See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/297754576

The effect of market orientation as a mediating variable in the relationship

between entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs performance

Article · March 2016

DOI: 10.1108/NBRI-08-2015-0019

CITATIONS READS

28 601

4 authors, including:

Muslim Amin T. Ramayah

King Saud University Universiti Sains Malaysia
39 PUBLICATIONS   1,130 CITATIONS    544 PUBLICATIONS   8,253 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aznur Kaswuri
University of Malaya
3 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Doctoral Degree View project

Farida Veerankutty View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muslim Amin on 21 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nankai Business Review International
The effect of market orientation as a mediating variable in the relationship
between entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs performance
Muslim Amin Ramayah Thurasamy Abdullah M. Aldakhil Aznur Hafeez Bin Kaswuri
Article information:
To cite this document:
Muslim Amin Ramayah Thurasamy Abdullah M. Aldakhil Aznur Hafeez Bin Kaswuri , (2016),"The
effect of market orientation as a mediating variable in the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and SMEs performance", Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 39 - 59
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NBRI-08-2015-0019
Downloaded on: 20 March 2016, At: 21:47 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 115 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 90 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Hassan Saleh Al-Dhaafri , Abdullah Kaid Al-Swidi, Rushami Zien Bin Yusoff, (2016),"The
mediating role of total quality management between the entrepreneurial orientation and the
organizational performance", The TQM Journal, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 89-111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
TQM-03-2014-0033
Sami Kajalo, Arto Lindblom, (2015),"Market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and business
performance among small retailers", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 43 Iss 7 pp. 580-596 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04-2014-0044
Deniz Kantur, (2016),"Strategic entrepreneurship: mediating the entrepreneurial orientation-
performance link", Management Decision, Vol. 54 Iss 1 pp. 24-43 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
MD-11-2014-0660

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:355266 []
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.
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8749.htm

The effect of market orientation Effect of

market
as a mediating variable in the orientation

relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation and 39

SMEs performance
Muslim Amin
Management Department, College of Business Administration,
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Ramayah Thurasamy
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Penang, Malaysia
Abdullah M. Aldakhil
Management Department, College of Business Administration,
King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and
Aznur Hafeez Bin Kaswuri
International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Interntional Campus, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine the effect of market orientation (MO) as a mediating variable in
the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and small and medium enterprises (SMEs)’
performance.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 500 SMEs in the manufacturing industry of food and
beverages were involved in this study with a response rate of 117. Data collection was conducted
in all states of Peninsular Malaysia including the northern, central, southern and eastern regions.
Findings – The findings show that EO has a significant relationship with MO, and MO has a
significant relationship with SME performance. MO will mediate the relationship between EO and
SMEs’ performance.
Practical implications – The higher the EO implemented in a business, the more willing a company
will be to implement MO. This analysis shows that highly entrepreneurial firms tend to be highly
market orientated and this affects SMEs’ performance.
Originality/value – The results of this study show that the characteristic of entrepreneurial and MO
practiced by SMEs in Malaysia has been significantly affected the SMEs’ performance. It indicates that
EO offers a holistic and systematic model for supporting SMEs to build a well-maintained environment Nankai Business Review
International
of MO and SMEs’ performance. Vol. 7 No. 1, 2016
pp. 39-59
Keywords Performance, SMEs, Entrepreneurial orientation, Market orientation © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8749
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/NBRI-08-2015-0019
 NBRI 1. Introduction
7,1 In Malaysia, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) consist of three sub-sectors: general
business (services), manufacturing and agriculture (National SME Development
Council, 2010). In this context, SMEs are defined based on three criteria: micro
enterprise, small enterprise and SME. A micro enterprise is defined as a firm with
annual sales turnover of RM 250,000, with less than five full-time employees. A small
40 enterprise is defined as a company with annual sales turnover of RM 250,000 to less than
RM 10 million with minimum 5 and maximum 50 full-time employees. Meanwhile, an
SME is defined based on sales turnover between RM 10-RM 25 million, and between 51
and 150 full-time employees (National SME Development Council, 2010). Consequently,
SMEs represent the backbone of the local economies in Malaysia, and SMEs are
recognized as engines of economic growth behind Malaysia’s industrial development.
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

