Management Research Review

Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the mediating role of

functional performances
Jafar Rezaei, Roland Ortt,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jafar Rezaei, Roland Ortt, (2018) "Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the mediating
role of functional performances", Management Research Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/
MRR-03-2017-0092
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2017-0092
Downloaded on: 05 May 2018, At: 09:16 (PT)
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 75 other documents.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

Functional
Entrepreneurial orientation and performances
firm performance: the mediating
role of functional performances
Jafar Rezaei and Roland Ortt
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands Received 27 March 2017
Revised 18 October 2017
19 January 2018
Accepted 1 February 2018

Abstract
Purpose – Earlier studies have generally shown a positive relationship between entrepreneurial orientation
(EO) and the overall performance of the firm. The purpose of this paper is to understand in more detail how
EO influences firm performance. It adds to the literature by distinguishing performances of different
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

functions in a firm and by exploring how the dimensions of EO influence these functional performances and,
in turn, overall firm performance.
Design/methodology/approach – This study examined the relationship between three dimensions of
EO (innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking), three types of functional performances of firms (R&D
performance, production performance, marketing and sales performance) and the overall performance of
firms. The data are collected from 279 high-tech small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) using a postal
survey. The proposed hypotheses are tested using structural equation modeling (SEM).
Findings – The results indicate that the dimensions of (EO) are related in different ways to the performance
of functions in a firm. A positive relationship is observed between innovativeness and R&D performance and
between proactiveness and marketing and sales performance. A negative relationship exists between risk-
taking and production performance. The results also show a sequential positive relationship from R&D via
production and marketing and sales to overall performance of firms. Therefore, it is concluded that the R&D,
production and marketing and sales functions reinforce each other in a logic order and are complementary in
their effect on overall firm performance.
Practical implications – The results imply that the three functions, R&D, production and marketing and
sales, in a firm play different roles, both in the firm’s EO and in their contribution to overall performance.
Managers can use the findings to monitor and influence the performance of different functions in a firm to
increase overall firm performance.
Originality/value – The first contribution of this study is that it unravels (i) which dimensions of EO have an
effect on the performance of separate functions in a firm, indicating that functions contribute in different ways to
entrepreneurial orientation of the firm. A second contribution is assessing how the performance of these
functions influence the firm’s overall performance. This paper fills a gap in the literature by exploring internal
firm variables mediating the relationship between EO and overall firm performance and contributes to the
discussion on the contradictory results regarding the relationship between risk-taking and firm performance.
Keywords SMEs, entrepreneurial orientation, SEM, Marketing performance,
Entrepreneurship and small business management, R&D performance, Overall performance,
Production performance
Paper type Research paper

© Jafar Rezaei and Roland Ortt. Published in the Management Research Review. Published by
Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC
BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this
article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original Management Research Review
publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/ Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
licences/by/4.0/legalcode DOI 10.1108/MRR-03-2017-0092
 MRR 1. Introduction
One of the most widely used constructs to assess firm entrepreneurship is entrepreneurial
orientation (EO) (Miller, 1983). A firm is considered to be entrepreneurial if it is innovative,
proactive and risk-taking. The concept of EO emerged in the 1970s (Edmond and Wiklund,
2010) and has since then evoked a large number of studies (Wales, 2016). EO is found to
closely reflect actual entrepreneurial firm behavior (Stambaugh et al., 2017) and is generally
found to be positively related to firm performance (Wang, 2008).
As pointed out by Wang (2008), an important message from the findings in the
literature on the EO-performance relationship is that simply investigating the direct
effect of EO on firm performance does not provide a complete picture. To unravel the
mechanism by which EO improves firm performance, many different mediating and
moderating variables have been studied (Rauch et al., 2009). A scientific gap in this line
of research is the limited amount of studies on internal organizational moderators that
further clarify the relationship between EO and firm performance (Gimenez and
Ventura, 2005; Wales et al., 2013). Our study will address this gap by exploring how EO
influences the performance of different functions in a firm and how these functions, in
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

turn, influence overall firm performance. For managers, it is highly relevant to

assess the degree in which their firm is entrepreneurial and to understand how that is
related to internal firm aspects, because knowledge of these aspects allows managers to
make their firm more entrepreneurial.
A few studies have focused on specific internal firm aspects that play a role in the
relationship between EO and firm performance. These studies focus on internal aspects such
as market orientation (Buli, 2017), leadership behavior (Engelen et al., 2015), knowledge
sharing (De Clercq et al., 2015), absorptive capacity (Engelen et al., 2014) and cross-
functional behavior within firms (Schneider and Engelen, 2015). Although these studies
indicate the relevance of internal firm aspects in the relationship between EO and firm
performance, they focus on different types of firm aspects. Hence, the results of these studies
can neither be compared nor be combined to increase the body of knowledge on the
relationship between EO and firm performance.
We contribute to this stream of work by studying how the performance of separate
business functions serve as mediators between EO and overall firm performance.
A firm is usually involved in several business functions. (e.g. R&D, production,
marketing and sales). These business functions contribute to the overall firm
performance. We contribute to the existing literature by measuring the performance of
separate business functions in a firm and by studying the mediating effect of the
performance of these business functions in linking EO with overall performance. The
aim of our study is to fill a serious gap, that is, knowing how different business
functions in the firm relate to entrepreneurship, and to resolve the ongoing discussion
on the contradictory relationship between one of the EO dimensions, especially risk-
taking, and firm’s overall performance. We consider a disaggregated conception of EO
(Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) by distinguishing between three EO dimensions
(innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking) and relate them to the performance of
separate functions within the firm, that is, R&D, production and marketing and sales.
Furthermore, we show how the performance of these functions in turn influences
overall firm performance. This approach helps firms understand:
 which dimension of EO has a significant effect on which function’s performance
and;
 which function’s performance has a significant effect on firm’s overall performance.
 This understanding contributes to more effective orientation of firms toward Functional
entrepreneurship. It also contributes to understanding how the firm’s functions can be more performances
effectively combined to increase overall firm performance.
To investigate these relationships, we formulate a set of hypotheses which are tested
using a structural equation modeling (SEM). The results are based on a survey among 279
high-tech small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in The Netherlands. We choose to focus
on SMEs because these companies generally suffer from resource constraints (Woschke
et al., 2017) and as a result need to closely integrate their internal functions to act
entrepreneurial and to perform well (Buli, 2017). We choose to focus on SMEs in high-tech
industries because the EO-performance relationship is generally stronger in these industries
(Rauch et al., 2009).
In Section 2, we start by reviewing existing literature on the effect of EO on firm
performance and show that there are different mediating and moderating variables in the
EO-firm performance relationship. We proceed by reviewing existing literature on the effect
of separate dimensions of EO on firm performance. In Section 3, we identify different
company functions and hypothesize how these functions influence overall firm performance.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

We then hypothesize how the dimensions of EO affect company functions and, in turn,
overall firm performance. The method, analysis and results are presented in Section 4.
Practical implications, future research and the conclusion are presented in Section 5.

2. Theoretical framework
In this section, we first provide some definitions of EO and its dimensions. We then review
existing literature on EO and firm performance.

