THEORETICAL CONCEPTUAL COMPONENTS OF STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Relevance of entrepreneurial orientation in strategic entrepreneurship

While the use of entrepreneurial orientation in strategic entrepreneurship is new and there have been several justifications to employ the construct in the emerging field of the strategic entrepreneurship (Monsen & Boss, 2009:74; Ireland et al., 2009:24), there are several reasons to believe that entrepreneurial orientation is a suitable construct to strategic entrepreneurship. Another way to justify the use of entrepreneurial orientation on strategic entrepreneurial is by examining its objective. Various studies have focused on the examination of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance (Ketchen et al., 2007:605; Kraus et al., 2005:335; Walter et al., 2006:557). The performance is measured by several indicators such as return on asset, return on investment, profit, sales growth, and 48 wealth (Covin et al., 2006:71). Examining strategic entrepreneurship is also focused on how firms are able to generate sustainable performance and wealth creation (Ketchen et al., 2007:371; Ireland & Webb, 2007b:58; Ireland et al., 2001:49). In this regard, these constructs focus on the same target. Rauch, Wicklund and Frese (2009:762.) in their meta-analysis of entrepreneurial orientation reported that entrepreneurial orientation had been widely used in examining the relationship with a firm‟s performance. Similarly, Covin et al. (2006:72) pointed that “entrepreneurial orientation facilitate growth when entrepreneurial oriented firms employ strategic formation processes that match the unique requirements of acting entrepreneurially”. This argument is consistent with the observation reported earlier by Ireland et al. (2001:50) on the concept of strategic entrepreneurship that contributes to wealth creation, which in turn leads to growth.

Limitation Of The Previous Studies On Strategic Entrepreneurship

Strategic entrepreneurship is still a new field that has not developed its robust constructs. Consequently, various scholars have pledged to creatively and innovatively select constructs of interest for empirical test in order to further our understanding of the causal effect relationship and be able to isolate constructs that most suit strategic entrepreneurship. Despite of the efforts made so far to develop this new domain, potential gaps exist in terms of conceptualisation (Shindehutte & Morris, 2009:242) and form limitations that deserve mentioning. In this view, the next sections briefly highlight the limitations of the previous studies on strategic entrepreneurship.

Under-representation of dimension of entrepreneurial orientation

These conceptual gaps of previous models of strategic entrepreneurship (Schindehutte & Morris, 2009:242), that captures both small and large firms (Ireland et al., 2003a:967), open up further research to re-conceptualize the construct of strategic entrepreneurship. In this view, other constructs such as entrepreneurial orientation, that was considered closely linked to strategic entrepreneurship, were included in the strategic entrepreneurship model (Monsen & Boss, 2009:74). However, the dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation included in the model of strategic entrepreneurship were based on Miller‟s (1983:771) conceptualization with only three dimensions (i.e. innovation, pro-activeness, and risk taking) disregarding the other dimensions (i.e. competitive aggressiveness and autonomy) as extended by Lumpkin and Dess (1996:139). In the light of the fact that the dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation varies independently based on the context and level of industry life cycle development (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001:446) and have different effects in the outcome variables (Monsen & Boss, 2009:93), this study considers it appropriate to include all five dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation in order to capture the full spectrum of the entrepreneurial orientation.

THEORIES BEHIND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

There are several theories which can be used to explain the sources of a firm‟s competitive advantage and the persistent differential in performance among firms. This study reviews four theories, namely: networking theory, organizational learning theory, resource based view and dynamic capability view. These theories are considered relevant to the nature of this study; hence they are reviewed to explain the source of competitive advantage and the persistent performance differential amongst firms.

Networking Theory

Networking is the mutual relationship that involves firms with customers, suppliers and competitors amongst others and often extends across industry, geographic, political and cultural boundaries (Hitt et al., 2001:481). In dynamic and competitive environment where future is less predictable due to uncertainty, networking has increasingly become important for firms to share risk implied by the environment. The literature points among others, advantages resulting from networking to include faster market penetration, obtaining support and resources for survival such as access to information, technologies and competitive valuable knowledge that enhance innovation capability (Dickson & Weaver, 2011:126; Welter & Smallbone, 2011:112; Nieto & Santamaria, 2010:47; Semrau & Werner, 2012:159). In this view, networking theory help to explain the relationships a firm has with other firms and stakeholders, and how these relationships influence a firm‟s behaviour and competitive capabilities.