For example, SMEs accounted for 99.2 per cent of all business establishments,
contributed 32 per cent of real gross domestic product (GDP) and 19 per cent of exports
(Zuraidah and Gerry, 2010; National SME Development Council, 2010).
Even though SMEs are an important entity of economic growth in many countries,
the contribution of SMEs to the Malaysian economy is relatively low compared to
industrial countries and other developing nations. For example, SMEs in Singapore and
Thailand contribute 49 and 38 per cent of the nations’ GDP, respectively, compared to 31
per cent for Malaysian SMEs (National SME Development Council, 2010). To respond to
the economic downturn in 2009, the Malaysian Government commenced several policies
and initiatives to stimulate SME activities. At the end of July 2010, 65 per cent of RM 15.6
billion fund was allocated to SMEs through two stimulus packages introduced by the
Government, which benefited about 79,000 SMEs (National SME Development Council,
2010). The Government, through the New Economic Model and Tenth Malaysia Plan,
had given the priority to unleash the available potential of SMEs (National SME
Development Council, 2010). As a result, SMEs are expected to increase in
competitiveness and be resilient to the changing environment of business.
A case study research conducted by the Central Bank of Malaysia (2003) identified
ten critical success factor and common issues of Malaysian SMEs. Among the critical
success factors identified include entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation
(MO). These factors were also recognized as crucial elements to generate global
competitiveness among SMEs in Malaysia. The fundamental issue is how to be
successful SMEs. In response to this question, significant research studies have
identified the critical factors for SMEs’ performance (El Makrini, 2015; Fernández-Mesa
and Alegre, 2015; Ferreira et al., 2015; Rodríguez-Gutiérrez et al., 2015). For example,
Rauch et al. (2009) explain that the relationship between EO and firm performance is
significant, but MO also plays a significant role in enhancing SMEs’ performance (Jia
et al., 2014; Li et al., 2008; Real et al., 2012; Wang, 2008; Zhang et al., 2015). Previous
research on MO and firm performance mostly has been validated in Europe and North
America using MARKOR (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990) and MKTOR (Narver and Slater,
1990) measurement scales, and it is likely that the cultural difference of organizations
will influence its applicability in the Malaysian context. As Lee and Peterson (2001)
point out that EO is more compatible with certain cultures than others, and cultural
values will congregate with a society’s ability to develop a strong EO. Additionally,
Chao and Spillan (2010) suggested that MO scales developed in one country may capture
MO sentiments in another country. In this regard, the different EO constructs and firm
 performance scales of different industries may also differ from one country to another Effect of
(Ferreira et al., 2015). To accomplish this gap, relevant items from EO, MO and SMEs’ market
performance scales are adapted and incorporated. In addition, we address MO as a
mediating variable in the relationship between EO and SMEs’ performance. In this
orientation
study, EO is related to the propensity of a company’s top management to take risky
action, be innovative and proactive (Ferreira et al., 2015; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996;
Morris and Paul, 1987; Morris et al., 2002; Oparaocha, 2015). MO, on the other hand, 41
could enhance firm performance by satisfying customer’s needs and by facilitating
sharing of competitor’s information and interfunctional coordination (González-Benito
et al., 2009; Narver and Slater, 1990). This approach is more appropriate and emphasizes
on small firms rather than big firms. As suggested by Chen et al. (2015), these MO
dimensions are more focused on fundamental characteristics of a market-oriented firm
than behavior perspective. This study is intended to examine the application of EO and
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

MO in Malaysian SMEs. It is also expected to give exposure to the SME managers for
implementation of EO and MO in their business. The study was guided by major
research questions as follows:
RQ1. Do the EO dimensions of SMEs play a role in improving its MO?
RQ2. Does the MO play a role in improving SMEs’ performance?

2. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1. Entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation
EO was first developed and defined by Miller (1983) and Miller and Friesen (1983) and,
subsequently, many researchers have used and further developed these definitions
across industries, countries and cultures. For example, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
defined EO as a process, practice and a decision-making activity that leads to a new
entry. It emerges from a strategic-choice perspective that new entry opportunities will
be successfully implemented by purposeful enactment (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995) and
largely driven by unexploited market opportunities (Abebe, 2014). In contrast, a
successful new entry may also be achieved when only some of these factors are
operating (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). In this definition, Miller (1983) suggests that EO
has three dimensions, namely, innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness. However,
there is no consensus in the literature concerning the dimensionality of EO (Martin and
Javalgi, 2015). Researchers have claimed that EO is a one-dimensional construct (Covin
and Slevin, 1989; Covin and Wales, 2012; Knight, 2000). Another argument described
that EO is a multidimensional construct in which risk-taking, innovativeness,
proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness and autonomy are treated as independent
behavioral dimensions (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Other literature also suggested
similar dimensions of EO as Miller (1983) included Covin and Miller (2014), Ferreira et al.
(2015), Kreiser et al. (2013), 2010, Kropp et al. (2006), Lee and Lim (2009), Lumpkin and
Dess (1996) and Obschonka et al. (2010).
Although, all EO dimensions are interconnected, the dimension of EO may vary
independently (George and Marino, 2011; Larsen and Korneliussen, 2012; Wang, 2008),
depending on the environmental, organizational and cultural contexts when a firm
engages in a new entry (González-Benito et al., 2009; Knight, 1997; Rauch et al., 2009;
Zhao et al., 2011). For example, Kemelgor (2002) concludes that EO is characterized by
cultural differences, and that there are significant differences in the intensity of EO
 NBRI between firms in the USA and The Netherlands. For this reason, numerous scholars
7,1 have consensus to measure EO based on innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness
dimensions (Abebe, 2014; Amin, 2015; George and Marino, 2011; Kreiser et al., 2013,
2010; Oly Ndubisi and Iftikhar, 2012; Semrau et al., 2015). In line with these definitions,
EO refers to the willingness of a firm to be innovative to rejuvenate market offerings,
take risks to try out new and uncertain products, services and markets, and be more
42 proactive than competitors toward new marketplace opportunities (Lumpkin and Dess,
1996; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005; Zahra and Covin, 1995). In this context,
innovativeness refers to the degree to which a firm engages in and embraces new ideas,
novelty, experimentation and creativity that may lead to new products, markets,
services or processes (Kjellberg et al., 2015; Lily and Hartini, 2010; Lumpkin and Dess,
1996; Wang, 2008). In addition (Lumpkin and Dess (1996) found that firm proactiveness
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

was related to market opportunities in the process of new entry, seizing of initiative and
acting opportunistically to shape the environment (Gunawan et al., 2015; Knight, 2000;
Knight and Cavusgil, 2004). Risk-taking refers to bold moves into unknown business
areas and/or the commitment of significant resources to business activities under
conditions of uncertainty (Chang and Chen, 1998; Gunawan et al., 2015; Lumpkin and
Dess, 1996). Therefore, EO is classified as a critical organizational process that helps a
firm to survive and improve its organizational performance (Khalili et al., 2013; Miller,
1983; Tajeddini et al., 2006).
Prominent entrepreneurship scholars argued that innovation, proactiveness and
risk-taking are constitutive elements of entrepreneurship (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).
Some empirical studies have found that firms demonstrating more entrepreneurial
strategic orientation will perform better (Chen and Hsu, 2013; Kraus et al., 2012; Kreiser
et al., 2010; Matsuno et al., 2002; Merlo and Auh, 2009; Naldi et al., 2007; Nasution et al.,
2011; Ndubisi and Agarwal, 2014; Rauch et al., 2009), and may even lead to poor
performance under certain conditions (Slater and Narver, 2000). For example, Eggers
et al. (2013) examine the effect of EO dimensions on SMEs’ performance and they found
that EO has significantly generated return to SMEs’ performance. Additionally, Jalali
et al. (2014) conducted a survey on SMEs’ performance in Iran and found that EO has a
significant effect in increasing SMEs’ profitability. Interestingly, Amin (2015) found
that EO dimensions (innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking) play a significant
role in enhancing SMEs’ performance in Malaysia. As a result, the innovative mindset of
SMEs’ managers will significantly increase an SME’s propensity to participate and
develop a networking to take advantage of new opportunities (Baron and Tang, 2011;
Brettel and Rottenberger, 2013; Keh et al., 2007; Khalili et al., 2013; Nasution et al., 2011;
Sciascia et al., 2014). In fact, SMEs need to have a high degree of proactiveness to enter
a new market (Engelen et al., 2014; Kraus et al., 2012; Kreiser et al., 2013; Rothaermel and
Alexandre, 2009), and the willingness to engage in risky activities (Franco and Haase,
2013; Wales et al., 2011, 2013) will enhance SMEs’ performance.
Although, EO have a significant impact on firm performance (Hu and Zhang, 2012;
Rauch et al., 2009), however, this relationship requires a further analysis to identify
others factors that affect this relationship. The effect of EO on firm performance is not
only influenced by firm size and national culture (Rauch et al., 2009), but MO may also
play a significant role in enhancing firm performance (Baker and Sinkula, 2009; Li et al.,
2008; Matsuno et al., 2002; Real et al., 2012; Wang, 2008). In this situation,
entrepreneurship and MO are complementary orientations; therefore, entrepreneurship
 needs an MO to target its innovative actions effectively in the market, and MO needs Effect of
entrepreneurship to achieve fast responses to market prospects (González-Benito et al., market
2009). In addition, Baker and Sinkula (2009) reports that there is strong relationship
between EO and MO, and the relationship between EO and SMEs’ performance
orientation
mediated by MO. In this respect, Hult et al. (2005) concluded that MO occurs especially
at the level of corporate culture, and this relationship will impact firm performance.
Therefore, the potential effects of EO on marketing orientation could emphasize better 43
SME performance. Thus, the following hypotheses are:
H1. Entrepreneurship orientation has a significant relationship with market
orientation.
H2. Market orientation will mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and SMEs’ performance.
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