2.1 EO and its effect on firm performance

Entrepreneurial orientation was initially defined by Miller (1983) as follows: “an
entrepreneurial firm is one that engages in product-market innovation, undertakes
somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with ‘proactive’ innovations, beating
competitors to the punch”. He suggested three dimensions to characterize and test
entrepreneurship: “innovativeness”, “proactiveness”, and “risk-taking”.
“Innovativeness reflects a firm’s tendency to engage in and support new ideas, novelty,
experimentation, and creative processes that may result in new products, services, or
technological processes” (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Risk-taking is defined as “the degree to
which managers are willing to make large and risky resource commitments i.e. those which
have a reasonable chance of costly failures” (Miller and Friesen, 1978), while proactiveness is
defined as “seeking new opportunities which may or may not be related to the present line of
operations, introduction of new products and brands ahead of competition, strategically
eliminating operations which are in the mature or declining stages of the life cycle”
(Venkatraman, 1989).
It has been found in many different studies that EO has a positive effect on firm
performance. Many of these studies see EO as a singular construct. They indicate that EO
has a similar effect on firm performance in widely different contexts: in different countries,
different markets and for different types of firms. The effect of EO on performance is seen in
diverse markets, such as the hotel market (Jantunen et al., 2005) and manufacturing
industries (Jantunen et al., 2005), and the effect is found in different types of firms such as
service organizations and manufacturing organizations (Jantunen et al., 2005), small firms
(Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005; Hughes et al., 2007) and new or established firms (Su et al.,
2011). In a meta-analysis, Rauch et al. (2009) and Rosenbusch et al. (2013) found that EO has
a moderate positive effect on firm performance.
 MRR 2.2 Mediating or moderating variables in the EO firm performance relationship
To examine how the effect of EO on firm performance is realized, several authors have
looked at variables that, in combination with EO, have this effect. In their meta-analysis,
Rosenbusch et al. (2013) identified several moderating and mediating variables, such as
business size and industry. We found several articles that describe moderating and
mediating variables and divided these variables into different categories:
2.2.1 Learning and knowledge related variables. Knowledge, learning capabilities and
learning orientation on the one hand, and EO on the other, are generally found to be
positively related and are found to strengthen each other’s effect on firm performance, as a
mediator, moderator or as independent variables (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003; Wang, 2008;
Li et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2011; Alegre and Chiva, 2013; Real et al., 2014). Li et al. (2009), for
example, found that EO has a positive effect on knowledge creation processes, which in turn
have a positive effect on firm performance. This implies that knowledge creation processes
serve as a mediating variable between EO and firm performance.
2.2.2 Network resources, network capabilities and network orientation. Network
orientation and relationships are generally found to strengthen the relationship between EO
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

and firm performance (Walter et al., 2006; Stam and Elfring, 2008; Zhang and Zhang, 2012).
Walter et al. (2006), for example, show how a firm’s network capability, that is, its ability to
develop and use inter-organizational relationships, strengthens the relationship between EO
and the performance of spin-off companies. In other words, in a company that is able to
develop network relationships, EO will have a stronger effect on firm performance.
2.2.3 Exploitative and explorative activities. EO appears to be positively related both to
the exploitative and more explorative capabilities of a firm. Both capabilities, in turn,
positively influence overall firm performance (Lisboa et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2012).
The empirical results of these studies underline the important role of internal firm
aspects in the relationship between EO and overall firm performance. However, these
studies have adopted different perspectives on internal firm aspects and that has two
serious consequences. First, most studies focus on a limited set of internal firm aspects and
hence do not compare the effect of different types of firm aspects on the EO-firm
performance relationship. Second, the studies adopted different categorizations of firm
aspects; as a result, the internal firm aspects from different studies cannot easily be
combined to create an overview. The division of internal firm aspects in exploitative and
explorative activities, for example, cannot easily be combined or contrasted with firm
aspects related to network resources, network capabilities and network orientation. The
resulting problems in comparing and combining results from separate studies severely
hampers the creation of a body of knowledge about how EO influences overall firm
performance. This represents a scientific gap. The lack of overview of how internal firm
aspects influence the relationship between EO and overall firm performance also hampers
the formulation of management actions and strategies to increase overall firm performance.
That represents a practical, managerial gap.
To fill this scientific and practical gap we decide to look at several business functions and
explore their role in the relationship between EO and firm performance. Such an approach is
adopted before but was limited to single business functions, such as marketing and R&D.
Previous studies show that marketing competencies and orientation, and EO, are generally
positively related with each other and with firm performance (Bhuian et al., 2005; Keh et al.,
2007; Smart and Conant, 2011; Merlo and Auh, 2009). The relationship of EO with R&D is
also examined separately, while the relationship between EO and production has never been
examined at all. We will discuss the performance of functions and their relationship with EO
in Section 3.
 2.3 EO dimensions and firm performance Functional
To understand how EO, together with other variables, influences firm performance, we first performances
look at the separate dimensions of EO. In the first category of articles, for example, we
described how Li et al. (2009) found that EO has a positive effect on knowledge creation
processes, which in turn positively influence firm performance. We think that the separate
dimensions of EO – innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking – may play different roles
in these relationships. We therefore think that studying the effects of the separate EO
dimensions is important to understand how EO influences firm performance.
As becomes clear from literature, and as has also been pointed out by Hughes and
Morgan (2007), recent research into EO has often merged the EO dimensions
(innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking) into a single construct, analyzing their
combined effect on firm performance.
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) show the usefulness of viewing the firm’s EO as a multi-
dimensional construct. They show that all the EO dimensions may be present when a firm is
entering a new market (the essential act of entrepreneurship), but that a successful new
entry does not require all these EO dimensions in equal measure, and that some of these
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

dimensions may play a more prominent role during a new market entry. Similarly Dai et al.
(2014) show that the dimensions in EO have differential roles in entering new international
markets. Furthermore, the ability of a firm’s EO dimensions to predict its success depends
on several contingencies, for example, external variables such as cultural and industry
characteristics and internal variables such as organizational structure (Lomberg et al., 2016;
Saeed et al., 2014; Shirokova et al., 2016).
As pointed out by Lumpkin and Dess (1996), the multidimensionality of EO may result in
different relationships between these EO dimensions and firm performance. This means
that to fully understand the nature of EO-performance relationships, and to avoid
misleading descriptive and normative theory building, we should consider the individual
relationships between the different dimensions of EO and firm performance.
We looked for studies that have examined the separate effect of EO dimensions, and
found that they can be divided into two groups. The first group looks at the separate EO
dimensions, all of which are found to have a positive effect on overall firm performance
(Wang and Yen, 2012; Kollmann and Stöckmann, 2014). This would suggest that the
dimensions can be combined in analyses. In contrast, in the second and largest group of
articles that assesses the effect of separate EO dimensions, different types of effects are
found for these dimensions (Hughes and Morgan, 2007; Kraus et al., 2012; Lechner and
Gudmundsson, 2014). The results from these studies consistently indicate that risk-taking
has a negative effect on firm performance, in contrast with the positive effect of
innovativeness and proactiveness. These results confirm the idea that the different
dimensions of EO should be considered separately, which is what we do in the next sections.
In addition, we add to the existing literature by distinguishing between the performances of
different functions of a firm.

