Você está na página 1de 12

Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal

Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

Determinants of Innovation Performance among


SMEs: Moderating Effect of Entrepreneurial
Orientation
Shiaw-Tong Ha *
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
Email: revetong@gmail.com

May-Chiun Lo
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak

Abang Azlan Mohamad


Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak

T. Ramayah
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia

* Corresponding Author

Abstract
Purpose: Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) play a significant role in the economic
development of many countries all over the world. As globalisation has reduced the importance of
economies of scale, growth opportunities for SMEs are increased. To be able to grab the
opportunities, being innovative has become a necessity for SMEs. Therefore, it is crucial for SMEs
to understand the determinants fostering their innovation performance. Accordingly, this study
proposed top management support, employee orientation, and customer focus as the determinants
of the innovation performance among SMEs and examined the moderating effects of
entrepreneurial orientation on the relationships among the determinants.
Design/methodology/approach: Using a quantitative research design, data was collected from
top management personnel working in SMEs in Malaysia. SmartPLS 3.0 was applied and the
research model was empirically tested using the 214 responses received from the survey.
Findings: The analysis revealed that among three constructs, only employee orientation and
customer focus are significantly related to innovation performance. In addition, the results revealed
that entrepreneurial orientation plays a moderating role. The positive relationship between
employee orientation and innovation performance is greater when high level of entrepreneurial
orientation is present.
Research limitations/implications: First, the findings of this study were based on cross-sectional
data. Second, the sample of this study was restricted to Malaysia only. Findings of this study
contribute to the literature by determining the interrelationship between employee orientation,
customer focus, entrepreneurial orientation, and innovation performance.
Practical implications: The findings imply that employee orientation and customer focus were
positively related to innovation performance. Furthermore, entrepreneurial orientation was found
to moderate the positive relationship between employee orientation and innovation performance.

241
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

Therefore, employee orientation, customer focus, and entrepreneurial orientation should be top
strategic priority for SMEs to improve their innovation performance.
Originality/value: This study contributes to the literature by demonstrating the moderating effect
of entrepreneurial orientation. Moreover, this study also enriches the literature by showing that
employee orientation and customer focus are essential for enhancing innovation performance.

Keywords: Top Management Support, Employee Orientation, Customer Focus, Entrepreneurial


Orientation, Innovation Performance

Introduction
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have long been acknowledged as a main contributor to
economic development of many countries around the world. In 2015, just under 645,136 SMEs in
Malaysia contributed to 36.3% of the country GDP and employed 6.6 million people. The
globalisation has put a great pressure on SMEs as SMEs need to compete in an increasingly
turbulent business market with fast-changing technology and rapid changing customer preferences
(Hussain et al., 2015). Meanwhile, the globalisation has reduced the importance of economies of
scale and thus comprises more growth opportunities for SMEs (Chrysostome & Molz, 2014). In
order to adapt to this dynamic business environment, it has been suggested that an organisation
should emphasis on innovation performance (Gumusluoğlu & Ilsev, 2009; Jung et al., 2003).
Innovation performance refers to the outcomes generated by the innovative behaviour of
organisation (Bai & Ren, 2016) and it can be in the form of product, service, process, policy,
system, program, or device that is new to the organisation (Damanpour, 1991). Typically, SMEs
are constrained by limited financial and human resources, limited technology, limited information
and experience, and liability of smallness (Hilmersson, 2014). Nevertheless, despite these
constraints, SMEs tend to be more creative, innovative and flexible than large organisations. To
support such innovative potential, it is crucial for SMEs to identify the determinants that foster
innovation performance.
Stakeholder theory indicates that organisations should maintain good relationships with their
various stakeholders as this can help the organisations to develop intangible but valuable assets,
which in turn leads to competitive advantage (Freeman, 1984; Hillman & Keim, 2001). In this
regard, previous literatures found that top management support, employee orientation and
customer focus are essential for business success (de Bussy & Suprawan, 2012; Iqbal et al., 2015;
Ziggers & Henseler, 2015). Therefore in the context of SMEs, it seems reasonable to expect that
these three constructs are the important determinants in fostering innovation performance. On the
other hand, entrepreneurial orientation has been a subject of interest in management studies for
many years, but its moderating effect has been largely neglected (Hussain et al., 2016). Thus, the
objectives of present studies are two-fold: (1) to determine the determinants of innovation
performance for SMEs; and (2) to explore the moderating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on
the relationships among the determinants. The outcome of this study will contribute to both
theoretical developments and managerial practice in the context of SMEs. In terms of theoretical
implications, the present study contributes to the growing number of research efforts to discover
the determinants of innovation performance among SMEs and for establishing the moderating
effects of the entrepreneurial orientation. In terms of managerial implications, this study will help
entrepreneurs to identify the most important determinants with different levels of entrepreneurial
orientation to enhance their innovation performance.