Organisational Learning Theory

Organizational learning theory explains how firms develop its knowledge base over time and deploys its stock of knowledge to achieve performance which in turn creates wealth (Ketchen et al., 2007:379). The literature identify two types of firm‟s knowledge explicit (articulable) and tacit (unarticulated) of which most of it resides in senses, movement skills, physical experiences, and intuition (Nonaka & Krogh, 2009:635). Both explicit and tacit knowledge are relevant to opportunity seeking and advantage seeking behaviours (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998:462). In this view, organisational learning is a pillar of strategic entrepreneurship that engages on both opportunity-seeking and advantage-seeking activities to attain superior performance and wealth creation (Ketchen et al., 2007:371; Ireland et al., 2003a:967; Ireland & Webb, 2009:469). Ireland et al. (2001:57) identifies four stages the learning process goes through: information acquisition, information dissemination, information sharing/interpretation, and organisational memory/storage. This implies that market orientation provides a good base of learning process since it covers all four stages of the learning process (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990:3).

READ  Basic mechanisms leading to in vitro protein aggregation

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

  • ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • LIST OF FIGURE
  • LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
  • CHAPTER LAYOUT – CHAPTER ONE
  • CHAPTER ONE
    • 1 BACKGROUND AND ORIENTATION OF THE PROBLEM
    • 1.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
    • 1.3 IMPORTANCE AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
    • 1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
    • 1.5 DEFINITION OF TERMS
    • 1.6 LAYOUT OF THE STUDY
    • 1.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER LAYOUT – CHAPTER TWO
  • CHAPTER TWO
    • 2 EVOLUTION OF STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP
    • 2.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 2.2 DYNAMIC BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
      • 2.2.1 Dimensions Of External Environment
      • 2.2.2 Environmental Impacts On A Firm‟s Performance
      • 2.2.3 Strategic Posture As A Response To Environmental Dynamic
    • 2.3 EVOLUTION OF STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP
    • 2.3.1 Concept Of Strategy
    • 2.3.1.3 Strategic Management
      • 2.3.2 Role Of Entrepreneurship
      • 2.3.3 Distinct Nature Of Strategic Entrepreneurship
    • 2.4 THEORETICAL CONCEPTUAL COMPONENTS OF STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP
      • 2.4.1 Entrepreneurial Orientation As Antecedent Of Strategic Entrepreneurship
      • 2.4.2 Limitation Of The Previous Studies On Strategic Entrepreneurship
    • 2.5 THEORIES BEHIND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
      • 2.5.1 Networking Theory
      • 2.5.2 Organisational Learning Theory
      • 2.5.3 Resource Based View
      • 2.5.4 Dynamic Capabilities Theory
    • 2.6 FILLING THE CONCEPTUAL GAP OF STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP
    • 2.6.1 Extending The Dimensions Of Entrepreneurial Orientation
    • 2.6.2 Bridging Opportunity And Advantage Seeking Behaviours With Market Orientation
    • 2.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER LAYOUT – CHAPTER THREE
  • CHAPTER THREE
    • 3 STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURIAL RESPONSE
    • 3.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 3.2 STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURIAL RESPONSE
    • 3.3 MARKET ORIENTATION
      • 3.3.1 Behavioural Perspective Of Market Orientation
      • 3.3.2 Cultural Perspective Of Market Orientation
      • 3.3.3 Association Of Market Orientation And Performance
      • 3.3.4 Moderating Effect On Relationship Between Market Orientation And Performance
      • 3.3.5 Influence Of Environment
    • 3.4 ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION
    • 3.4.1 Dimensions Of Entrepreneurial Orientation
    • 3.4.2 Association Of Entrepreneurial Orientation And Performance
    • 3.4.3 Interaction Effect On Entrepreneurial Orientation
    • 3.5 NETWORKING
      • 3.5.1 Influence Of Networking On Performance
      • 3.5.2 Networking Capability