3. Model formation and hypotheses

In this section, we first hypothesize on the relationship between the performance of different
functional areas of the firm and overall performance, after which we hypothesize on the
relationship between different dimensions of EO and different functional performances. In
fact, we begin by describing the second part of our model, as we think it will make the first
part easier to understand.
 MRR 3.1 Functional performances and overall performance hypotheses
In the previous section, we discussed several studies that focus on the EO-performance
relationship, some of which imply that there are different dimensions within EO. On closer
inspection, some of these studies also imply that there are different types of performance:
International performance (Jantunen et al., 2005); Market performance and response
performance (Hughes et al., 2007); Perceptual and objective performance (Tang et al., 2008);
Innovation performance and overall performance (Alegre and Chiva, 2013). In line with these
studies, we also distinguish different types of performance, in particular the performance of
different functional areas within a firm: R&D performance, production performance and
marketing and sales performance. We understand that a firm is active in some other
business functional areas, such as finance and human resource management. Following
Porter’s idea of primary and secondary functions in a company’s value chain (Porter, 2001)
we focus on R&D, production and marketing and sales, which are the main primary
functional areas in many high-tech SMEs.
Most studies discussed in the previous section look at the firm as a single entity and do
not take the interaction between departments within a firm into account. That is to say,
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

existing literature mainly focuses on the relationship between independent variables at firm
level, such as different decisions, policies or orientations in a firm and the dependent
variable of overall firm performance (Gimenez and Ventura, 2005). “Value chain
disaggregates a firm into its strategically relevant activities [. . .]. A firm gains competitive
advantage by performing these strategically important activities more cheaply or better
than its competitors” (Porter, 2001). So, instead of considering a firm as a single entity, in
this study, we consider a firm as a collection of three main functional areas (R&D,
production and marketing and sales). This approach helps managers understand in which
functional areas their firm performs better than competitors, and in which it does not. When
it comes to different functional areas, their performances and their relationships, the most
promising concept to explain these relationships is the “value chain” proposed by Porter
(2001). According to Porter (2001), the value chain is “a systematic way of examining all
activities a firm performs and how they interact”. It is clear that, the overall performance of
the firm, is the final output of this value chain.
Some studies explore the effect of the performance of some individual functional areas of
a company on overall firm performance. Furrer et al. (2007), for example, explore the effect of
marketing approaches on overall firm performance, while Ittner and Larcker (1997) examine
the relationship between new product development practices (as part of R&D function) and
overall performance. These studies look at the effect of individual functions on firm
performance and fail to explore the relationships between these functions in the context of a
value chain. A tentative explanation for this gap is that different scientific domains explore
the effect of separate company functions on firm performance. Marketing scholars focus on
the effect of the marketing and sales function on overall firm performance, for example,
and the same applies to R&D scholars. However, as the “value chain” concept suggests, the
performance of a particular functional area is affected by its predecessor functional area and
it also affects the performance of its successor functional area. Porter (2001) considers a firm
as “a collection of activities that are performed to design, produce, market, deliver, and
support its product”. Integrated performance measurement systems “strive to align the
organization’s processes (i.e. R&D, production, marketing and other traditional functional
areas) with corporate strategy using both performance drivers and outcome measures”
(Bremser and Barsky, 2004). In this study, we consider three main functional areas of a firm
(R&D, production, marketing and sales), each of which adds value to the products in a
sequence.
 The main objective of the R&D function is to develop new products (Drongelen and Functional
Bilderbeek, 1999) and improve existing production processes. R&D has two different performances
contributions to the performance of production: it develops new products that can be
produced and it develops new ways to produce (existing and new) products. Because of such
close connections, the performance of production can be affected by the performance of the
R&D function. Sterlacchini (1989) in an empirical study found that the decline in the
production performance of British manufacturers between 1973 and 1979 was significantly
associated with a decline in the performance of R&D activities. A good performing R&D
function can increase the production quality and decrease production costs (Hall et al., 2010).
The production function is responsible for the production of the developed products, which
are then marketed and sold by the marketing and sales function. This sequential
relationship implies that the performance of production could influence the performance of
marketing and sales. Successful marketing significantly depends on the production capacity
(Ruyter and Wetzels, 2000), and sales growth heavily depends on production quality (Tsui,
1992). These three functions are closely related, and we postulate that they form a kind of
internal firm value chain that determines firm performance. Figure 1 reflects the sequence of
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

the three functions.

Based on the discussion, we propose the following hypotheses to test the relationship
between different functional area performances and overall performance.
H1. A firm’s R&D performance has a positive effect on its production
performance.
H2. A firm’s production performance has a positive effect on its marketing and sales
performance.
H3. A firm’s marketing and sales performance has a positive effect on its overall
performance.
Each of these hypotheses separately seems difficult to reject, because it is logical to
hypothesize that the performance of the three functions (R&D, production and marketing
and sales) are positively related to each other and to overall firm performance. However, the
combined set of the hypotheses indicates a particular relationship between the performance
of the three business functions and overall firm performance that can be rejected and is not
as obvious as it seems. The combined hypotheses indicate that the effect of R&D on overall
firm performance is mediated by two variables: the effect of production and the effect of
marketing and sales.
The combined hypotheses also indicate that the effect of production on overall firm
performance is mediated by the effect of marketing and sales. Together, H1, H2 and H3
therefore posit that there is a sequential relationship between the performances of the
separate organizational functions, from R&D to production to marketing and sales and
finally to overall firm performance. Alternative hypotheses can now easily be envisioned:

Figure 1.
The relationship
Value Chain
between R&D,
production,
marketing and sales
Research and Overall
Development Production Marketing performance and
Performance
(R&D) overall performance
 MRR the performance of production can be hypothesized to be more important for overall firm
performance than the performance of marketing and sales, for example.

3.2 EO-functional performances hypotheses

After developing our hypotheses about how the performance of different functions in
combination influence overall firm performance, we can now extend the model by including
different dimensions of EO.
It is important to first specify in more detail how the three dimensions of EO influence
functional performances. Innovativeness and proactiveness are consistently found to have a
positive effect on firm performance (Section 2.3), and we also hypothesize that these
dimensions have a positive effect on functional performances, although the significance of
the effect will depend on the type of functional performance. Different results were found
with regard to risk-taking (Section 2.3), and we follow the majority of the articles that report
a negative effect of risk-taking on firm performance, and hypothesize that risk-taking will
have a negative effect on functional performances, although the significance of the effect
depends on the type of functional performance.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

