Ganiu Oluwasegun Aina

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1.0 Conceptual Review 2.1.1 Entrepreneurship Orientation There is a growing body of literature investigating entrepreneurship orientation as a firm-level strategic orientation which portrays organisations’ strategy-making practices, organisational behaviours and managerial philosophies (Wales, 2016; Lückenbach et al., 2019). Entrepreneurship orientation provides organisations with a basis for strategic decision-making and well-oriented actions (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Do Couto & Perin, 2020). Wiklund and Shepherd (2003) state that EO was established initially as a strategic tool in a ‘for-profit’ corporate context (Miller, 1983; Rauch et al., 2009) and later adopted by the public sector (Caruana et al., 2002; Entebang et al., 2010; Meynhardt & Diefenbach, 2012; Kraus et al., 2019), non-profit organisations such as social enterprises (Etzkowitz, 2013; AlvarezTorres, 2019; Balasubramanian, 2020). Entrepreneurial management function is embedded in dynamic capability (Teece, 2007). Teece (2016) contends that entrepreneurial management involves the ability to sense and seize opportunities, orchestrate resources, and develop new business to gain a competitive advantage. Lanza and Passarelli (2014, p.430) propose the term “dynamic entrepreneurial capabilities”, which they define as “the enactment, development, refinement, and routinization of a change those abilities of the entrepreneurial team”. Lisboa, Skarmeas, and Saridakis (2016) state that exploration and exploitation capability, viewed as dynamic capabilities, are basically the internal processes through which firms deploy innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking to react to market change. Entrepreneurship Orientation (EO) has its background in the strategy-formulating practice literature that indicates the strategic methods by which firms recognize new opportunities and realize entrepreneurial activities (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005). There is no commonly acknowledged definition for entrepreneurship that has acquired general agreement (Carland et al., 2015). Entrepreneurship Orientation comprises a constant behaviour so as to accomplish the initiation of new business, which will eventually lead to the generation of a durable competitive advantage in the long term (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003). In today’s rapidly changing business environment, entrepreneurship orientation requires valuable capabilities to take advantage of emerging market opportunities and target premium market segments ahead of their rivals (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Mu & Benedetto, 2011). In order to pursue new market opportunities, managers must increase their engagement in developing knowledge-based dynamic capabilities. Managers absorb valuable knowledge, create new knowledge by expanding the existing knowledge base, and store knowledge to improve effective knowledge management, before moving on to apply this knowledge to adjust strategies, solve new problems, and improve efficiency (Wang et al., 2007). Madhoushi, Sadati, Delavari, Mehdivand, and Mihandost (2011) provides empirical evidence confirming entrepreneurship orientation that positively affects knowledge management, which includes the acquisition, sharing and overall positive dynamic capability-performance link. Miller (1983)’s pioneering work indicates that an entrepreneurial organization is one that constantly generates innovations, assumes risky business opportunities and be the market leader in introducing proactive innovations ahead of competitors. As a result, he underlines three major dimensions that establish entrepreneurship orientation, namely: innovativeness, pro-activeness and risk-taking – which have been prominent dimensions of entrepreneurship orientation that were investigated empirically in the literature of entrepreneurship (Al-Ansari, 2014; Beliaeva, 2014; Ejdys, 2016; Karyotakis and Moustakis, 2016; Omisakin et al., 2016; Rauch et al., 2009). Drawing on the definition of Miller (1983) and other prior research in the field of entrepreneurship orientation (Burgelman, 1984; Hart, 1992; MacMillan and Day, 1987; Venkatraman, 1989), Lumpkin and Dess (1996) identified further two dimensions of the entrepreneurship orientation: Competitive Aggressiveness and Autonomy. These additional dimensions have been used to measure entrepreneurship orientation by many authors (Duru et al., 2018; Kaunda, 2012; Sriprasert, 2013). Furthermore, it has been noticed that several EO related research were accomplished with the use of entrepreneurship orientation dimensions in various combinations (Soininen, 2013). Therefore, the five dimensions of pro-activeness, autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, and competitive aggressiveness were selected to measure entrepreneurship orientation in this study. Innovativeness is defined as a firm’s willingness to contribute to creativity and experimentation through the development and the launch of novel products/services as well as process and business model innovation leadership via its activities in research and development. It is important to note that, innovative behaviour does not essentially imply a radical, new to the state of the art innovation but may indicate the processes of reproducing and adapting of current ideas into innovations that are novel to the firm (Perez-Luno et al., 2011). The second dimension of entrepreneurship orientation is risk-taking which is described as the firm’s inclination and tendency to allocate a substantial amount of its resources in endeavors where the cost of failure can be very high or the outcomes are uncertain (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2011). The third dimension is pro-activeness which represents an opportunities-pursuing, forwardlooking view embodied by the development and induction of new products and services in advance of the competition. It also relates to the ability to anticipating shifts and opportunities that may occur in the environment which encourages modification in the current tactics and spot forthcoming market trends (Hughes and Morgan, 2007). Pro-activeness portrays how organizations consider opportunities within local and foreign markets (Covin and Miller, 2014). The fourth dimension of entrepreneurship orientation is competitive aggressiveness. This dimension seeks out to preserve and grow existing resources in response to competitive threats (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001). Thus, competitive aggressiveness may involve actions such as concentrating on preserving market positions or overtake rivals in markets deemed valuable of targeting (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). This dimension may be especially significant within conventional conglomerates that are driven by a powerful desire to be competitive in new markets and safeguard their global market