PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
Tytuł artykułu

Entrepreneurial orientation: prioritising and mapping in the context of small and medium-sized enterprises

Treść / Zawartość
Identyfikatory
Warianty tytułu
PL
Orientacja przedsiębiorcza: priorytetowanie i mapowanie w kontekście małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw
Języki publikacji
EN
Abstrakty
EN
Understanding the degree of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) in the context of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is vitally important, since it priorities may vary among business sectors. Previous studies have extensively studied EO using simple and common method of measuring EO at the construct level (summated scale), ignoring the fact that different business sectors have different priorities in terms of the dimensions of EO. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these limitations based on a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method for each dimension and items using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). This method is used to analyse and classify the perception of managers or owners-managers of SMEs based on each dimension of EO. 409 SMEs were involved in ranking the EO score based on the dimensions (criteria) and multiple items (sub-criteria) at the industry and business sector level (e.g., handicraft, cakes, embroidery, and crackers). To illustrate the findings, a Cartesian diagram exhibits the priority of EO level in different business sectors. The findings indicate that innovativeness is the most important or main criteria, followed by proactiveness. At the level of sub-criteria, ‘research and product development’ obtained the highest score of innovativeness. Finally, mapping based on business sectors showed that cakes, as well as embroidery, considered innovativeness as main criteria compared with proactiveness, contrary to the handicraft, and crackers business sectors that have high proactiveness, but low innovativeness. The empirical findings hold important implications for SMEs managers and contribute to EO literature by using the AHP approach as a meaningful tool in management.
PL
Zrozumienie stopnia orientacji na przedsiębiorczość (EO) w kontekście małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw (MŚP) jest niezwykle ważne, ponieważ priorytety mogą się różnić w zależności od sektora biznesowego. Wcześniejsze badania dogłębnie badały EO przy użyciu prostej i powszechnej metody pomiaru EO na poziomie konstrukcyjnym (skala sumowana), ignorując fakt, że różne sektory biznesu mają różne priorytety pod względem wymiarów EO. Celem tego artykułu jest omówienie tych ograniczeń w oparciu o metodę podejmowania decyzji wielokryterialnych (MCDM) dla każdego wymiaru i pozycji przy użyciu Procesu Hierarchii Analitycznej (AHP). Metodę tę stosuje się do analizy i klasyfikacji postrzegania menedżerów lub właścicieli-menedżerów MŚP na podstawie każdego wymiaru EO. W rankingu EO wzięło udział 409 MŚP na podstawie wymiarów (kryteriów) i wielu pozycji (podkryteriów) na poziomie przemysłu i sektora biznesowego (np. Rękodzieło, ciasta, hafty i krakersy). Aby zilustrować te ustalenia, diagram kartezjański pokazuje priorytet poziomu EO w różnych sektorach biznesowych. Wyniki wskazują, że najważniejszym lub głównym kryterium jest innowacyjność, a następnie proaktywność. Na poziomie podkryteriów „badania i rozwój produktu” uzyskały najwyższy wynik w zakresie innowacyjności. Wreszcie, mapowanie oparte na sektorach biznesowych wykazało, że ciasta, podobnie jak hafty, uważały innowacyjność za główne kryteria w porównaniu z proaktywnością, w przeciwieństwie do rękodzieła, oraz sektory biznesu crackerów, które mają wysoką proaktywność, ale niską innowacyjność. Ustalenia empiryczne mają ważne implikacje dla menedżerów MŚP i wnoszą wkład w literaturę EO, wykorzystując podejście AHP jako znaczące narzędzie w zarządzaniu.
Rocznik
Strony
429--446
Opis fizyczny
Bibliogr. 48 poz., rys., tab.
Twórcy
  • Universitas Negeri Padang, Faculty of Economics, Department of Management, Indonesia
  • Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Management, Malaysia
autor
  • Universitas Negeri Padang, Faculty of Economics, Department of Management, Indonesia
Bibliografia
  • 1. Ahn, B.S. (2017). The analytic hierarchy process with interval preference statements. Omega (United Kingdom), 67, 177-185.
  • 2. Amrita, K., Garg, C.P.& Sing, S. (2018). Modelling the critical success factors of women entrepreneurship using Fuzzy AHP framework. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 10(1), 81-116.
  • 3. Audretsch, D.B. (2015). Shaker A. Zahra: pioneering entrepreneurship scholar. Small Business Economics, 44(4), 721-725.
  • 4. Bank-Indonesia, (2012). Penelitian komoditi/produk/jenis usaha unggulan UMKM di Sumatera Barat tahun 2011, Jakarta.
  • 5. Barasa, L., Vermeulen, P., Knoben, J., Kinyanjui, B. & Kimuyu, P. (2019). Innovation inputs and efficiency: Manufacturing firms in Sub-Saharan Africa. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(1), 59-83.
  • 6. Borade, A.B., Kannan, G. & Bansod, S.V. (2013). Analytical hierarchy process-based framework for VMI adoption. International Journal of Production Research, 51(4), 963-978.
  • 7. Cirera, X., Sabetti, L., World, T., Group, B. & Street, H. (2019). The effects of innovation on employment in developing countries : evidence from enterprise surveys. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28(1), 161-176.
  • 8. Covin, J.G., Miles, M.P. (1999). Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Pursuit of Competitive Advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47-63.
  • 9. Covin, J.G., Miller, D. (2014). International entrepreneurial orientation: conceptual considerations, research themes, measurement issues, and future research directions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(1), 11-44.
  • 10. Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
  • 11. Covin, J.G., Wales, W.J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(4), 677-702.
  • 12. Covin, J.G., Wales, W.J. (2019). Crafting high-impact entrepreneurial orientation research: Some suggested guidelines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 3-18.