Innovativeness is defined as “a firm’s tendency to engage in and support new ideas,

novelty, experimentation, and creative processes that may result in new products, services,
or technological processes” (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996), which shows that innovativeness will
first and foremost influence the performance of the R&D function (Prajogo and Hong, 2008).
Li et al. (2009) found that EO has a positive effect on knowledge creation processes, while
Lisboa et al. (2011), and Chen et al. (2012) found that EO is positively related to explorative
capabilities. R&D performance is measured by the number of patents, number of ideas,
percentage of sales by new products, among others (Drongelen and Bilderbeek, 1999). A firm
with a tendency to support these elements should be expected to have an R&D function with
high performance levels. We therefore hypothesize a positive relationship between
innovativeness and R&D performance (H4).
Risk-taking is defined as “the degree to which managers are willing to make large and
risky resource commitments i.e. those which have a reasonable chance of costly failures”
(Miller and Friesen, 1978). “A strong tendency for high-risk projects” (Covin and Slevin,
1989) which shows the risk-taking behavior of a firm is in contrast with a conservative
approach which is needed to reduce the production cost, or to reduce the number of
production defects which are the measures of production performance (Gunasekaran et al.,
2004). We expect that risk-taking, in particular, has a negative effect on production
performance (H5b). As far as R&D performance and marketing and sales performance are
concerned, the relationship with risk-taking is less obvious. R&D involves investing in the
development of new technologies and products, which requires a long-term commitment
with highly uncertain results. Similarly, marketing and sales performance may involve
entering new markets, which in turn also requires a long-term and highly uncertain
commitment. Following earlier studies investigating the combined relationship of all EO-
dimensions with either marketing and sales (Bhuian et al., 2005; Keh et al., 2007; Smart and
Conant, 2011) or exploration and R&D (Lisboa et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2012), we hypothesize
that there is a positive relationship between risk-taking and R&D-performance (H5a) and
between risk-taking and marketing and sales performance (H5c).
Proactiveness is defined as:
Seeking new opportunities which may or may not be related to the present line of operations,
introduction of new products and brands ahead of competition, strategically eliminating
operations which are in the mature or declining stages of the life cycle (Venkatraman 1989).
 Based on its definition, proactiveness is more related to finding market opportunities. Functional
According to Stalk (1988) reducing the time to develop an idea, which is more related to performances
proactiveness of a firm, increases its sales volume and turnover. Proactiveness could make
first-mover advantages, and enables the firm to dominate the distribution channels and to
establish brand recognition (Zahra and Covin, 1995; McGrath, 2001; Wiklund and Shepherd,
2003). We expect that proactiveness in particular has a positive effect on marketing and
sales performance (H6). Below are the proposed hypotheses to test the relationship between
the different dimensions of EO and the different types of functional performance.
H4. Innovativeness has a positive impact on a firm’s R&D performance.
H5a. Risk-taking has a positive effect on a firm’s R&D performance.
H5b. Risk-taking has a negative effect on a firm’s production performance.
H5c. Risk-taking has a positive effect on a firm’s marketing and sales performance.
H6. Proactiveness has positive effect on a firm’s marketing and sales performance.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

Figure 2 shows how we see the relationships between the three dimensions of EO, the three
functional performances and overall firm performance.

4. Method
4.1 Sample and data collection
The sample and data collection for this study came from a larger study of Dutch SMEs in
high-tech industries. The sample was drawn from the “Kompass” database. We choose this
database because it is a comprehensive database of companies, including data on the
companies’ industry, size and turnover, which were required to select a sample from the
population of high-tech SMEs in The Netherlands. Using the Medcof (1999) classifications
criteria, we started selecting high-tech industries. In these industries, SMEs were found by
selecting companies with at most 250 employees and maximum annual income of e43
million (the inclusion criteria for SMEs, according to the European Commission). A
questionnaire was devised that included measures of EO, R&D performance, production

Entrepreneurial
Functional Performance Overall Performance
Orientation (EO)

Performance
Innovativeness (H4)
(R&D)

(H1)
(H5a)

Performance
Risk-Taking (H5b)
(Production)
Figure 2.
(H5c)
Three dimensions of
(H2) EO, different
functional
Performance Performance
performances and
Proactiveness (H6)
(Marketing)
(H3)
(Overal) overall firm
performance
 MRR performance, marketing and sales performance and overall performance. For this purpose,
we used standard items that were tested in previous studies. The questionnaire was
translated into Dutch by a professional editor and reviewed by one of the authors of this
paper to correct potential translation errors. The questionnaire, along with a covering letter
(both in Dutch) and a pre-addressed stamped envelope, were sent to chief executive officers
(CEO) of 6,000 randomly selected high-tech SMEs. To ensure that the selection from the
Kompass database was correct, we asked the CEOs to provide the number of employees and
annual turnover of their company. In total, 304 questionnaires were returned. From these
questionnaires, 25 were excluded (in six cases, the number of employees and/or turnover
exceeded those of a standard SME, and in 19 cases, more than 10 per cent of the data were
missing). As a result, the net sample contained 279 high-tech SMEs. In Table I, some
descriptive statistics of the sample are provided.
To address the issue of non-response bias, we tested for significant differences between
early and late responses. The hypothesis is that late respondents are similar to non-
respondents. To this end, the sample (279 SMEs) was divided into three groups of
93 observations. We then considered the first and the last 93 responses and performed t-tests
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

on the means of the demographics of these two groups. The results show no significant
differences between the early and late respondents (number of employee: t = 0.839, p =
0.403; annual turnover/euro (last year), t = 0.221, p = 0.826), which suggests that non-
response bias is not a real concern in this study.
As a second test, we checked for common method bias using Harmon’s single-factor test
(Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). As a result, six factors (with eigenvalues greater than one)
were extracted from all the measurement items (EO measures, R&D, production, marketing
and sales and overall performance). These factors account for 65.6 per cent of the total
variance, while the first factor accounts for 33.6 per cent of the variance. As can be seen,
there is more than one factor, and the first factor does not account for the majority of the
total variance. Together, these two observations from the factor analysis suggest that
common method bias does not play a substantial role in this particular study.

4.2 Variables and measures

 Entrepreneurial orientation: EO was measured using the nine-item, seven-point
scale developed by Covin and Slevin (1989) (Appendix 1), which is widely accepted
and validated in literature. In a meta-analysis, Rauch et al. (2009) and Rosenbusch
et al. (2013) found that EO has a moderate positive effect on firm performance. In
most studies, a single score of the firm’s EO is used, aggregating the nine items into
a single measure by taking the average of the nine items (Messersmith and Wales,
2013; Van Doorn et al., 2013; Sciascia et al., 2014). However, it has been shown that
the three dimensions of EO (innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness) have
independent variances, which is why, in some empirical studies, they are considered
separately (Kreiser et al., 2013; Dai et al., 2014). In this study, to capture the possible
differences between the effects of EO dimensions on functional firm’s performance,

Characteristics of the firms Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Table I.
Some characteristics No. employees 1 250 44.32 43.456
of the sample and the Annual turnover (e1,000) 100 50,000 10,763 12,675
respondents Firm age (year) 2 161 43.03 26.52
 we consider the three dimensions separately (see the Appendix 1 for a full list of Functional
items). performances
 Performance: To measure the R&D performance of a firm, we used the performance
scale suggested by Drongelen and Bilderbeek (1999), which is one of the most cited
scales and has been validated by Drongelen and Bilderbeek (1999) as well. The scale
makes it possible to measure the performance of R&D activities at different levels
(team, individual, department and company). In this study, we used the scale to
measure the performance of all R&D activities at firm level. To measure marketing
and sales performance, we use the standard instruments developed by Green et al.
(2008), and for production performance, we use the instrument developed by
Gunasekaran et al. (2004). Overall performance was measured using the variables
profitability and employment growth which have been extensively used in literature
to measure the overall performance of companies (Venkatraman and Ramanujam,
1986; Norburn and Birley, 1988; Keh et al., 2007) (see the Appendix 1 for a full list of
items).
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