position. Nevertheless, numerous cultures also consider competitive aggressiveness as having restricted demonstration within entrepreneurship orientation (Covin and Miller, 2014). That is, in several contexts, entrepreneurial endeavors are regarded as growing out of cooperation and partnership among different stakeholders rather than competition (Gupta and Gupta, 2015). The final dimension of entrepreneurship orientation is autonomy which refers to the freedom and empowerment necessary for the realization and exploitation of opportunities through the application of business concepts (Lumpkin et al., 2009). In other words, autonomy offers employees the opportunity to function effectively by being empowered, self-regulated, and creative across all levels of the organization without any organizational or structural obstacles that would hinder them (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Reviewing the relevant literature on entrepreneurship orientation dimensions, it can be noticed that a persisting debate about whether or not these dimensions in fact differ independently (Wales et al., 2011). As advocated by Covin et al. (2006), entrepreneurship orientation is viewed as a one-dimensional construct, created by the combination of innovativeness, pro-activeness, risk-taking, competitive aggressiveness and autonomy. The relevant dimensions of entrepreneurship orientation frequently reveal high intercorrelations with each other in several studies (Bhuian et al., 2005; Richard et al., 2004). Consequently, most research combined these dimensions into a single factor (Covin et al., 1994; Lee et al., 2001; Walter et al., 2006). 2.1.2 Innovation Innovation has a special place in the literature and is usually present in all business processes (Alshanty & Emeagwali, 2019; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). Innovation is an important research topic when analysing the sustainable competitive advantage of firms (McDowell, Peake, Coder, & Harris, 2018). Nevertheless, the role of innovation as a key factor in business performance has changed in recent years as a result of globalisation and greater international competition (Leal-Rodrıguez & Albort-Morant, 2016; Pustovrh, Jaklic, Martin, & Raskovic, 2017). Innovativeness is the firm’s ability to exploit knowledge to generate new products, services and processes (McDowell et al., 2018). Innovation always entails a certain degree of risk, and satisfactory results are not always guaranteed, although it is widely accepted that companies that innovate perform better and are more likely to survive (Leal-Rodrıguez & Albort-Morant, 2016). In all conceptualisations of entrepreneurial orientation, innovativeness is a common dimension (Covin & Miller, 2014; Sozuer, Altuntas, & Semercioz, 2017). In addition, entrepreneurial orientation and innovativeness are highly correlated because both are positively related to the success of the business (Peake et al., 2019). Innovativeness is the tendency of firms to participate in and support new ideas that may lead to new technological products, services or processes (Anjani & Yasa, 2019; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). This trend allows companies to create a broad set of skills, which are valuable tools for competitiveness (Gomezelj Omerzel & Smolcic Jurdana, 2016) in an ever-changing business environment (Ahimbisibwe & Abaho, 2013; Teixeira & Ferreira, 2019). Innovative capacity is linked to the success of the company as a result of the adoption and implementation of new ideas, processes and/or products (Prifti & Alimehmeti, 2017). Firms practicing innovativeness are able to respond to the needs of their customers (Sadikoglu & Zehir, 2010; Calantone, Cavusgil & Zhao, 2002). Thus, only satisfied customers will again purchase the products and services from the firm whose innovative practices have satisfied their expectations and needs. Therefore, it can be said that innovation leads to customer satisfaction and retention. Moreover, when the organisation is successful in satisfying and retaining their customers for the long term due to their innovative practices, this results in superior financial performance. Currently, firms are operating in environments that are characterized by changing customer demands, ever increasing global competition, uncertainty, and rapid technical changes (Droge et al., 2008). Therefore, it is critical for firms to achieve success and competitive advantage in through innovation (Prajogo & Ahmed 2006). This is because innovative firms are more flexible and can quickly respond to change (Drucker, 1998). Dynamism or dynamic environments demonstrate the uncertainty in customer demands and the unpredictable actions of competitors. Therefore, firms in turbulent business environments usually strive to innovate their products by various means in order to meet the unexpected demands of customers and to compete successfully within their respective industry (Prajogo, 2016; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). Many studies have highlighted that dynamic and competitive business environments create a driving force on the innovative practices of firms (Baron & Tang, 2011; Wang & Chen, 2010; Freel, 2005). Organizational innovativeness, conceptualized as a company’s ability and willingness to change, is an essential factor influencing firm survival and success (Calantone, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002). Thus, identifying the factors that lead to organizational innovativeness remains an important theoretical and substantive issue (Riivari & L¨ ams¨ a, 2019). Innovation takes place at the organizational and individual level and can occur within an organization or be sourced from suppliers or consumers. In this study, we focus on organizational innovativeness, or the degree to which a firm has the capability and willingness to change. That is, “innovation implies the generation, acceptance, and implementation of new ideas, processes, products or services” (Calantone et al., 2002, p. 517). In this sense, innovativeness is a firm-level concept that involves both a cultural component (i.e., acceptance of new ideas and processes) and a capability component (i.e., the capability to generate and implement new ideas). A capability component reflects the ability of a firm to integrate knowledge gathered externally (Cavusgil, Calantone, & Zhao, 2003). That is, firms must be able to collect useful external information and integrate that new knowledge into existing procedures (Yang & Tsai, 2019). For example, information about changing consumer tastes and preferences must be integrated with the firm’s internal R&D processes to adapt products to meet the changing tastes and preferences. In addition, the marketing unit can leverage knowledge about competitors’ marketing strategies toadapt efforts in that area. Research addressing the drivers of innovativeness has examined both organizational- and leader-level factors (see Table 1 for a summary of key studies). A stream of research examining the influence