2.2. Market orientation and small and medium enterprises’ performance

Kohli and Jaworski (1990) defined MO as the set of activities, processes and behaviors
derived from the implementation of the marketing concepts. In this definition, Kohli and
Jaworski (1990) defined MO construct into three components: intelligence generation,
intelligence dissemination and responsiveness, and called these as MARKOR
dimensions. Market intelligence refers to the ability of firms in identifying and assessing
customer wants and needs in the future. Intelligence dissemination refers to the process
and level of market information distribution inside organizations formally and
informally. Responsiveness is action taken in response to intelligence that is created and
disseminated in assessing market situations (Filieri, 2015; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990;
Kohli et al., 1993). Although this approach emphasizes that concept of MO is focused on
the actual behaviors of the organization (Roach et al., 2014), but this concept did not
address MO as a characteristic of organizational culture (Lam et al., 2012).
On the other hand, Narver and Slater (1990) define MO as an organizational culture
based on three components: customer orientation, competitor orientation and
interfunctional coordination, and they names this instrument as MKTOR. Customer
orientation refers to firms’ ability in creating excellent value for customers and
understanding the supply chain network (Deshpandé and Farley, 2004; Narver and
Slater, 1990; Narver et al., 2004; Tan et al., 2014). Competitor orientation is defined as the
ability of a firm in identifying strength, weaknesses, long-term capabilities and
strategies to gain market competitiveness (Day and Wensley, 1988; Samat et al., 2006).
Interfunctional coordination refers to firms’ capabilities in creating greater value for
target customers (Jiménez-Zarco et al., 2011; Narver et al., 2004). These three dimensions
emphasize proactive and responsive MO to customers (González-Benito et al., 2009;
Narver et al., 2004), and will initiate efforts within organization, reflect in strategies,
organization behavior and performance (Roach et al., 2014). Although MARKOR and
MKTOR dimensions are distinct constructs, however, these concepts have provided a
comprehensive conceptualization of MO instruments to assess MO for a variety of
industries. Both these concepts (MARKOR and MKTOR) are related to the same logic
that customers remain the significant element of the MO philosophy (Demirbag et al.,
2006; Eggers et al., 2013; Gaur et al., 2011; Jiménez-Zarco et al., 2011). For example,
Deshpande and Farley (1999) and Samat et al. (2006) highlight that MO is identical to
customer orientation and similar to the marketing concept where customers have been
 NBRI considered as the main focus of MO (Chao and Spillan, 2010; Payne, 1988). In this study,
7,1 MO dimension from Narver and Slater (1990) is used which has received the greatest
attention of academics in the past few decades.
Previous studies have identified the effect of MO on business performance (Baker
and Sinkula, 1999; Boso et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015; Cheng and Krumwiede, 2012;
Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Lam et al., 2012; Matsuno et al., 2002; Merlo and Auh, 2009;
44 Morgan et al., 2009; Narver and Slater, 1990; Samat et al., 2006). For example, Gaur et al.
(2011) conducted a survey on SMEs’ performance in India and found that three
dimensions of MO (Narver and Slater, 1990) have a significant relationship with SMEs’
performance. For this reason, Baker and Sinkula (2009) explain that firms with solid
MOs should be able to generate higher profit margins than firms with weaker MOs. In
addition, Li et al. (2008) highlight that MO has a significant relationship with SMEs’
performance and shows that such orientation of the small firms can drive them to serve
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