4.3 Analysis and results

4.3.1 Confirmatory factor analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model was
specified and estimated using LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2007). For this CFA
model, we used three factors for EO and four factors for performance, so seven factors in all:
innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, performance-R&D, performance-production,
performance-marketing and sales and performance-overall. As mentioned in the previous
section, we use standard items to measure these factors. The number of items that are
specified to load on their respective factors are as follows: three items to measure
innovativeness, three items to measure risk-taking, three items to measure proactiveness,
seventeen items to measure performance-R&D, five items to measure performance-
production, three items to measure performance-marketing and sales and two items to
measure performance-overall. A full list of the variables (items) is presented in Appendix 1.
To estimate the parameters, we use maximum likelihood. The factors are allowed to
correlate, as is the error of some items of performance-R&D (e.g. between the first and the
third items of performance-R&D), and no cross factor loading is specified. We used the
LISREL 8.80 program (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2007) to estimate the parameters. Two
important output measures of CFA are factor loading and goodness of fit, which are
explained subsequently.
In Table II, a list of goodness of fit indices is presented. x 2 is a statistical test of the
difference between the estimated covariance matrix and the actual observed covariance
matrix. The maximum likelihood method minimizes this difference, and it is desirable to

Model fit indices Values

x2
1,083.30 Table II.
Degrees of freedom 488
Fit indices for the
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 0.066
p-value for test of close fit (RMSEA < 0.05) 0.00 firm’s EO and
Standardized Residual Mean Square Residual (SRMR) 0.093 performances scales
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) 0.96 confirmatory factor
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.96 analysis model
 MRR have a smaller difference, hence an insignificant x 2 value. However, for large sample sizes
(N > 250) with a large number of observed variables (m  30), the power of test increases
and a significant x 2 value is expected (Hair et al., 2006). For our model, x 2 value (1083.30) is
large relatively to degree of freedom (488) which resulted in a significant x 2 value
as expected (recall that our N = 279 and m = 33). Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) (Steiger, 1990) is a test that is used to correct the tendency of x 2 value to reject
models with large N or m. Desirable values for RMSEA (which is in fact a badness of fit: the
lower, the better) for N > 250, and m  30 are the values below 0.07. For our model, RMSEA
is 0.066, with p-value = 0.00 (Hair et al., 2006). Standardized Residual Mean Square Residual
(SRMR) is another badness of fit measure, which shows the standardized average of the
residuals between individual observed and estimated covariance terms. For N > 250, and
m  30 values below 0.08 are desirable. In our model SRMR = 0.093. And, finally, Non-
Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (Bentler and Bonett, 1980;
Bentler, 1990) are among the most widely used goodness of fit measures, values greater than
0.90 are desirable. In our model, both are 0.96. On the basis of a wide range of measures, it is
clear that the model is an appropriate description of the sample data, and the specified model
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

is supported.
The factor loadings are presented in Table III. All factor loadings are positive and
statistically significant, and they are all greater than 0.5 (the items with loading less than 0.5
are excluded from the model: PR-item3 from Proactiveness factor, Number of patents from
Performance-R&D factor and Profitability from Performance-Overall). As an indicator of
convergent validity, construct reliability (CR) is calculated (Hair et al., 2006) (Table III), all of
which are high. The high CRs mean that the measures of all the seven factors consistently
represent the same corresponding latent construct. We have also calculated the Cronbach’s
Alpha for the factors (Table III), all of which are greater than 60 per cent, which shows an
acceptable reliability of the constructs. The factor correlations are reported in Table IV, all of
which are statistically significant, except the correlations between Performance-production
and Innovativeness, Performance-production and Proactiveness and Performance-
production and Risk-taking.
4.3.2 Model specification and estimation. The model presented in Figure 2 is formulated
as an SEM. We used LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2007) to specify and estimate the
parameters of the SEM, for which we used data from 279 SMEs. To estimate the SEM
parameters, we applied maximum likelihood method. Based on the thirty-three items
(Appendix 1 and Table III), there are seven latent variables. The specified SEM model fits
the data very well. The goodness (badness) of fit measures are presented in Table V. The x 2
value (1139.90) is large relatively to degrees of freedom (500). RMSEA is 0.068, with
p-value = 0.00, SRMR = 0.097, NNFI = 0.96, and CFI = 0.96, which together show a high
level of fitness between the specified model and the data.
The standardized estimations of the parameters are presented in Figure 3. As can be seen
in Figure 2, we formulated eight paths (corresponding with eight hypotheses), six of which
are highly significant (p < 0.05), which means that six hypotheses are confirmed and two
are rejected. In Figure 3, the coefficients and their corresponding t-values are reported.
We also presented the reduced form of equations at the bottom of this figure, with their
associated R-square (R2) values.
4.3.3 Discussion. Here, we follow the steps in our literature description involving EO.
First, the relationship between EO and overall firm performance is discussed. Second, the
mediating effect of separate EO-dimensions is considered, followed by the effect of these
dimensions on the performance of the R&D, marketing and sales and production functions.
 Loadings
Functional
Variable Items* (t-values) performances
Innovativeness (CR = 0.78; a = 79%) ** IN-item1 0.74 (13.50)
IN-item2 0.73 (13.36)
IN-item3 0.73 (13.12)
Proactiveness (CR = 0.77; a = 75%) PR-item1 0.68 (11.75)
PR-item2 0.89 (15.80)
Risk-taking (CR = 0.78; a = 78%) RI-item1 0.72 (12.67)
RI-item2 0.74 (13.14)
RI-item3 0.76 (13.42)
Performance – R&D (CR = 0.95; a = 96%) Customer satisfaction/market response 0.69 (12.65)
% of products succeeding in the market 0.70 (12.97)
Professional esteem to customers 0.67 (12.31)
Agreed milestone/objectives met 0.67 (12.21)
Number of products/projects completed 0.61 (10.94)
Speed 0.55 (9.65)
Efficiency/keeping within budget 0.54 (9.37)
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

Quality of output/work 0.63 (11.18)

Behavior of people involved in R&D activities 0.73 (13.80)
No. ideas/findings 0.71 (13.25)
Creativity/innovation level 0.79 (15.45)
Network-building activities of the firm 0.62 (11.03)
Expected or realized IRR/ROI 0.74 (14.01)
% of sales by new products 0.76 (14.58)
Profit because of R&D 0.74 (14.38)
Market share gained because of R&D 0.68 (13.35)
Performance – Production (CR = 0.77; a = 78%) Percentage of defects 0.58 (9.42)
Cost per operation hour 0.68 (11.39)
Capacity utilization 0.76 (13.09)
Range of products and services 0.53 (8.60)
Utilization of economic order quantity 0.58 (9.44)
Performance – M&S (CR = 0.70; a = 89%) Average sales volume (units) growth 0.89 (17.35)
Average turnover growth 0.90 (17.55) Table III.
Performance – Overall (CR = 0.68; a = 68%) Employment growth 0.74 (12.09)
Market share
Standardized factor
0.70 (11.51)
loading for the firm’s
Notes: *All the loading are highly significant (p < 0.01); **CR = Construct Reliability; a = Cronbach’s EO and
Alpha performances scales