of organizational-level factors has identified different business orientations, such as learning orientation (e.g., Calantone et al., 2002), entrepreneurial orientation (e.g., Arunachalam, Ramaswami, Herrmann, & Walker, 2018; Hult, Hurley, & Knight, 2004), and market orientation (Hult et al., 2004; Nasution, Mavondo, Matanda, & Ndubisi, 2011; Wang & Miao, 2015), as important antecedents to innovativeness. Recently, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have been regarded as the engine of economic growth and employment. As the growth of industry giants have been slowing, the role of SMEs becomes more important. Actually, Korean SMEs have increased their share both of exports and imports over last decade, and are expected to keep doing so as the driving forces of economic growth and technological innovation (J.C. Yang,2006). To boost national innovation and economic growth, it is crucial to drive SMEs' innovation. Despite various suggestions, there is a consensus that innovation should depend on a firm's innovativeness, in other words, the capability to introduce new processes, products, ideas, etc(G.T.M. Hult, R.F. Hurley, G.A. Knigh,2004). At the outset, innovativeness was defined from various perspectives, but recently is conceptualized as ‘strategies and actions that the firm may undertake in order to actualize corporate orientation and goals. The focus has made a shift from a traditional mix of product and process innovation to a market-oriented strategic process. As for SMEs, the basic definition is same, but responsiveness to changing economic and technological landscape is emphasized (A. Hausman, 2005). Considering these, we can define SME's innovativeness as ever-changing environment-responsive strategies and actions to achieve corporate goals. 2.1.3 Risk-Taking Entrepreneurial orientation is defined as “the strategy-making processes that provide businesses with a basis for entrepreneurial decisions and actions” (Rauch Wiklund, & Lumpkin, 2009 Pp. 762). This concept is defined by 3-5 activities established out of business approach and entrepreneurship behaviours (Miller, 1983; Covin & Slevin, 1989). The behaviors comprise innovative, take-risking, proactiveness, competitive and autonomous orientation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Risk-taking is one of the entrepreneurial orientation dimension which is the degree to which a firm’s can drive its wish to take actions, even when the consequences are unknown (Kallmuenzer & Peters, 2018). The entrepreneurial orientation theory explain the reality that risk-taking is a characteristic of an entrepreneur and it determines how well the business survive. Theoretically, an entrepreneur takes some level of risk; yet, the apparent risk taking from a precise viewpoint of one business owners may be considered low linked to the level of risk acknowledged by another one (Kallmuenzer & Peters, 2018). The risk-taking tendency of enterprises reveals the predilection of the business to take risk, as it indicates the degree of risk that would be linked with a high performance of the business (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). Entrepreneurs demonstrate reasonable levels of risk-taking would outsmart in market as relate to businesses showing either high or low levels of risk-taking (Alalawi, 2020). Influences such as method of solving a risk problem (Stewart & Roth, 2001) and the ability to perform under risky circumstances affect the risk-taking ability of entrepreneur (Covin et al., 2020). Anlesinya, et al. (2015) found a significant positive influence of taking risk on profitability of small enterprises that function in the retail sector in Ghana. Hence, varying theoretical findings related to risk taking for new product, new market entry and business performance call for a more comprehensive study of the operationalization and possible emergencies of risk-taking towards entrepreneurs (Zahra, 2005; Wales, 2016). Small entrepreneurs always deal with a risky environment where they are expected to take calculated risks to proceed in a new market or investment. They employ their limited resources in the competitive environment knowing that the investment may not generate any return or even face loss. Risk can be defined as the possibility of failure or loss or other adverse consequences in pursuing some activity or venture. Risk-bearing and entrepreneurship are inseparable from each other (Altinay & Wang, 2011). Kirby (2004) argued that entrepreneurs are risk-takers and Lüthje and Franke (2003) demonstrated a higher degree of risk-taking tendency is correlated with entrepreneurial activities. Generally speaking, entrepreneurs take risks as it allows them to distinguish themselves from their competitors. In the competitive business environment that exists today, those who are willing to risk position themselves as leaders, while others get left behind (Keh et al., 2007). Taking risks is the way to create opportunity and progress. When an entrepreneur takes certain risks the competition is not willing to take, they can become leaders in their field (Wang, 2016). Kort, (2017) assert that successful leaders and entrepreneurs who are comfortable risk takers have developed a mindset around risk taking and a process by which to manage their risks in order to manage their emotions about the unknown, reap the benefits and maximize their returns when they take on risks to progress and grow. One of the entrepreneur's personality traits is risk-taking. A risk situation occurs when you are required to make a choice between two or more alternatives whose potential outcomes are not known and must be subjectively evaluated (Meredith, Nelson, Nook, 1982; in Don-Baridam, 2014). People are afraid to take risk because they want to be safe and avoid failure. But the entrepreneur are constantly involved in taking calculated business risk because they want to be successful. Recent research indicates that entrepreneurs secure higher on risk-taking than do non- entrepreneurs (Asenge, Diaka, & Soom, 2018). It is generally believed that entrepreneurs take more risks than non-entrepreneurs because the entrepreneur faces a less structured and more uncertain set of possibilities (Oscar, 2013). Sustainable risk management (SRM) is a business strategy that aligns profit goals with a company's environmental policies. The goal is to make the alignment efficient enough to sustain and grow a business while preserving the environment (Rouse, 2010). One of the chief drivers for sustainable risk management adoption is increasing demand for compliance with global and national regulations. Organizations implementing sustainable risk management generally focuses on the environmental effect of each business processes individually and then look for ways to minimized them. An effective sustainable risk management framework can help entrepreneurs and managers to identify emerging issues of concern that may affect supply chain, operations and production. Entrepreneurs in the third world countries are constantly involved in taking advantage of the opportunities and uncertainty emanating from the business environment. Palich and Bagby (1995) finds that entrepreneurs have a tendency to evaluate business situation more positively than non-entrepreneurs because they focus more on the opportunities of the situation than on the weakness or threats. Entrepreneurship and risk taking mindset are not two different things. Every entrepreneur is a natural risk-taker because avoiding risk is not the character of an entrepreneur (Mautra, 2018). Dhliwayo and Vuuren (2007) in their work, see risk taking as an important essential for the success and sustains of a business, which is based on how the entrepreneur perceive and manage the risks in their environment (Asenge, Diaka, & Soom, 2018). However, given the high rate of failure of entrepreneurship business, arguments had spurring up to question the capability of entrepreneurs in managing risks (WBCSD, 2017). 