  • 13. Dennis Jr., W.J. (2011). Entrepreneurship, small business and public policy levers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2), 149-162.
  • 14. Dyer, R., Forman, E. (1992). Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Support Systems, 8, 99-124.
  • 15. Engelen, A., Neumann, C. & Schmidt, S. (2016). Should entrepreneurially oriented firms have narcissistic CEOs? Journal of Management, 42(3), 698-721.
  • 16. Eshima, Y., Anderson, B.S. (2017). Firm growth, adaptive capability, and ntrepreneurial orientation. Strategic management Journal, 38(3), 770-779.
  • 17. Ghatak, R.R., Pal, S.S. (2016). Prioritizing the Service Failures of Package Delivery Business: An Analytical Hierarchy Process Analysis. IUP Journal Of Supply Chain Management, 13(3), 27-54.
  • 18. Gupta, V., Gupta, A. (2015). The concept of entrepreneurial orientation. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 55-137.
  • 19. Gupta, V.K., Batra, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in Indian SMEs: Universal and contingency perspectives. International Small Business Journal, 34(5), 660-682.
  • 20. Gupta, V.K., Dutta, D.K. (2018). The rich legacy of Covin and Slevin (1989) and Lumpkin and Dess (1996): A constructive critical analysis of their deep impact on entrepreneurial orientation research. Foundational Research in Entrepreneurship Studies: Insightful Contributions and Future Pathways, pp. 155-177.
  • 21. Hadjimanolis, A. (1999). Barriers to innovation for SMEs in a small less developed country (Cyprus). Technovation, 19, 561-570.
  • 22. Handfield, R., Walton, S. V., Sroufe, R. & Melnyk, S.A. (2002). Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 141(1), 70-87.
  • 23. Ho, W., Ma, X. (2018). The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 267(2), 399-414.
  • 24. Kinoshita, E., Taji, K. (2015). AHP from the perspective of bounded rationality. Journal of Japanese Symposium on The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 4(4), 11-20.
  • 25. Kraus, S., Rigtering, J.P.C., Hughes, M. & Hosman, V. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: A quantitative study from the Netherlands. Review of Managerial Science, 6(2), 161-182.
  • 26. Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D. & Weaver, K.M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 26(4), 71.
  • 27. Littunen, H. (2000). Networks and local environmental characteristics in the survival of new firms. Small Business Economics, 15(1), 59-71.
  • 28. Lumpkin, G.T., Dess, G.G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 429-451.
  • 29. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Sciences, 29(7), 770-791.
  • 30. Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) revisited: a reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(5), 873-894.
  • 31. Mishra, R., Mishra, O.N. (2019). Prioritising dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation for supply chain flexibility development in an uncertain environment. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(2), 483-505.
  • 32. Mosadeghi, R., Warnken, J., Tomlinson, R. & Mirfenderesk, H. (2015). Comparison of Fuzzy-AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49, 54-65.
  • 33. Nazri, M.A, Abdul Wahab, K. & Omar, N. (2015). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions on Takaful agency’s business performance in Malaysia. Jurnal Pengurusan, 45, 83-94.
  • 34. Parga-Montoya, N., Cuevas Vargas, H. (2019). Assessing the entrepreneurial orientation by opportunity/necessity dichotomy: An institutional perspective. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 19(1), 298-308.
  • 35. 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(3), 761-787.
  • 36. Rezaei, J., Ortt, R. & Scholten, V. (2013). An improved fuzzy preference programming to evaluate entrepreneurship orientation. Applied Soft Computing, 13(5), 2749-2758.
  • 37. Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83.
  • 38. Shehu, A.M., Mahmood, R. (2015). The moderating role of business environment in the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance among Nigerian SMEs. Jurnal Pengurusan, 43, 119-128.
  • 39. Sok, P., Snell, L., Lee, W.J. (Thomas) & Sok, K.M. (2017). Linking entrepreneurial orientation and small service firm performance through marketing resources and marketing capability: a moderated mediation model. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(1).
  • 40. Tabor, J. (2011). Behaviors of Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Face of Employee Entrepreneurship. [In:] Determinants of Entrepreneurship Development in SME Sector Companies. (Eds.) Lachiewicz, S., Szymanska, K., Kurowska, M., Wyd. Techn. Univ. Lodz. Press, p.292-311.
  • 41. Tang, Z., Tang, J. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance in China’s changing environment: The moderating effects of strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2), 409-431.
  • 42. Thabrani, G., Susanto, P. & Abdullah, N.L. (2019). The essence of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions in SMEs sector: Utilizing the analytical hierarchy process. 2nd Padang International Conference on Education, Economics, Business and Accounting (PICEEBA-2 2018), Vol. 64, pp.553-562, Padang: Atlantis Press.
  • 43. Wales, W.J. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research directions. International Small Business Journal, 34(341), 3-15.
  • 44. Wales, W.J., Patel, P.C., Parida, V. & Kreiser, P.M. (2013). Nonlinear effects of entrepreneurial orientation on small firm performance: The moderating role of resource orchestration capabilities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7, 93-121.
  • 45. Wardi, Y., Susanto, P., Abror, A., Abdullah, N.L. (2018). Impact of entrepreneurial proclivity on firm performance: The role of market and technology turbulence. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 26(S), 241-250.
  • 46. Wiklund, J., Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 71-91.
  • 47. Yang, C., Chen, B. (2006). Supplier selection using combined analytical hierarchy process and grey relational analysis. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(7), 926-941.
  • 48. Zahra, S.A., Wright, M. & Abdelgawad, S.G. (2014). Contextualization and the advancement of entrepreneurship research. International Small Business Journal, 32(5), 479-500.
Uwagi
Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.baztech-be26fb71-54e7-4416-8ae1-8bfbfaac91c6
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.