Finally, we discuss the relationship between the performances of the functions and their
effect on overall performance.
In literature, EO is consistently found to have a positive overall effect on firm
performance (Wang, 2008; Rauch et al., 2009; Rosenbusch et al., 2013). Furthermore, Rauch
et al. (2009) found that the EO-performance relationship is generally stronger in high-tech
industries. Because we looked at high-tech SMEs, we expected a positive EO-(overall)
performance relationship. Our findings also indicate that EO has a significant and positive
relationship with overall firm performance (0.42, p < 0.01) if the effect of all other variables
is not taken into account.
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) indicated that it is important to consider the effects of the
separate EO-dimensions on performance. Our findings (Table IV) indicate that the three
dimensions of EO all have a significant and positive relationship with overall firm
performance. The correlations of overall firm performance with innovativeness (0.29),
 Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

MRR

Table IV.

latent variables
Mean, standard

correlation of the
deviation (SD) and
Performance – Performance – Performance – Performance –
Mean SD Innovativeness Proactiveness Risk-taking R&D Production M&S Overall

Innovativeness (N = 279) 4.11 1.35 1

Proactiveness
(N = 279) 4.61 1.24 0.75* 1
Risk-taking
(N = 279) 4.11 1.09 0.70* 0.69* 1
Performance – R&D
(N = 277) 4.32 1.07 0.66* 0.52* 0.50* 1
Performance – Production
(N = 278) 4.45 1.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.40* 1
Performance – M&S
(N = 277) 4.40 0.97 0.33* 0.38* 0.34* 0.39* 0.17* 1
Performance –Overall
(N = 279) 4.40 0.97 0.29* 0.41* 0.34* 0.37* 0.24* 0.77* 1
Note: *Correlations are statistically significant (p < 0.01)
 proactiveness (0.41) and risk-taking (0.34) are positive and significant (p < 0.01) (Table IV). Functional
However, when the three EO dimensions and their relationships with overall firm performances
performance are estimated in one model (rather than using three separate correlation
measures) the model ( x 2 = 97.98, degree of freedom = 29, RMSEA = 0.092 with p-value =
0.00, SRMR = 0.065, NNFI = 0.92 and CFI = 0.95) shows all the three relationships are
insignificant (standardized coefficients: Innovativeness to overall performance: 0.08 (t =
0.51); Risk-taking to overall performance: 0.29 (t = 1.83); Proactiveness to overall
performance: 0.23 (t = 1.46)).
To study these relationships further, we decided to look at the performance of the
separate functions and included R&D, production and marketing and sales performance in
our analysis.
Our model (Figure 3) includes the performance of R&D, production and marketing and
sales to further clarify the relationship between EO and overall firm performance. While in
the base model where the separate EO dimensions are directly related to overall firm
performance, we found no significant relationship, our model in Figure 3 indicates that the
effects of EO dimensions on performance are fully captured by the performance of the
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

separate functions. When these functions are taken into account, EO-dimensions only have
an indirect effect on overall firm performance, which is also indicated by Li et al. (2009), who

Model fit indices Values

x2 1139.90
Degrees of freedom 500
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 0.068
p-value 0.00
Standardized RMR 0.097 Table V.
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) 0.96 Fit indices of the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.96 model

0.66 Performance
Innovativeness (9.00) (R&D)

0.49
(5.07)

–0.19 Performance
Risk-Taking (–2.19) (Production)

0.17
(2.50)

0.41 Performance 0.78 Performance

Proactiveness (6.07) (10.30)
(Marketing) (Overal)

Figure 3.
Reduced Form Equations Specification and
2
Performance(R&D) = 0.66*Innovativeness. R = 0.44
Performance(Production) = 0.33*Innovativeness - 0.19*Risk-Taking. R2 = 0.05
parameter estimates
Performance(Marketing) = 0.056*Innovativeness - 0.032*Risk-Taking + 0.41*Proactiveness. R2 = 0.18 of the model
Performance(Overall) = 0.044*Innovativeness - 0.025*Risk-Taking + 0.32*Proactiveness. R2 = 0.11
 MRR found that EO has a positive effect on knowledge creation processes which, in turn, have a
positive effect on (overall) firm performance. We add to these findings by showing that
similar indirect effects are also found when the dimensions of EO are investigated
separately and when the performances of several functions are considered. Figure 3 also
shows how the EO-dimensions play different roles in of R&D, production and marketing
and sales performance. Innovativeness has a strong and positive relationship with R&D
performance (confirming H4), while proactiveness has a strong and positive relationship
with marketing and sales performance (confirming H6). In contrast, risk-taking has a
significant negative relationship with production performance (confirming H5b). Figure 3
also shows that the hypothesized relationship between risk-taking and R&D and marketing
and sales performance (H5a and H5c) cannot be confirmed. It is interesting to relate these
findings to earlier findings reported in literature. Several articles report a positive effect of
risk-taking (Wang and Yen, 2012; Kollmann and Stöckmann, 2014), while other articles
(Hughes and Morgan, 2007; Kraus et al., 2012; Lechner and Gudmundsson, 2014) indicate
that risk-taking has a negative effect on firm performance. As mentioned earlier, our
findings indicate that risk-taking has a positive correlation with overall firm performance
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

(Table IV) if the effects of other variables are not taken into account. However, if the effect of
risk-taking on performance is studied in more detail, by looking at the performance of
different functions, risk-taking appears to be negatively related to production performance
rather than marketing and sales, and R&D.
On the basis of these findings, a tentative explanation for the earlier inconsistent findings
regarding the effect of risk-taking on firm performance is possible. Although risk-taking can
be seen as an important component of EO, it can have both positive and negative effects on
performance. An interesting avenue for further research may be to explore how the level of
risk is related to performance. It may be possible to find an inverse U-shaped relationship
between risk and performance. That would mean that risk-taking up to a point has a
positive effect on performance, after which it starts to have a negative impact. Similar
curvilinear relationships were already found by Bhuian et al. (2005).
Furthermore, our results indicate that risk-taking has a different effect on performance,
depending on the function involved. If production is a relatively important function in a
company, it is possible that risk-taking has an overall negative effect on firm performance,
as was reported by Wang and Yen (2012), and Kollmann and Stöckmann (2014). In contrast,
if production plays a more modest role in firm performance, risk-taking may have a positive
effect on firm performance, as was suggested by Hughes and Morgan (2007), Kraus et al.
(2012) and Lechner and Gudmundsson (2014). Finally, Figure 3 shows that the functions
appear to form a kind of internal value chain, from R&D to production to marketing and
sales, which shows the integrity of the functions and suggests firms should focus on all
functional areas in order to maximize their overall performance.