2.1.4 Small Business Development in Nigeria The notion of small and medium enterprises (SME) was introduced into the development landscape as early as the late 1940s, and the primary aim was to improve trade and industrialization in the present developed nations (OECD, 2004). The definitions of SME are usually derived in each country, based on the role of SME in the economy, policies and programs designed by particular agencies or institutions empowered to develop SME. For instance, a small business in the developed economies of countries like Japan, Germany and United States of America (USA), may be a medium or large-scaled business in a developing economy like Nigeria. Moreover, the definition of SME also varies overtime from agencies or developing institutions to another, depending on their policy focus (Etuk, Etuk & Michael, 2014). According to Ikpor, Nnadu and Itumo (2017), Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are different kind of firms that could be found in different business activities across the country. They include artisans producing local agricultural implements, the coffee shop owners, tailor shop owners, iron fabricators, road side mechanics, small transport firm, the internet café, small engineering or software firm and a medium-sized automotive parts manufacturer. Some of the SMEs produce for domestic market or for foreign markets. They can be found in rural, urban, regional, national or international level and the owners may be poor or rich. Etuk et al (2014) states that in line with the federal government budget of 1990, SMEs are defined as business enterprises having maximum turnover of ₦500,000 per annum. It also defined it as firms with capital outlay of not more than two million naira or total of five million naira including cost of the landed property. Therefore, the term SMEs is relative and mainly determined by the nature of business activities and geographical locations of the firms (Umar, 1997). The SME sector comprises very different types of businesses across a wide range of economic sectors. There are essentially two categories: those that are growth-oriented, and those small and micro enterprises that operate at the subsistence level to provide employment and income mainly for their owners and a relatively small number of external employees. Subsistence enterprises represent the vast majority of SMEs in developing countries. On the other hand, the growth-oriented type is innovative type of businesses which usually operate in growing markets, as well as businesses that are efficiency-oriented and/or network-intensive, which tend to grow through acquisitions (Ikpor et al, 2017). Therefore, from the scholarly definitions of small and medium scale enterprises, it can be deduced that SMEs are enterprises which are relatively small in nature compared to public limited liability companies. Even though in terms of capital and asset base, these can be defined by a country in which a business organisation operates, one thing is sure about SMEs; they are majorly small to medium business enterprises who does not trade at the stock exchange (it does not in any way means that all companies that do not trade in the stock exchange are SMEs) and their role in the economic development of a country (most especially developing economies like Nigeria) cannot be overemphasised as they are commonplace. In acknowledging the vital role of industrialization in economic growth and development; an efficient strategy requires robust, solid, concentrated and focused emphasis on growth and development of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) (Ikpor et al, 2017). Therefore, SMEs is the means to an end of economic growth (Ako, 2001). Thus, the intention of developing, sustaining and supporting SMEs is to increase their involvement in economic growth in terms of increasing output of goods and services, and improving the lives of the populace. Nonetheless, the obvious philosophy and idea that effectively succeeded in most developed countries has not produced the much impact in the Nigerian economy. This may be as a result of inefficient, insignificant, unimportant and irrelevant roles assigned to this sub sector by Nigeria’s macroeconomic policymakers (Ikpor et al, 2017). According to Gunu (2004), the growth, development and sustainability of SMEs, which is essential for the nation’s socio-economic growth and development is a key problem facing the Nigerian economy today. Therefore, let’s examine the impact of SMEs development on economic growth in Nigeria. According to Etuk et al (2014), SMEs account for a large proportion of the total employment growth in many countries. In such countries, SMEs produce a significant share of their increases in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while the contributions of larger enterprises tend to remain stable (Asian Development Bank - ADB, 2002). For instance, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) economies, SMEs and micro enterprises account for over 95% of firms, 60-70% of employment, 55% of GDP and generate the lion’s share of new employment. In the case of developing economies, the situation is not very different. For instance, in Morocco, 93% of firms are SMEs and account for 38% of production, 33% investment, 30% export and 46% employment. Similarly, in Bangladesh, enterprises of less than 100 employees account for 99% of all firms and 58% employment. Also, in Ecuador, 99% of all private companies have less than 50 employees and account for 55% of employment. According to Tom, Glory and Alfred (2016), SMEs play vital role in the economic development of Nigeria and are known to be the main engine of economic growth and a key factor in promoting private sector development and partnership. SMEs are generally responsible for the availability of goods and services, credits, motivating entrepreneurial spirit and repairs of second handed products. Also, Etuk et al (2014) argued that well-managed and healthy SMEs constitute significant sources of employment opportunities and wealth creation in