242
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development


Top Management Support
Top management support reflects the extent to which highest ranking executives of an organisation
has supported their employees in projects and strategies implementation (Garrett & Neubaum,
2013). The responsibility of the top management executives includes communicating the company
strategy to all members of the organisation, providing financial support for training programs, and
motivating employees to innovate and solve problems (Al Shaar et al., 2015; Umble et al., 2003).
Top management support has been regarded as an important determinant of innovation because it
demonstrates a positive attitude toward innovation and creativity. In this regard, Jung and Sosik
(2002) described top management support as empowerment of employees to work independently
while encouraging risk-taking behaviours and exploratory in new areas for innovative ideas. By
creating a flexible and creative working environment where employees are empowered to develop
their own new ideas, innovation performance is likely to be enhanced (Gumusluoğlu & Ilsev,
2009). In this regard, previous literatures provide evidence that leadership attitude and support of
the top management can promote organizational innovation (Fernandes et al., 2014). Therefore,
the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: Top management support is positively related to innovation performance.

Employee Orientation
Employee orientation can be descried as an employee focused organisational climate
(Plakoyiannaki et al., 2008) which reflects an organisation’s value system in terms of decentralise
decision making processes, invest in employees’ development, and delegation of responsibility
(Grinstein, 2008). An employee focused climate can provide employee a healthy working
environment with less stress but more satisfaction and commitment (Ling & Greenly, 2005; Baker
et al., 2006). These are likely to increase employees’ willingness and ability to generate ideas. Janz
and Prasarnphanich (2003) argue for the need of employee orientation, as it can facilitate
knowledge sharing and cooperative learning. Such sharing and learning are important, as
employees can be more responsive to market opportunities, and develop new products with better
attributes more quickly. In this regard, employee orientation was found to have a significant and
positive relationship with innovation performance in the study conducted by Zhang (2010), who
further argue that organisations could be more conductive to fast and successful new product
development by providing a warm and supporting working environment to their employees.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Employee orientation is positively related to innovation performance.

Customer Focus
Customer focus refers to organisations’ commitment in consistently identifying their customer
needs and proactively looking for innovative solutions that can generate superior customer value
(Slater & Narver, 1998; Lo et al., 2016). This requires organisations to develop capabilities in
market-sensing and customer linking (Kirca et al., 2005). By developing these capabilities, they
can be more proactive with respect to changing customer preferences and be more willing to
incorporate customer insights into their new product development activities (Im & Workman,
2004; Saravanan & Rao, 2006). Findikli et al. (2014) argue that an organisation can improve its
innovation performance through practicing customer-oriented approach. Similarly, Zhang (2010)
found that customer orientation is positively related to innovation which is consistent with the

243
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

view that being customer-focused is an important determinant of innovation performance.


Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:
H3: Customer focus is positively related to innovation performance.