5. Practical implications, future research and conclusion

5.1 Practical implications and scientific discussion
We contribute to the scientific literature on the EO-performance relationship in several
ways. First, our study fits well in the call for exploring internal firm variables that
mediate or moderate the EO-performance relationship (Wales et al., 2013). In addition to
contemporary studies that explored quite specific internal firm aspects as mediating or
moderating EO-performance (Buli, 2017; Engelen et al., 2015; De Clercq et al., 2015;
Engelen et al., 2014) we decided to adopt an approach that includes the performance of the
major functions in a firm as mediators between EO and firm performance. Second, by
including all the primary functions of a firm, we could show how the separate dimensions
 of EO, innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking, have a differential relationship Functional
with these functions in the firm. These findings are a contribution to the notion in the performances
literature that the EO-dimensions have different roles (Dai et al., 2014; Lomberg et al.,
2016; Wales, 2016).
Our results suggest that the three functions form a kind of internal value chain. R&D
performance directly influences production performance, which in turn directly influences
marketing and sales performance. Marketing and sales performance directly influences
overall firm performance. The existence of a linear chain, from R&D to production to
marketing and sales to firm performance, has important managerial implications. First, the
model indicates that a combination of the functions determines overall firm performance.
Second, the model indicates which relationships between functions should be emphasized to
optimize overall performance. Third, the model shows that functions have different roles in
the so-called internal value chain of the firm.
We distinguished three dimensions of EO and explored how they influence the
performance of individual company functions. Our results indicate that these dimensions
have different effects on the performance of company functions. Innovativeness primarily
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

influences the performance of the R&D function. Innovativeness and the performance of
other functions are related positively when these relationships are considered separately.
However, the effect of innovativeness on the production and marketing and sales functions
is fully mediated by the performance of the R&D function. Hence, no direct relationships
between innovativeness and the performance of the production and marketing and sales
functions are found. Proactiveness primarily influences the performance of the marketing
and sales function in a company. Innovativeness and proactiveness have a positive effect on
performance. In contrast, risk-taking is found to have a negative effect on the performance of
the production function in a company. Our results regarding risk-taking add to the scientific
debate whether risk-taking has a positive or negative effect on performance. We show that
risk-taking indirectly affects firm performance, via the performance of the production
function. Overall, our results imply that different aspects or dimensions in the EO affect the
functions of a company in different ways. This potential difference has a significant impact
on strategic decisions of firms. For instance, if knowledge creations has priority for a firm, it
may focus on innovativeness dimension of EO.

5.2 Future research

Now we found that the different dimensions of EO have a different effect on functions within
a firm and on firm performance, it is interesting to see whether these findings also hold for a
more general population of firms, and whether there are other dimensions of EO and other
functions within the firm that can be distinguished.
 Currently, the model has been tested for high-tech SMEs in the Netherlands. Future
research could expand the population of firms and, for example, include larger firms
and firms in other countries.
 The study focuses on three dimensions of EO, while some articles suggest there are
five dimensions. In addition to proactivness, innovativeness and risk-taking,
“degree of autonomy” and “aggressiveness” are added (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).
Now we have established that the dimensions of EO have different effects, it would
be interesting to see whether these dimensions have a separate, different or
additional effect.
 MRR  The study focuses on three company functions, R&D, production and marketing
and sales. It would be interesting to include facilitating functions, such as human
resource management, and examine their role.
 Finally, the effect of risk-taking on firm performance and on the performance of
separate functions deserves further research. Are the relationships curvilinear? Does
the relationship between risk-taking and overall firm performance depend on the
relative importance of the functions in the company? This research would explain
some of the inconsistent findings reported in literature.

5.3 Conclusion
Managing the effect of EO on firm success requires insight into the role of entrepreneurship
in separate company functions and their combined effect on firm performance. Existing
literature shows that there are serious gaps with regard to the effect of entrepreneurship on
different company functions (effects on production appear to be missing almost completely)
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

and, in addition, the effects on R&D and marketing and sales are explored separately. Our
article contributes by investigating how the dimensions of EO have different effects on the
firm functions and how these functions, in turn, form a kind of internal value chain that
determines the overall firm performance.

References
Alegre, J. and Chiva, R. (2013), “Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the role of
organizational learning capability and innovation performance”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 491-507.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107
No. 2, p. 238.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, p. 588.
Bhuian, S.N., Menguc, B. and Bell, S.J. (2005), “Just entrepreneurial enough: the moderating effect of
entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Bremser, W.G. and Barsky, N.P. (2004), “Utilizing the balanced scorecard for R&D performance
measurement”, R&D Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 229-238.
Buli, B.M. (2017), “Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and performance of SMEs in the
manufacturing industry: evidence from Ethiopian enterprises”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 292-309.
Chen, Y.C., Li, P.C. and Evans, K.R. (2012), “Effects of interaction and entrepreneurial orientation on
organizational performance: insights into market driven and market driving”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1019-1034.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Dai, L., Maksimov, V., Gilbert, B.A. and Fernhaber, S.A. (2014), “Entrepreneurial orientation and
international scope: the differential roles of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 511-524.
De Clercq, D., Dimov, D. and Thongpapanl, N. (2015), “Structural and relational interdependence and
entrepreneurial orientation in small and medium-sized enterprises: the mediating role of internal
knowledge-sharing”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 514-536.
 Drongelen, I.C.K.V. and Bilderbeek, J. (1999), “R&D performance measurement: more than choosing a Functional
set of metrics”, R&D Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
performances
Edmond, V. and Wiklund, J. (2010), “The historic roots of entrepreneurial orientation research”, in
Landstrom, H. and Lohrke, F. (Eds), The Historical Foundations of Entrepreneurship Research,
Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, pp. 142-160.
Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L. and Brettel, M. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation, firm
performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1069-1097.
Engelen, A., Kube, H., Schmidt, S. and Flatten, T.C. (2014), “Entrepreneurial orientation in turbulent
environments: the moderating role of absorptive capacity”, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 8,
pp. 1353-1369.
Furrer, O., Alexandre, M.T. and Sudharshan, D. (2007), “The impact of resource-strategy
correspondence on marketing performance–financial performance tradeoffs”, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 161-183.
Gimenez, C. and Ventura, E. (2005), “Logistics-production, logistics-marketing and external integration:
their impact on performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 20-38.

Green, K.W., Jr, Whitten, D. and Inman, R.A. (2008), “The impact of logistics performance on
organizational performance in a supply chain context”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 317-327.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and McGaughey, R.E. (2004), “A framework for supply chain performance
measurement”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 333-347.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Prentice, Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hall, B.H., Mairesse, J. and Mohnen, P. (2010), “Measuring the Returns to R&D”, Handbook of the
Economics of Innovation, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, Vol. 2, pp. 1033-1082.
Hughes, M. and Morgan, R.E. (2007), “Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 651-661.
Hughes, M., Hughes, P. and Morgan, R.E. (2007), “Exploitative learning and entrepreneurial orientation
alignment in emerging young firms: implications for market and response performance”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 359-375.
Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1997), “Product development cycle time and organizational performance”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S. and Kyläheiko, K. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation,
dynamic capabilities and international performance”, Journal of International Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 223-243.
Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (2007), LISREL (Version 8.8), Scientific Software International, Chicago,
IL.
Keh, H.T., Nguyen, T.T.M. and Ng, H.P. (2007), “The effects of entrepreneurial orientation and
marketing information on the performance of SMEs”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 592-611.
Kollmann, T. and Stöckmann, C. (2014), “Filling the entrepreneurial orientation–performance gap: the
mediating effects of exploratory and exploitative innovations”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1001-1026.
Kraus, S., Rigtering, J.C., Hughes, M. and Hosman, V. (2012), “Entrepreneurial orientation and the
business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from The Netherlands”, Review of
Managerial Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 161-182.
 MRR Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D., Kuratko, D.F. and Weaver, K.M. (2013), “Disaggregating entrepreneurial
orientation: the non-linear impact of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking on SME
performance”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 273-291.
Lechner, C. and Gudmundsson, S.V. (2014), “Entrepreneurial orientation, firm strategy and small firm
performance”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 36-60.
Li, Y.H., Huang, J.W. and Tsai, M.T. (2009), “Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the role
of knowledge creation process”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 440-449.
Lisboa, A., Skarmeas, D. and Lages, C. (2011), “Entrepreneurial orientation, exploitative and explorative
capabilities, and performance outcomes in export markets: a resource-based approach”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1274-1284.
Lomberg, C., Urbig, D., Stöckmann, C., Marino, L.D. and Dickson, P.H. (2016), “Entrepreneurial
orientation: the dimensions’ shared effects in explaining firm performance”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 6.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking
it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-172.
McGrath, R.G. (2001), “Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight”, Academy
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 118-131.