Nigeria. While the citizens benefit in terms of employment and income, Government also benefits by generating revenue in form of taxes. This can be a strong factor to social stability. It is noteworthy that not all SMEs and microenterprises are in the formal sector; some of them occupy the unofficial labour market, which varies in size from an estimated 4-6% in developed countries to over 50% in developing nations. According to the International Finance Corporation (IFC, 2006), there is a positive relationship between a country’s overall level of income and the number of SMEs per 1,000 people. The World Bank’s Doing Business reports indicate that a healthy SME sector corresponds with a reduced level of informal or “black market” activities. Thus, managing SME sector to reduce the number of informal business is essential in the Nigerian development project. SMEs development have far reaching economic developmental impact on the Nigerian economy and leads to increase industrialization of the economy. Accordingly, Etuk et al (2014) argued that SMEs are regarded as the bedrock of industrialization. Because a number of them possess extensive knowledge of resources, as well as demand and supply trends, they constitute the chief supplier of input to larger firms. They also serve as the main customers to the larger firms; provide all sorts of products ranging from food, clothing, recreation, entertainment, healthcare, education, and so forth. They help in economic development through industrial disposal and production of primary and intermediate products. They can also supply the material needs of the larger enterprises. 2.2 Theoretical Review The major theory that is chosen for this paper is the Resource based theory RBT which emphasizes with performance of an entrepreneur in relative to its competitors 2.2.1 Resource Based Theory Some researchers have argued that the Resource-based View can be important to consider when addressing entrepreneurial phenomena, such as growth (Wiklund et al., 2009). The Resourcebased Theory (RBT) is strongly based on the seminal work of Penrose (1995), which was the first book to move the emphasis from analyzing firm's advantages of being of particular size, and rather considered growth as a separate phenomenon. According to Penrose, no optimum size exists for a firm. The firms tend to grow due to their natural tendencies to reach for economies of scale. However, although no optimum size exists, there may still be an optimal pattern of firm expansion, which requires a balanced use of internal and external resources in a particular sequence (Rugman and Verbeke, 2002). The RBT perceives a firm as a bundle of resources and the focus is on the activities it can perform with those resources (Davidsson and Wiklund, 2006). The RBT uses firm's resource characteristics to explain the existence, boundaries, and the success of the firm. Differences in firm performance are considered to signal differences in resource profiles. The RBT is concerned with performance relative to its competitors (Peteraf and Barney, 2003). Therefore attaining and sustaining competitive advantage is an important aspect of the Resource-based perspective. Barney defines competitive advantage as follows: a firm is said to have a competitive advantage when it is implementing a value creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitors. Further, a firm is said to have sustained competitive advantage when it is implementing a value creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitors and when these other firms are unable to duplicate the benefits of this strategy (Barney, 1991). According to Barney (1991), the RBT of the firm substitutes two alternate assumptions in analyzing sources of competitive advantage. The first assumption is that firms within an industry, or otherwise defined group, may be heterogeneous in terms of the strategic resources they possess or control. The second assumption is that these resources may not be perfectly mobile across firms. This suggests that the resource heterogeneity can be long lasting. According to Barney (1991), these assumptions are valid as it seems reasonable to expect that most industries will be characterized by at least somedegree of resource heterogeneity and immobility. Firms, in general, cannot expect to obtain sustained competitive advantages when strategic resources are highly mobile and evenly distributed across all competing firms. By definition, a firm enjoys a competitive advantage when it is implementing a value creating strategy not simultaneously implemented by large number of other firms. If a particular strategic resource is possessed by large numbers of firms, then each of these firms have the capability to exploit that resource in the same way, thereby implementing a common strategy that gives no one firm a competitive advantage. According to Barney (1991), not all firm resources hold the potential of sustained competitive advantage. This potential depends on whether or not the resource has the following four attributes: it must be valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable. Value refers to the resource enabling a firm to create or implement strategies that improve its efficiency. Rarity means that the resource cannot be possessed by a large number of competitors. As explained earlier, a firm cannot expect to obtain competitive advantage from resources simultaneously possessed by large number of firms, as they are all capable to similarly exploit the resources and thus implementing the same value-creating strategies. Therefore by the definition of competitive advantage, no competitive advantage can be obtained by any of the firms. Imperfectly imitable refers to the feature that despite of their efforts, firms not possessing the resources cannot obtain them by imitation. Non-substitutability means that firms cannot substitute similar resources for resources they cannot imitate. In the RBT, managers are in the key position to control the performance of the firm by utilization of the resources that firm possesses (Grant, 1991). Managers have to select an appropriate strategy in order to make the most effective use of the firm's resources and capabilities. Thus managers' inabilities to effectively utilize the resources can set limits for firm growth. This is consistent with Penrose's (1995) argument that managerial abilities constitute the limiting factor for firm growth. 