Entrepreneurial Orientation
Entrepreneurial orientation reflects the extent to which an organisation willing to develop
innovation activities, take risks to entry new markets or come up with new products and services,
proactively looking for new opportunities in the market and move faster than their competitors to
avail those opportunities (Soininen et al., 2012). An organisation with strong entrepreneurial
orientation is more likely to have more resources allocated for innovation related activities (Bai &
Ren, 2016). Also, organisations with a strong entrepreneurial orientation is more likely to apply
high-risk but high-reward strategies to gain a competitive advantage in the market (Slater &
Narver, 1995). Moreover, entrepreneurial-oriented organisations are more open to changes and
new ideas. They encourage and support acquisition and accumulation of knowledge, which result
in greater knowledge bases that are useful for improvement of existing products, development of
new products, and ultimately achievement of better innovation performance (Shu et al., 2015).
Under these conditions, top management support will be strengthened as top management
personnel are more open to new ideas and willing to take the risk, employee orientation will be
strengthened as it is easier for the employees to empower themselves with resources and times to
explore for new ideas, and customer focus will be strengthened by greater emphasis on the
acquisition and accumulation of knowledge from the market, all of which should help in
contributing to higher innovation performance. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H4: Entrepreneurial orientation will moderate positive relationship between top management
support and innovation performance: the stronger the entrepreneurial orientation, the stronger
this relationship.
H5: Entrepreneurial orientation will moderate positive relationship between employee orientation
and innovation performance: the stronger the entrepreneurial orientation, the stronger this
relationship.
H6: Entrepreneurial orientation will moderate positive relationship between customer focus and
innovation performance: the stronger the entrepreneurial orientation, the stronger this
relationship.

Methodology
The population of this study comprised of SMEs listed in SME directory provided by SME
Corporation Malaysia. SMEs refer to organisations with less than 200 full time employees or sales
turnover not exceeding RM50 million. The top management personnel of the SMEs were chosen
as key informants in this study with the belief that they have power to make decisions and their
values influence the strategic choices of the organisations. Minimum sample size estimation was
performed using a G*power analysis with the effect size set as 0.15 (medium), power needed as
0.8, and a maximum of 7 predictors including the moderating interaction effects. The results of the
power analysis suggested that sample size required for this study was 103. Using a survey
methodology, 600 questionnaires were distributed, and 220 responses were returned. After initial
screening, 214 were used for further statistical analyses. Among the 214 respondents, 108 (50.5%)
of them were female and 106 (49.5%) of them were male. In terms of academic qualification, most
respondents held degree or professional qualification (118 or 55.2%), followed by diploma (48 or
22.4%), postgraduate (27 or 12.6%), and high school or below (21 or 9.8%). With regard to

244
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

position in the company, 40 (23.4%) of the respondents were business owners, and another 164
(76.6%) were senior managers. Most of the organisations participated in the present study were
established for five years or less (153 or 71.5%), 40 (18.7%) organisations were established for
between six to ten years, and 21 (9.8%) organisations were established for 11 years or more.
Data was collected using self-administered questionnaire. All the measurement items were adapted
from previous studies. Top management support consisted of five items adapted from the work by
Ar and Baki (2011). As for employee orientation and customer focus, the items were adapted from
Zhang (2010) and Das, Paul, and Swierczek (2008) respectively. Entrepreneurial orientation, on
the other hand, contained five items adapted from Mu and Benedetto (2011). Lastly, five items
were adapted from Chong, Chang and Sim (2011) to measure innovation performance. All the
items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly
Agree). Partial Least squares (PLS) analysis using SmartPLS 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2015) was
performed to analyse the research model. The data analysis included the assessment of
measurement model followed by an examination of structural model. Specifically, the
measurement model evaluated the relationship between constructs their measurement items
(validity and reliability) while the structural model examined the hypothesised relationships
between constructs.