Medcof, J.W. (1999), “Identifying’super-technology’industries”, Research-Technology Management,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 31-36.
Merlo, O. and Auh, S. (2009), “The effects of entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, and
marketing subunit influence on firm performance”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 295-311.
Messersmith, J.G. and Wales, W.J. (2013), “Entrepreneurial orientation and performance in young firms:
the role of human resource management”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 115-136.
Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms”, Management Science,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 770-791.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1978), “Archetypes of strategy formulation”, Management Science, Vol. 24
No. 9, pp. 921-933.
Norburn, D. and Birley, S. (1988), “The top management team and corporate performance”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-237.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Porter, M. (2001), “The value chain and competitive advantage”, Understanding Business: Processes,
Vol. 1, pp. 50-66.
Prajogo, D.I. and Hong, S.W. (2008), “The effect of TQM on performance in R&D environments: a
perspective from South Korean firms”, Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 855-863.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T. and Frese, M. (2009), “Entrepreneurial orientation and business
performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 761-787.
Real, J.C., Roldán, J.L. and Leal, A. (2014), “From entrepreneurial orientation and learning orientation to
business performance: analysing the mediating role of organizational learning and the moderating
effects of organizational size”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-208.
Rosenbusch, N., Rauch, A. and Bausch, A. (2013), “The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in
the task environment–performance relationship: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 633-659.
Ruyter, K.D. and Wetzels, M. (2000), “Determinants of a relational exchange orientation in the
marketing-manufacturing interface: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 257-276.
 Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S.Y. and Engelen, A. (2014), “On cultural and macroeconomic contingencies of the Functional
entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 255-290.
performances
Schneider, M. and Engelen, A. (2015), “Enemy or friend? The cultural impact of cross-functional
behavior on the EO–performance link”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 439-453.
Sciascia, S., D’Oria, L., Bruni, M. and Larraneta, B. (2014), “Entrepreneurial orientation in low- and
medium-tech industries: the need for absorptive capacity to increase performance”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 761-769.
Shirokova, G., Bogatyreva, K., Beliaeva, T. and Puffer, S. (2016), “Entrepreneurial orientation and firm
performance in different environmental settings: contingency and configurational approaches”,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 703-727.
Smart, D.T. and Conant, J.S. (2011), “Entrepreneurial orientation, distinctive marketing competencies
and organizational performance”, Journal of Applied Business Research (Jabr)), Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 28-38.
Stalk, G. Jr (1988), “Time–the next source of competitive advo nioge”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 41.
Stam, W. and Elfring, T. (2008), “Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: the
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

moderating role of intra-and extraindustry social Capital”, Academy of Management Journal,

Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 97-111.
Stambaugh, J.E., Martinez, J., Lumpkin, G.T. and Kataria, N. (2017), “How well do EO measures and
entrepreneurial behavior match?”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 717-737.
Steiger, J.H. (1990), “Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach”,
Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 173-180.
Sterlacchini, A. (1989), “R&D, innovations, and total factor productivity growth in british
manufacturing”, Applied Economics, Vol. 21 No. 11, pp. 1549-1562.
Su, Z., Xie, E. and Li, Y. (2011), “Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in new ventures and
established firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 558-577.
Tang, J., Tang, Z., Marino, L.D., Zhang, Y. and Li, Q. (2008), “Exploring an inverted U-shape
relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance in chinese ventures”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 219-239.
Tsui, K.-L. (1992), “An overview of Taguchi method and newly developed statistical methods for robust
design”, IIE Transactions, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 44-57.
Van Doorn, S., Jansen, J.J., Van den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2013), “Entrepreneurial orientation
and firm performance: drawing attention to the senior team”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 821-836.
Venkatraman, N. (1989), “Strategic orientation of business enterprises: the construct, dimensionality,
and measurement”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 942-962.
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986), “Measurement of business performance in strategy
research: a comparison of approaches”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 801-814.
Wales, W.J., Gupta, V.K. and Mousa, F.T. (2013), “Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: an
assessment and suggestions for future research”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 357-383.
Wales, W.J. (2016), “Entrepreneurial orientation: a review and synthesis of promising research
directions”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Walter, A., Auer, M. and Ritter, T. (2006), “The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial
orientation on university spin-off performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 541-567.
 MRR Wang, C.L. (2008), “Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 635-657.
Wang, H.K. and Yen, Y.F. (2012), “An empirical exploration of corporate entrepreneurial orientation
and performance in taiwanese SMEs: a perspective of multidimensional construct”, Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 23 Nos 9/10, pp. 1035-1044.
Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2003), “Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the
performance of small and medium-sized businesses”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24
No. 13, pp. 1307-1314.
Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a
configurational approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 71-91.
Woschke, T., Haase, H. and Kratzer, J. (2017), “Resource scarcity in SMEs: effects on incremental and
radical innovations”, Management Research Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 195-217.
Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. (1995), “Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-
performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 43-58.
Zhang, Y. and Zhang, X.E. (2012), “The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on business performance: a
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

role of network capabilities in China”, Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4 No. 2,

pp. 132-142.
Zhao, Y., Li, Y., Lee, S.H. and Chen, L.B. (2011), “Entrepreneurial orientation, organizational learning,
and performance: evidence from China”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 293-317.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

Appendix 1
performances
Functional
 MRR About the authors
Jafar Rezaei is an Associate Professor of Operations and Supply Chain Management at the Delft
University of Technology, the Netherlands, where he also obtained his PhD. His main research
interests are in the area of supply chain partnership. He has published in various academic journals,
including International Journal of Production Economics, International Journal of Production
Research, European Journal of Operational Research, Omega, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management and Industrial Marketing Management. Jafar Rezaei is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: j.rezaei@tudelft.nl
Roland Ortt is an Associate Professor of Technology and Innovation Management the Delft
University of Technology, the Netherlands. His research interest focuses on the different paths of
development and diffusion of high-tech products. He is the author of various articles in journals like
the Journal of Product Innovation Management, the Market Research Society and the Industrial
Marketing Management.
Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 At 09:16 05 May 2018 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com