    • 3.6 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
    • 3.6.1 Strategic Entrepreneurial Response And SME Performance
    • 3.6.2 Interaction Of Dimensions Of Strategic Entrepreneurial Response
    • 3.7 INDICATORS OF PERFORMANCE
    • 3.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER LAYOUT – CHAPTER FOUR
  • CHAPTER FOUR
    • 4 OVERVIEW OF SME AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN TANZANIA
    • 4.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 4.2 RESEARCH SETTINGS
      • 4.2.1 Location Of Tanzania
      • 4.2.2 Population Of Tanzania
      • 4.2.3 Study Regions In Tanzania
    • 4.3 TREND OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN TANZANIA
      • 4.3.1 Socio-Economic And Political Development
      • 4.3.2 Economic Turbulence And Impact On Business Performance
      • 4.3.3 Initiatives Toward Economic Liberalisation
      • 4.3.4 Adoption Of IMF And WB Sponsored Programs
    • 4.4 ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN TANZANIA
      • 4.4.1 Period Before Colonial Invasion
      • 4.4.2 Colonial Domination
      • 4.4.3 Development Strategy After Independence
    • 4.5 SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT IN TANZANIA
    • 4.5.1 Definition Of SME In Tanzania
    • 4.5.2 Structure And Characteristics Of SMEs In Tanzania
    • 4.6 Roles Of SME In Socio-Economic Development
    • 4.6.1 SME Support Strategies In Tanzania
    • 4.6.2 Challenges Facing SMEs In Tanzania
    • 4.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER LAYOUT – CHAPTER FIVE
  • CHAPTER FIVE
    • 5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
    • 5.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 5.1.1 Motivation Behind This Study
    • 5.1.2 Research Objectives
    • 5.1.3 Proposition And Hypotheses
    • 5.2 CONSTRUCTS USED IN THE STUDY
    • 5.3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE
    • 5.3.1 Research Design
    • 5. 3.2 Sampling Procedure
    • 5.4 DATA COLLECTION
    • 5.5 MEASUREMENTS
    • 5.5.1 Measurement of Strategic Entrepreneurial Response
    • 5.5.2 Measurement Of Performance
    • 5.5.3 Measurement Of Control Variables
    • 5.6 INTEGRITY OF RESEARCH
      • 5.6.1 Reliability Of The Measurement Instrument
      • 5.6.2 Validity Of The Measurement Instrument
      • 5.6.3 Practicality Of The Measurement Instrument
    • 5.7 STRUCTURE OF QUESTIONNAIRE
    • 5.7.1 Biographical Information
    • 5.7.2 Items of Strategic Entrepreneurial Response (SER)
    • 5.7.3 Items of Performance Measures
    • 5.8 DATA ANALYSIS
      • 5.8.1 Descriptive Statistics
      • 5.8.2 Inferential Statistics
      • 5.8.3 Assumptions of Regression
    • 5.9 HYPOTHESES TESTING
    • 5.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER LAYOUT – CHAPTER SIX
  • CHAPTER SIX
    • 6 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
    • 6.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 6.2 EMPIRICAL RESULTS
    • 6.2.1 Demographic Data
    • 6.2.2 Factor Analysis
    • 6.2.3 Pearson Correlation
    • 6.2.4 Multiway Analysis Of Variance
    • 6.2.5 Multiple Regression Analysis
    • 6.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER LAYOUT – CHAPTER SEVEN
  • CHAPTER SEVEN
    • 7 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
    • 7.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 7.2 EMPIRICAL RESULTS
      • 7.2.1 Measurement Of Strategic Entrepreneurial Response
      • 7.2.2 Relationship Between Individual Dimensions Of SER And SME Performance
      • 7.2.3 Relationship Between Composite Dimensions Of SER And SME Performance
      • 7.2.4 Amount Of Variance Explained In SME Performance
      • 7.2.5 Control The Influence Of Firm Size, Type Of Industry And Level Of Education
      • 7.2.6 Best Predictor Of SME Performance
  • CHAPTER LAYOUT – CHAPTER EIGHT
  • CHAPTER EIGHT
    • 8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    • 8.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 8.2 CONCLUSION
      • 8.2.1 Limitations Of The Study
      • 8.2.2 Strategic Implication Of The Findings
    • 8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
    • 8.3.1 Future Research
      • 8.3.2 Policy Makers
      • 8.3.3 Practitioners
    • 8.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
    • REFERENCES

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURIAL RESPONSE OF SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES

Related Posts