Findings
Assessment of the Measurement Model
Assessing the measurement model involves evaluating convergent validity and discriminant
validity. Convergent validity was determined by examining the factor loadings, average variances
extracted (AVE) and the composite reliability (CR). As can be seen in Table 1, all the items met
the required criteria of convergent validity as whereas all item loadings were greater than 0.5
(Bagozzi et al., 1991), AVE were all above 0.5, and the CR of all constructs were higher than 0.7
(Chin, 1998; Hair et al., 2014). In addition to the convergent validity, the researcher also reported
Cronbach’s Alpha (see Table 1). All the Cronbach’s Alpha were above the threshold value of 0.70
(Gefen et al., 2000; Nunnally, 1978) indicating the measures were reliable. The discriminant
validity was first examined through Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion by comparing the square
root of the AVE for each construct against the correlations with other constructs in the model (see
Table 2). As shown in Table 2, the square root of the AVE of all constructs as represented by the
bolded values on the diagonals were higher than the corresponding row and column values
(correlations with other constructs in the model) indicating the discriminant validity was achieved.
Further to that the researcher also examined the discriminant validity by using the heterotrait-
monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). As asserted by Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt (2015),
Fornell-Larcker criterion does not reliably detect the lack of discriminant validity in common
research situations. In assessing discriminant validity, they suggested a better alternative, the
HTMT criterion. The method suggested that if the HTMT value is below 0.85 (Kline, 2011) or
0.90 (Gold et al., 2001), discriminant validity has been established between constructs. As shown
in Table 3, all the values were below 0.85 and 0.90, and thus it can be confirmed that discriminant
validity has been ascertained.

245
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

Table 1: Convergent Validity of Measurement Model


Construct Item Loadings Cronbach's AVE CR
Alpha
Top Management TMS1 0.856 0.908 0.784 0.936
Support
TMS2 0.919
TMS3 0.891
TMS4 0.875
Employee Orientation EMP1 0.714 0.815 0.578 0.872
EMP2 0.811
EMP3 0.658
EMP4 0.824
EMP5 0.783
Customer Focus CF1 0.831 0.837 0.603 0.883
CF2 0.814
CF3 0.826
CF4 0.738
CF5 0.659
Entrepreneurial E1 0.809 0.883 0.677 0.913
Orientation
E2 0.795
E3 0.807
E4 0.843
E5 0.858
Innovation Performance IP1 0.806 0.890 0.694 0.919
IP2 0.870
IP3 0.856
IP4 0.792
IP5 0.838
Note: TM5 was deleted due to low loadings

Table 2: Discriminant Validity of Measurement Model


1 2 3 4 5
1.Customer Focus 0.776
2.Employee Orientation 0.652 0.761
3.Entrepreneurial Orientation 0.502 0.499 0.823
4.Innovation Performance 0.584 0.590 0.489 0.833
5.Top Management Support 0.655 0.518 0.468 0.410 0.886

246
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

Table 3: Discriminant Validity HTMT of Measurement Model


1 2 3 4 5
1.Customer Focus
2.Employee Orientation 0.778
3.Entrepreneurial Orientation 0.568 0.571
4.Innovation Performance 0.645 0.687 0.507
5.Top Management Support 0.740 0.596 0.516 0.439

Assessment of the Structural Model


Structural model was assessed based on the corresponding t-values. T-values were obtained
through a bootstrapping with 5000 resamples as suggested by Hair et al. (2014). The results are
presented in Table 4. Surprisingly, the results found no significant relationship between top
management support and innovation performance (β = 0.007, t-value = 0.098). Thus, H1 was not
supported. Meanwhile, employee orientation (β = 0.277, t-value = 3.589) and customer focus (β =
0.291, t-value = 3.317) were all positively related to innovation performance. Therefore, H2 and
H3 were supported. H4, H5, and H6 related to the moderating effects of entrepreneurial orientation.
As shown in Table 4, no moderating effect of entrepreneurial orientation was found on the
relationship between top management support and innovation performance (β = -0.149, t-value =
1.614) as well as on the relationship between customer focus and innovation performance (β = -
0.132, t-value = 1.046), thus H4 and H6 were not supported. On the other hand, the moderating
effect of entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship between employee orientation and
innovation performance was significant level (β = 0.282, t-value = 1.660), and the R2 increased
from 0.444 to 0.531, giving an R2 change of 8.7%. Thus, H5 was supported. As recommended by
Dawson (2014), the researcher plotted an interaction plot to see how the entrepreneurial orientation
changes the relationship between employee orientation and innovation performance. It can be seen
from Figure 1 that the line labelled High EO has a steeper gradient compared to the Low EO,
indicating that the positive relationship between employee orientation and innovation performance
is stronger when the entrepreneurial orientation is high. Further to that multicollinearity was also
assessed by examining variance inflation factor (VIF). Multicollinearity is a concern if VIF value
is more than 5 as suggested by Hair et al. (2011). As shown in Table 4, the results indicated that
multicollinearity is not a serious concern in the present study as all VIF values were less than 5.

