Search results

This chapter synthesizes works contained within the volume and paints a picture of where entrepreneurial orientation (EO) research stands today and where it is likely heading in the future. From the necessity for better theorizing and measurement to new directions and context, today’s research into EO is setting the foundation for future research that brings greater understanding to what it means for firms and organizations of all types to be entrepreneurial.

Today, newly founded businesses are inevitably driven to start in a digital form from day 1. Moreover, most existing businesses conceive digitalization as an important part of their strategic orientation by developing and improving their digital assets and digitalizing their processes. By taking account of this development, this chapter investigates how entrepreneurial orientation (EO) affects a small firm’s proclivity to both digitization and internationalization and their performance that comes from it. Internationalization has been a key topic for many small- and medium-sized companies (SMEs) over the past decades. As digitization is currently taking over the helm from internationalization as the most pressing topic affecting business, we carried out research among SMEs to understand the interplay of these factors influencing business performance. The focus of the research was on the precursory factors inducing firm performance as well as on their interrelationships. Using a sample of 357 SMEs, EO is found to be significantly closely associated with an SME’s degree of digitization as well as with its overall performance. In contrast, EO does not affect the SME’s level of internationalization. This result is surprising considering that proactive and risk-taking firms tend to be more inclined to enter foreign and distant markets.

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has emerged as a core concept in the field of entrepreneurship. Yet, there continue to be questions about the nature of EO and how best to conceptualize and measure it. This chapter makes the case that EO has grown beyond its roots as a firm-level unidimensional strategy construct and that a new multidimensional version of EO is needed to capture the diverse manifestations and venues for entrepreneurial activity that are now evident around the world – global entrepreneurial orientation (GEO). Building on the five-dimension multidimensional view of EO set forth when Lumpkin and Dess (1996) extended the work of Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991), the chapter offers an updated definition of EO and a fresh interpretation of why EO matters theoretically. Despite earnest efforts to reconcile the different approaches to EO, in order to move the study of EO and the theoretical conversation about it forward, we maintain that as a group of scholars and a field, we need to acknowledge that two different versions of EO have emerged. Given that, we consider original approaches to measuring EO, evaluate formative measurement models, consider multiple levels of analysis, call for renewed attention to EO configurations, and discuss whether there is a theory of EO.

The literature on international entrepreneurship offers two competing views on why new ventures internationalize: (a) the nature of the opportunity pulls them international or (b) the founder pushes the firm international. While these two internationalization drivers are not independent, they do represent unique causal mechanisms. Previously, the tools available to understand the entrepreneur’s disposition toward internationalization were limited. The present study uses the theoretical foundation of the international entrepreneurial orientation construct and from it develops and tests an attitudinally-based individual-level measure of disposition toward internationalization. To ensure the validity and reliability of the new measure, termed International Entrepreneurial Orientation Disposition, studies were conducted to: develop new scale items, examine their psychometric properties and construct validity, and demonstrate criterion validity. A strong measurement model is developed using structural equation modeling (CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07), and the measure is shown to be useful as a predictor of perceived international venture attractiveness.

Recent studies have questioned the direct relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and firm performance (e.g., Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009; Wales, Gupta, & Mousa, 2013). Following this stream of research, this study examines this relationship by identifying the intermediate steps between these two variables (Alegre & Chiva, 2013; Wales, 2016; Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson, 2006). EO is considered essential for new market entry and new business foundation, which is why this study focuses on startups. Startups search for viable business opportunities, and this search is highly dependent on organizational learning (Kreiser, 2011). Previous studies suggest that organizational learning mediates the relationship between EO and performance (e.g., Real, Roldan, & Leal, 2014; Wang, 2008). This study investigates the role of organizational learning in this relationship by analyzing how EO and absorptive capacity (AC) interact. We propose a more direct and fine-grained measure of entrepreneurial success by developing a conceptual model that includes opportunity identification as an early outcome measure for startups. Drawing on a sample of 95 academic spin-offs in the Netherlands, this study examines the mediating role of AC and market readiness in the relationship between EO and market opportunities. The findings indicate that AC and market readiness mediate the direct effect of EO on market opportunity identification. By using opportunity identification as an outcome measure for EO, this study adopts a more direct measure for firm performance, resonating with recent discussions on the main effect of EO for organizations. These findings suggest that academic spin-offs’ AC leads entrepreneurial efforts to achieve a better product-market fit, and in return, helps to identify more market opportunities.

In this chapter, the authors examine the main effect of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) – a firm’s strategic entrepreneurial posture – on balancing exploration and exploitation in the form of organizational ambidexterity. Resource-constrained firms face an imperative to conduct innovative activities, survive hostile environments, and compete with larger and more resource-rich firms. The authors contend that firms can address these potential impediments through achieving ambidexterity via dynamic capabilities, firm-specific resources, and institutional factors. Specifically, The authors review the EO and ambidexterity literatures and summarize extant arguments related to the relationship between EO, exploration, and exploitation. The authors also discuss the most prominent scales and measures of EO, exploration, and exploitation. Moreover, the authors discuss operationalizational challenges that should be considered when conducting EO–ambidexterity research and suggest future research directions by specifying an agenda outlining useful theoretical perspectives and various contingencies that may influence the EO–ambidexterity relationship.

The concept of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) attracts considerable attention in the organizational literature. Focusing on issues related to measurement of EO and using a three-pronged framework to organize the growing diversity of EO measures, the authors conduct a systematic literature review on how EO is captured and assessed in the empirical literature. Specifically, the authors classify 551 empirical works according to the approach to measurement (i.e., managerial perceptions, content analysis, and resource allocations) which allows the authors to document and critically analyze prevalent measurement practices within the literature. Based on the synthesis, the authors identify key measurement-related tensions that may inhibit cumulative knowledge development in the area of EO, such as ad hoc modification of seminal scales and lack of theoretical clarity with respect to measurement. Additionally, the authors find that research into the antecedents of EO as well as causality and temporality of the phenomenon is underdeveloped, which the authors attribute to scarce use of mixed methods. The authors conclude chapter by discussing the challenges involved in measuring EO and offering possible recommendations for future inquiry.

Organizational researchers have long recognized the important role that top managers play within entrepreneurial firms (Ireland, Hitt and Sirmon 2003). Utilizing Covin and Slevin’s (1989) conceptual framework, the current study explores three key entrepreneurial characteristics of top managers and the impact these characteristics have on firm performance. Specifically, we argue that top managers with a high tolerance of risk, those who favor innovative activities and those who display a high degree of proactiveness will positively impact firm performance. In addition, this study examines the influence of top managers’ prestige, structural and expert power on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. We conclude the study with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications of our findings and suggestions for future research in this area of study.

The literature advises managers that under certain conditions developing an entrepreneurial orientation (EO) may lead to superior financial performance. However, little guidance has been forthcoming about how to develop an EO and the impediments that may be encountered. Data collected from senior managers in 120 Canadian firms in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector reveal four sets of capabilities that enhance EO (research, recruiting and retention, building customer relationships, and decision-making processes), and three primary impediments (risk-aversity, complacency, and scarcity of capital or other resources). This study provides practical insight into how firms can develop their EO.