2.3 Empirical Review Ibrahim and Mahmood (2016) investigated the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, competitive advantage and SMEs’ performance in Kano State, Nigeria. The study administered structured questionnaire on 256 SMEs’ in the area, Both the Pearson correlation and structural equation modelling were applied and the results showed that EO has a significant link with competitive advantage which brings about its significant impact on the performance of SMEs in the area sampled. Uchenna, Sanjo & Joseph (2019) examined the effect of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) on micro, small and medium enterprises’ (MSMEs) performance in Abia State, Nigeria. The study applied survey research design through the administration of structured questionnaire to the chief executives of some selected MSMEs in Abia State, Nigeria. The findings from the descriptive analysis revealed that innovativeness, risk-taking and pro-activeness, are the critical dimensions of EO driving MSMEs performance in Abia State, Nigeria while competitive aggressiveness does not significantly affect MSMEs’ performance. It can therefore, be concluded that EO positively and significantly affects MSMEs’ performance in Abia State, Nigeria. Hoque (2018) explored the role of organizational culture (OC) in the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and Bangladeshi small and medium enterprises (SMEs) performance. A quantitative survey technique was exercised and the data were collected from the randomly-selected 384 owners of SMEs in Dhaka– Bangladesh. The data were analyzed by using SEM-AMOS. Based on the statistical results, EO and OC were significantly related to SME performance and OC was found to mediate the relationship between EO and SME performance. Isichei, Agbaeze & Odiba (2020) addressed the mediating effect of structural infrastructure capability on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and SMEs performance in emerging economies, focusing on Nigeria. The study adopted a survey design, utilizing a sample of 377 SMEs covering the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria. A questionnaire was used for data collection, and data analysis was conducted using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) with the aid of SmartPLSv3.The study found that innovativeness and pro-activeness, as dimensions of EO, have a significant effect on SMEs’ performance. Risking-taking, however, showed no significant effect on performance. The study found that structural infrastructure capability significantly mediates the EO– performance relationship. Isichei, Agbaeze & Odiba (2020) addressed the mediating effect of structural infrastructure capability on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and SMEs performance in emerging economies, focusing on Nigeria. The study adopted a survey design, utilizing a sample of 377 SMEs covering the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria. A questionnaire was used for data collection, and data analysis was conducted using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) with the aid of SmartPLSv3.The study found that innovativeness and pro-activeness, as dimensions of EO, have a significant effect on SMEs’ performance. Risking-taking, however, showed no significant effect on performance. The study found that structural infrastructure capability significantly mediates the EO–performance relationship. Kiyabo & Isaga (2020) analyzed the influence of entrepreneurial orientation on SMEs’ performance under the mediation of competitive advantage using firm growth and personal wealth measures. Entrepreneurial orientation was adopted as an intangible resource in form of processes. A survey method with cross-sectional design was used to collect data from 300 owners-manager of welding industry SMEs located in Dar es Salaam, Mbeya, and Morogoro urban centers in Tanzania. By the aid of AMOS software, data analysis comprised of developing measurement and structural models using structural equation modeling technique. Sample data were then bootstrapped using 200 samples to determine the indirect effect of entrepreneurial orientation on SMEs’ performance through competitive advantage. Findings from this study inform that competitive advantage mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs’ performance for both firm growth and personal wealth performance measures. Karami and Tang (2019) focus on international performance within their article titled, ‘Entrepreneurial orientation and SME international performance: The mediating role of networking capability and experiential learning’. Their article examines how entrepreneurship orientation drives internationalisation performance by considering the role of experiential learning in developing contextual intelligence and networking as an important means through which firms gain complementary resources to exploit opportunities. As such, Karami and Tang (2019) provide an example of entrepreneurship orientation, as a holistic strategic orientation, being investigated as a driver or new foreign market entry. This study helps advance our understanding of mediating influences within a key entrepreneurship orientation firm performance relationship in international research (Wales, 2016) and discusses several theoretical lens through which this relationship can be viewed and examined, fulfilling an important gap in the entrepreneurship orientation literature (Gupta and Gupta, 2015). Lee et al. (2019) article entitled, ‘Organisational culture and entrepreneurial orientation: An orthogonal perspective of individualism and collectivism’, examines individualism/collectivism as organisational cultural dimensions and offers a rich examination of entrepreneurship orientation within a specific cultural context (Miller, 2011), the East Asian nation of South Korea. In this article, Lee et al. (2019) consider the effects of organisational culture, in general, and the orthogonality of individualism and collectivism, in particular, within this compelling national cultural context. This study based upon the dominant design of entrepreneurship orientation demonstrates the importance of congruence between organisational cultural individualism and collectivism to maximising entrepreneurship orientation within South Korean firms. Yu et al. (2019) offer a contribution titled, ‘Autonomy and family business performance: The joint effect of environmental dynamism and national culture’. Their study demonstrates that as a driver of firm performance, the effects of autonomy differ across international cultural contexts and task environments within a configurational model. Autonomy is observed to be beneficial for family firms within a performance-based cultural context when the environment is highly dynamic, whereas autonomy is beneficial within a socially supportive cultural context when the environment exhibits low dynamism. The implication is that the influence of autonomy on firm performance is complex, and configurational models provide insight into when autonomy is a critical driver of firm performance across international contexts. The stream of research examining the influence of leadership on organizational innovativeness has identified top management (CEO) leadership style as a key antecedent (e.g., Arag´onCorrea, García-Morales, & Cord´on-Pozo, 2007; Chen, Sharma, Zhan, & Liu, 2019; Matzler, Schwarz, Deutinger, & Harms, 2008). For example, Arag´on-Correa et al. (2007) find that CEO transformational leadership influences innovativeness by enhancing organizational learning. Chen et al. (2019) extend this finding by showing