Table 4: Results of the Structural Model (Hypothesis Testing)


Hypothesis Relationship Std. Beta Std. Error t-value Decision VIF
H1 TMS -> IP 0.007 0.075 0.098 Not Supported 1.904
H2 EMP -> IP 0.277 0.077 3.589** Supported 1.921
H3 CF -> IP 0.291 0.088 3.317** Supported 2.349
H4 TMS * EO -> IP -0.149 0.092 1.614 Not Supported 1.942
H5 EMP * EO -> IP 0.282 0.170 1.660* Supported 1.310
H6 CF * EO -> IP -0.132 0.127 1.046 Not Supported 2.005
*p<0.05, **p<0.01
TMS: Top Management Support, EMP: Employee Orientation, CF: Customer Focus, EO:
Entrepreneurial Orientation, IP: Innovation Performance

247
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

Figure 1: Interaction Plot


EMP: Employee Orientation, EO: Entrepreneurial Orientation

Discussion
The present study aims to discovers the determinants that would enhance innovation performance
among SMEs. As hypothesised, employee orientation and customer focus were significantly and
positively related to innovation performance, whereas top management support was not. This
contrasts with the findings of Fernandes et al. (2014) who found that top management support
promotes organizational innovation. A possible interpretation for this result would be due to the
high-power distance culture in Malaysia (Lo et al., 2016). This culture limits the open
communication and information sharing between top management and employees, which in turn
stifle innovation. Among all the determinants of innovation performance, employee orientation
has the most significant relationship with innovation performance which is consistent with the
findings of Zhang (2010) who found that employee orientation plays an important role in fostering
innovation performance. This relationship is stronger when high level of entrepreneurial
orientation is present. In fact, employees are the persons who create the products or services in an
organisation and thus the management must ensure that their employees are willing and able to
innovate. To foster superior innovation, the management personnel must open to new ideas,
proactively exploit for new opportunities, and willing to take risks, that will benefit innovation. In
other words, if an organisation is entrepreneurial-oriented, it is more likely for the organisation to
provide a supporting working environment, encourage employees to discover new ideas, invest in
employees’ development programs, and empowers employees with resources to innovate, all of
which benefit the organisation’s in innovation activities. On the other hand, the findings of the
present study imply that customer focus is positively related to innovation performance. Customer
focus is becoming an increasingly important determinant of innovation performance as it is known
for consistently seek for innovative solutions which can create superior customer value (Findikli
et al., 2014). To foster innovation performance, the organisation must first understand the unmet
needs of their customers, incorporate customer insights, and create new products or services that
delight those needs.

