles of firms. Third, by focusing on SMEs, the findings of this study provide new insights in small business research concerning the widely acknowledged value of EO. Indeed, these findings could serve as a starting point to build evidence regarding the way SMEs are classified according to EO and approach product innovativeness to pursue better performance. From a practical perspective, this study provides meaningful implications for top managers, who are most often identical with family ownership in Greek SMEs (Lioukas and Makridakis, 1999). These firms seem to acknowledge the importance of incorporating both entrepreneurial values and product innovation in the way of doing business (e.g., Salavou and Lioukas, 2003). No matter in which entrepreneurial end they are positioned (based on the duality observed), they are product innovators taking equal care of reducing customers' burden (e.g. effort, time, purchase risk) in adopting new products. However, only active entrepreneurs share a common philosophy with hidden champions (Simon, 1996) and really innovative entrepreneurs (Drucker, 1985). Characterized by the potential to introduce new products featuring more differentiated characteristics for the market, these firms seem to take full advantage of their areas of strength (e.g., flexibility, nimbleness, adaptability) in responding to customers constantly calling for unique benefits and superior value. This rather up-to-dated entrepreneurial attitude enables SMEs to escape the myopia of me-too-ism (just imitating product recipes of competitors), and instead deliver new products of higher uniqueness, that allows for better performance. The ingredient of uniqueness in new products is also evident in previous studies as one of the most critical success factors (e.g., Cooper, 1999, Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987 and Song and Parry, 1996) offering greater customer satisfaction and loyalty (Day and Wensley, 1988). Overall, the adoption of this EO profile could be not only a challenge but also an appropriate opportunity-focused response by firms facing fierce competition by larger competitors (domestic or from distant parts of the world). Apart from its managerial implications, the empirical evidence reported here, could be used nationwide by policy-makers to design support programs and initiatives of entrepreneurship and innovation for SMEs that widen these key concepts beyond the notions of R&D and Hi-tech. In addition, mechanisms that equip more and more Greek SMEs to sustain a more proactive orientation along with relevant training on enhancing uniqueness in new product offerings could be set up. Except for performance benefits, these mechanisms may be pivotal for SMEs not only as a powerful protection shield from established giants but also as a means to advance their standing within the European region. Taking it further, they would lend support to paving the road for establishing a more knowledge-based society, where entrepreneurship is seen as a key intellectual capital element in any firm (Granstrand, 1999). Within the international literature, the present study helps to project a view from a national context other than those of large countries (such as United States, UK, Japan, Germany, etc.), which dominate the literature. Any generalizations drawn from this study should, however, be regarded as tentative, pending further confirmation. Drawing a sample of SMEs from a single national context, notably Greece, has its limitations. Further empirical evidence on how EO profiles of SMEs are related to product innovativeness dimensions of different performance potential in similar national settings would help to confirm and generalize the conclusions. Finally, the sample is confined to the manufacturing sector. Future studies should consider the relationships that this study explores in industries beyond the manufacturing sector.