that the effect of CEO leadership style on innovativeness is contingent on demand and technological uncertainties. That is, when a hightechnology firm experiences low demand uncertainty, top management transformational leadership practices reduce firm performance. Entrepreneurial orientation can be measured at the individual level or the firm level (Peake et al., 2019; Rigtering et al., 2017). This study considers entrepreneurial orientation at the hotel level (i.e. the company level) as a reflection of the behaviour that affects the whole company (Irwin et al., 2018). This approach is consistent with that adopted in most studies of entrepreneurial orientation in the hotel sector (Hernandez-Perlines, 2016). Findings from past studies show that entrepreneurial orientation influences SMEs’ performance (Amin, 2015; Amin et al., 2016; Fatoki, 2012; Mahmood & Hanafi, 2013; Mata & Aliyu, 2014; Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009; Yeni, 2015; Zehir et al., 2015). These findings are in agreement with the resource-based theory which suggests that a firm’s competitive advantage and superior performance emanate from the firm specific resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991). Despite the importance of competitive advantage in promoting firm performance as suggested in the resource-based view, past studies have not paid much attention in studying its mediating effect on the entrepreneurial orientation—firm performance relationship (Mahmood & Hanafi, 2013). However, some studies have observed the positive and significant influence of entrepreneurial orientation on competitive advantage (Mustafa, Rehman, Zaidi, & Iqbal, 2015). In another study, Mahmood and Hanafi (2013) found partial mediation between entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs’ performance. Furthermore, past studies have also demonstrated that competitive advantage positively and significantly influences firm performance (e.g., Ismail et al., 2010; Majeed, 2011; Muafi & Roostika, 2014; Wijetunge, 2016; Zhou, Brown, & Dev, 2009). 2.4 Theoretical Framework 2.4.1 Entrepreneurial Orientation Theory at Individual Level This theory was developed by Callaghan (2009). The theory relates to the individual or the enterprise. At the individual level of entrepreneurship, the origins of definitions of entrepreneurship go back to Cantillons definition of an entrepreneur as a rational decision maker who assumes the risk and provides management for the firm. The entrepreneur is also seen as an economic actor having a driving force for economic development. Entrepreneurs are viewed as revolutionaries of the economy whose economic function is the realization of new combinations in the course of which they are the active element. The theory relates to entrepreneurs as having a higher need for achievement. It adds to the Schumpeterian spectrum of entrepreneurial orientation, two dimensions; Learning and Achievement orientations. The individual level theoretical basis of entrepreneurship has not been without criticism. For instance, the theory criticizes individual centered perspectives of entrepreneurship and argues against the need-for-achievement theory on the deficiency of the theoretical process resulting in what they call an oversimplification of the subject. As well, Anne and Karanja (2014) argue that the trait approach, whereby an individual’s distinguishing characteristics, including personality characteristics, are related to entrepreneurial variables, is often studied; according to a flawed approach. However, a number of research studies have argued the need for small firm entrepreneurs to develop entrepreneurial and managerial competencies as proper allocation of these two roles crucially underpin small firm survival. Opportunity driven entrepreneurs has various motives, such as increase wealth and independence, and a number of studies relates opportunity motives to growth aspirations. Regarding wealth motive, authors such as Hessels et al. (2008) find that there is a positive relationship between wealth motivated entrepreneurs and the high job growth. Cassar (2007) show that this is the most important factor that affects the entrepreneurial growth preferences. In this paper, we argue that entrepreneurs that created a firm in order to achieve a higher level of wealth and independence may also be as motivated to expand their firm. The growth of a small firm also depends on the type and amount of resources controlled by, or made available to it (Covin and Slevin, 1997). As most entrepreneurs provide a substantial percentage of start-up capital, household income is closely connected to the new firm financing. Access to personal wealth is a key barrier to entrepreneurial activity and a lack of personal wealth typically restricts the scale of entrepreneurial activity engaged in by the individual (Casson, 1982). Therefore, securing funding may be important in achieving the growth objectives. Additionally, high income households may reinforce the contribution of opportunity motives to growth aspiration. According to Dunn and Holtz-Eakin (2000), individuals from high income households would place greater demands for the quality of entrepreneurial opportunities. High income households may also provide fertile environments for accessing high quality opportunities because the social connectivity associated with financial wealth would enable individuals from high income households to see more entrepreneurial growth opportunities. Motivation has to be relatively stable over time in order to affect firm growth. If the small business manager is motivated to expand his or her firm during a short period of time but later prioritizes other goals and behaviours, there is likely only little effect of growth motivation on actual growth during extended periods of time. Unless motivation remains relatively constant over time until the behaviour is performed, prediction will be weak (Ajzen 1995, as cited in Delmar and Wiklund 2008). Therefore, an implicit assumption in the literature on growth motivation is that the motivation remains stable over time. References Abdelgadir, M. A. A., & Sara, M. A. M. (2020). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on firms performance of the telecommunication sector in Sudan. African Journal of Business Management, 14(5), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajbm- Ademosu, A., & Morakinyo, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (Smes) in Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria. Ceeol.Com, 17(2), 36. https://www.ceeol.com/content-files/document-978757.pdf Ajor, L., & Joy, C. (2016). 済無No Title No Title No Title. 8(1), 1–23. Akpoviroro, K. S., Oba-Adenuga, O. A., & Akanmu, P. M. (2021). The role of business incubation in promoting entrepreneurship and SMEs development. Management and Entrepreneurship: Trends of Development, 2(16). https://doi.org/-/-/2021-1/16-07 Avlonitis, G. J., & Salavou, H. E. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation of SMEs, product innovativeness, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres- Carreón, P., Capelleras, J. L., & Gimenez, V. (2015). Growth aspirations in opportunity dirven entrepreneurship. XX Congreso Internacional de Contaduria, Administracion E Informatica, October, 1–18. Chien, S. Y., & Tsai, C. H. (2021). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning, and store performance of restaurant: The role of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46(January), 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm- de Fátima Pires da Cruz, M., Ferreira, J. J., & Kraus, S. (2021). Entrepreneurial orientation at higher education institutions: State-of-the-art and future directions. International Journal of Management Education, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme- Elbaz, J., & Binkkour, M. (2013). Innovation and entrepreneurship : An empirical study of Moroccan firms Innovation and entrepreneurship : An empirical study of Moroccan firms. Https://Www.Ijert.Org/Call-forPapers?Gclid=Cj0KCQjw18WKBhCUARIsAFiW7JzcetCC4Mt62tL41_bNrm-AJpW9pFSymCUGl1nrC0CAGB9jbeam7YaAoo7EALw_wcB, February 2017. Electric, M. (2021). No Title ‫أأ أأأ‬ ‫أ أأ أأ‬ ‫أ أأ أأأأ‬. 9(1), 54–70. https://emea.mitsubishielectric.com/ar/products-solutions/factory-automation/index.html Falahat, M., Tehseen, S., & Van Horne, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial innovativeness and ITS impact on smes’ performances. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(3). Ferreras-Méndez, J. L., Olmos-Peñuela, J., Salas-Vallina, A., & Alegre, J. (2021). Entrepreneurial orientation and new product development performance in SMEs: The mediating role of business model innovation. Technovation, 108(July). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation- Forcadell, F. J., Úbeda, F., & Aracil, E. (2021). Effects of environmental corporate social responsibility on innovativeness of spanish industrial SMEs✰,✰✰,★,★★. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162(June 2020), 120355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore- Groza, M. D., Zmich, L. J., & Rajabi, R. (2021). Organizational innovativeness and firm performance: Does sales management matter? Industrial Marketing Management, 97(June), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman- Hernández-Perlines, F., Ibarra Cisneros, M. A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Mogorrón-Guerrero, H. (2020). Innovativeness as a determinant of entrepreneurial orientation: analysis of the hotel sector. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja , 33(1),-. https://doi.org/10.1080/-X- Hervás-Oliver, J.-L., Parrilli, M. D., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Sempere-Ripoll, F. (2021). The drivers of SME innovation in the regions of the EU. Research Policy, 50(9), 104316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol- Jing Lin, & Nabergoj, A. S. (2014). A Resource-Based View of Entrepreneurial Creativity and Its Implications To Entrepreneurship Education. Economic and Business Review, 16(2), 163–183. Kiyabo, K., & Isaga, N. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation, competitive advantage, and SMEs’ performance: application of firm growth and personal wealth measures. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s- Lee, Y., Shin, J., & Park, Y. (2012). The changing pattern of SME’s innovativeness through business model globalization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(5), 832–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore- Man, M., & Macris, M. (2014). Analysis of the SMEs Development in Romania in the Current European Context Affected by the Global Economic Crisis. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15(14), 663– 670. https://doi.org/10.1016/s- Marcati, A., Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2008). The role of SME entrepreneurs’ innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations. Research Policy, 37(9),-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol- Martínez-Román, J. A., Gamero, J., Delgado-González, M. de L., & Tamayo, J. A. (2019). Innovativeness and internationalization in SMEs: An empirical analysis in European countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148(August 2018), 119716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore- Oo, P. P., Allison, T. H., Sahaym, A., & Juasrikul, S. (2019). User entrepreneurs’ multiple identities and crowdfunding performance: Effects through product innovativeness, perceived passion, and need similarity. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent- Ruba, R. M., van der Westhuizen, T., & Chiloane-Tsoka, G. E. (2021). Influence of entrepreneurial orientation on organisational performance : evidence from Congolese Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Contemporary Management, 18(1), 243–269. https://doi.org/-/jcm1914e.104 Salavou, H. (2004). The concept of innovativeness: Should we need to focus? European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/- Sam Liu, C. H., Jack Liu, H. H., & Ng, Y. L. (2021). Investigation of entrepreneurial orientation development with airline employees: Moderating roles of a cooperation-competition mechanism. Journal of Air Transport Management, 94(August 2020), 102074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman- Samarakoon, S. M. A. K., & Jasek, R. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance of small and medium size enterprises in Sri Lanka. Creating Global Competitive Economies: A 360Degree Approach - Proceedings of the 17th International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2011, 4(5),-. Sidik, I. G. (2012). Conceptual Framework of Factors Affecting SME Development: Mediating Factors on the Relationship of Entrepreneur Traits and SME Performance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 4(Icsmed), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/s- Syed, I., Butler, J. C., Smith, R. M., & Cao, X. (2020). From entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial intentions: The role of entrepreneurial passion, innovativeness, and curiosity in driving entrepreneurial intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 157(November 2018), 109758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid- Tribe, M., Nixson, F., & Sumner, A. (2020). Economic growth and structural change. Economics and Development Studies, July, 58–78. https://doi.org/10.4324/- Usman, B., & Hashim, S. (2020). A Conceptual Paper Approach of the influence of Risk-taking Orientation Behaviour towards Ex-Juvenile Entrepreneurs Delinquent Behavioral Change in Katsina State, Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(9), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v10-i9/7744 Wales, W., Gupta, V. K., Marino, L., & Shirokova, G. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation: International, global and cross-cultural research. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 37(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/-