Conclusion, Implications, and Limitations


This study has proposed a model that involves multiple stakeholders of an organisation for
discovering the determinants of the innovation performance of SMEs with different levels of
entrepreneurial orientation. The results show that employee orientation and customer focus have a

248
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

significant and positive relationship with innovation performance. Furthermore, entrepreneurial


orientation was found to have a significant moderating role. The findings show that the positive
relationship between employee orientation and innovation performance is stronger when the level
of entrepreneurial orientation is high. In terms of theoretical implications, the key contribution of
the present study is to identify and determine the interrelationships between employee orientation,
customer focus, entrepreneurial orientation and innovation performance. The present study finds
strong support for the importance of employee orientation and customer focus as determinants of
innovation performance at a different subject of study that is SMEs of Malaysia. Moreover, with
regard to contingency theory, the present study provides evidence for the role of entrepreneurial
orientation as a moderator. Organisations practising entrepreneurial orientation tend to perform
better on activities related to employee orientation, all of which benefit the innovation
performance. The above results elicit two managerial implications. First, employee orientation and
customer focus are significantly and positively related to innovation performance. Therefore,
SMEs need to focus more on activities related to employee orientation and customer focus. It is
extremely crucial for SMEs policy makers to establish and improve their employee orientation in
such a case where their employees will be more willing and capable in fostering innovation
performance. In addition, the business environment is experiencing rapid changing customer
preferences and intense competition than ever before, thus SMEs should work more to acquire
information about market demands and integrate customers opinions to create products or services
that delight those demands. Second, SMEs policy makers should consider the development of
entrepreneurial orientation as one of their important strategic goals. Organisations can benefit from
the proactive characteristics of entrepreneurial orientation in encouraging innovative culture. By
creating a working environment that encourages new ideas, the employees will be more likely to
share their knowledge, experience, and skills without fear of retribution, thus strengthen the
organisation’s capability to innovate. Specifically, entrepreneurial orientation is a crucial strategy
if the organisations want to foster superior innovation performance. The present study is not
without limitations. First, the findings of this study were based on cross-sectional data, and such
data captured only the perceptions of the respondents at a certain time-period. Therefore, it would
be helpful if future researchers implement longitudinal studies to provide more insights regard the
relationships between the determinants and innovation performance. Second, the sample of this
study was restricted to Malaysia only thus the generalisation of the present study’s findings to
other cultural and international contexts might be limited. In future, this study can be further
replicated in other countries to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of determinants and
their relationships with innovation performance.

Acknowledgement
The funding for this project was made possible through the research grant obtained from the
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, and Universiti Malaysia Sarawak under the grant no
(F01/SpGS/1418/16/19).

References
Al Shaar, E. M., Khattab, S. A., Alkaied, R. N., & Manna, A. Q. (2015). The effect of top
management support on innovation: The mediating role of synergy between
organizational structure and information technology. International Review of
Management and Business Research, 4(2), 499-513.

249
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

Ar, I. M., & Baki, B. (2011). Antecedents and performance impacts of product versus process
innovation: Empirical evidence from SMEs located in Turkish science and technology parks.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 172-206.
Bagozzi, R. R., Yi, Y., & Philipps, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421-458.
Bai, J., & Ren, J. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity and innovation performance: The
moderating effect of entrepreneurial orientation. Frontiers of Business Research in China,
10(4), 664-693.
Baker, D., Grenberg, C., &Hemingway, C. (2006). What happy companies know. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. In G.
A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Chong, A. Y. L., Chan, F. T. S., & Sim, O. J. J. (2011). Can Malaysian firms improve
organizational innovation performance via SCM? Industrial Management & Data Systems,
111(3), 410-431.
Chrysostome, E.V., & Molz, R. (2014). Building businesses in emerging and developing countries:
Challenges and opportunities. London: Routledge.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
Das, A., Paul, H., & Swierczek, F. (2008). Developing and validating total quality management
(TQM) constructs in the context of Thailand’s manufacturing industry. Benchmarking. An
International Journal, 15(1), 52-72.
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1-19.
de Bussy, N. M., & Suprawan, L. (2012). Most valuable stakeholders: The impact of employee
orientation on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 280-287.
Fernandes, A. A. C. M., Lourenço, L. A. N., & Silva, M. J. A. M. (2014). Influence of quality
management on the innovative performance/Influência da Gestão da Qualidade no
Desempenho Inovador/Influencia de la gestión de la calidad en el desempeño innovador.
Revista brasileira de gestão de negócios, 16(53), 575-593.
Findikli, M. A., Rofcani, Y., & Yozgat, U. (2014). The relationship between market orientation
and organizational innovation: The role of the SHR practices. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi
Dergisi, 9(2), 121-135.
Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garrett, R. P., & Neubaum, D. O. (2013). Top management support and Initial strategic assets: A
dependency model for internal corporate venture performance. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 30(5), 896-915.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression:
Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association forInformation
Systems, 4(7), 1-79.
Gold, A., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. (2001) Knowledge management: An organizational
capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.

250
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

Grinstein, A. (2008). The relationships between market orientation and alternative strategic
orientations: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 115-134.
Gumusluoğlu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership and organizational innovation:
The roles of internal and external support for innovation. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 26(3): 264-277.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. The Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: Sage Publication.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
Hillman, A., & Keim, G. (2001). Shareholder Value, stakeholder management, and social issues:
What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125-139.
Hilmersson, M. (2014). Small and medium-sized enterprise internationalisation strategy and
performance in times of market turbulence. International Small Business Journal, 32(4),
386-400.
Hussain, M., Ajmal, M. M., Khan, M., & Saber, H. (2015). Competitive priorities and knowledge
management: An empirical investigation of manufacturing companies in UAE. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 26(6), 791-806.
Hussain, J., Rahman, W., &Shah, F. A. (2016). Market orientation and performance: The
interaction effect of entrepreneurial orientation. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social
Sciences, 10(2), 388-403.
Im, S., & Workman, J. P. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in
high technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68,114-132.
Iqbal, S. M. J., Long, C. S., Fei, G. C., Ba’ith, S. M. L. A., & Bukhari, S. (2015). Moderating effect
of top management support on relationship between transformational leadership and project
success. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 9(2), 540-567.
Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge
management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2),
351-385.
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing
organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership
Quarterly, 14(4), 525-544.
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of
empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective efficacy on perceived group performance.
Small Group Research, 33(3), 313-336.
Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic
review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing,
69, 24–41.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford
Press.
Lings, I. N., & Greenley, G. E. (2005). Measuring internal market orientation. Journal of Services
Research, 7(3), 290-305.

251
Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2018, Special Issue)

Lo, M. C., Wang, Y. C., Wah, C. R. J., & T. Ramayah. (2016). The critical success factors for
organizational performance of SMEs in Malaysia: A partial least squares approach. Revista
brasileira de gestão de negócios, 18(61), 370-391.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Plakoyiannaki, E., Tzokas, N., Dimitratos, P., & Saren, M. (2008). How critical is employee
orientation for customer relationship management? Insights from a case study. Journal of
Management Studies, 45(2), 268-293.
Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Becker, J. (2015). SmartPLS 3 (Version 3.2.3). Boenningstedt: SmartPLS
GmbH.
Saravanan, R., & Rao, K. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument for measuring total
quality service. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17(6), 733-749.
Shu, C. L., Hu, Y. F., &Jiang, X. (2015). Learning ambidexterity, knowledge acquisition and
innovation performance in strategic alliances. R & D Management, 27(6), 97-106.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of
Marketing, 59(3), 63-74.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1998). Research notes and communications customer-led and market
oriented: Let’s not confuse the two. Strategic Management Journal, 19(10), 1001-1006.
Soininen, J., Martikainen, M., Puumalainen, K., & Kyläheiko, K. (2012). Entrepreneurial
orientation: Growth and profitability of Finnish small-and medium-sized enterprises.
International Journal of Production Economics, 140(2), 614-621.
Zhang, J. (2010). Employee orientation and performance: An exploration of the mediating role of
customer orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 111-121.
Ziggers, G. W., & Henseler, J. (2015). The reinforcing effect of a firm’s customer orientation and
supply base orientation on performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 52, 18-26.

252

Você também pode gostar