customer needs and achieve higher performance. Additionally, Zhang et al. (2015)
studied MO on SMEs and large manufacturing exporters in China, and found that there
was no significant difference in the effect of MO for both firms. In addition, Lin et al.
(2008) suggest that market-oriented firms, which aim at sustaining their competitive
advantages, enhance organizational learning and execute innovation strategies to
significantly improve firm performance. Although the implication of MO has been
established in market-based economies in which majority of theories are developed and
tested, empirical evidence in SMEs are limited to draw definitive conclusions. Therefore,
the following preposition is presented:
H3. Market orientation has a significant relationship with SMEs’ performance

3. Research methodology
3.1 Data collection method
The survey of this study was conducted based on a listed questionnaire adopted from
previous studies done in the field of EO and MO. Questionnaires were sent by post and
addressed to the SMEs listed on the SME Business Directory. The envelope contained a
set of questionnaire and a return envelope was attached. The return envelope had the
address of a researcher with affixed postage stamps to facilitate the respondents to
return the filled-up questionnaires. It was also mentioned on the questionnaire that was
supposed to be answered by the managerial level or higher rank of the SMEs as a control
measure, because they are generally believed to provide accurate information regarding
the business of SMEs. To make sure that the questionnaires was filled out by them, a
company stamp and signature was requested on the questionnaire form.

3.2 Sampling technique

A judgmental sampling technique was used in this study. Judgment sampling
comprises the selection of subjects who are most favorably placed or in the best position
to provide the required information (Sekaran, 2006). To use judgmental sampling, a list
of SMEs in Malaysia was gathered from Malaysia SME Business Directory (Malaysia
SME, 2010). From the total estimated number of 19,110 SMEs in the directory, the
selection was made for the foods and beverages industry with an estimated total number
of 1,761 companies. Out of the total listing for foods and beverages industry from the
SME business directory, SMEs were shortlisted to finalize the total sampling of 500
companies. Shortlisting of judgmental sampling was based on prior discussions and
 advices from personnel in charge of SME development in various organizations, Effect of
namely, SME Corporation, Malaysia SME and Federal Agriculture and Marketing market
Agency.
orientation
3.3 Target respondents and sample size
The population or sampling unit in this study was the managerial level or higher rank of
SMEs in the manufacturing industry of food and beverages. This group of respondent 45
was expected to meet the requirements of the study by providing a valid and accurate
view of their company. For the purpose of this research, data collection was conducted
in all the states of Peninsular Malaysia including the northern, central, southern and
eastern regions. Sabah and Sarawak were excluded in the survey, as it would increase
the delivery cost of questionnaire and will take more time for data collection.
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

All categories under definition of SMEs including micro company, small company
and medium company in manufacturing industry are included for the purpose of this
research. The total number SMEs in the sub-sector of food and beverages industry as
listed in the SME Business Directory is estimated at 1,761 companies. A total of 500
questionnaires were distributed to SMEs.

3.4 Questionnaire development

The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part consists of 25 items of EO, MO
and SMEs’ business performance. The second part of the questionnaires includes the
demographic section related to respondents’ background of company consisting of
seven items.
A seven-point Likert scale was used to measure the three categories of structures,
namely, EO, MO and SMEs’ business performance. For EO and MO, the scales ranged
from “1” strongly disagree to “7” strongly agree. Meanwhile, for SMEs’ performance, the
scales ranged from “1” much worse to “7” much better. The seven-point Likert scale is a
valid and appropriate measurement, as many previous researches have used the seven
scales to measure the EO, MO and SMEs’ performance (Lin et al., 2008; Matsuno et al.,
2002; Merlo and Auh, 2009). In this study, the EO dimension (innovativeness,
proactiveness and risk-taking) was measured by adapting indicators suggested by
Knight (1997), Lumpkin and Dess (1996), and Merlo and Auh (2009). MO dimensions
(customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination) were
adapted from Narver and Slater (1990). Meanwhile, SMEs’ performance indicators were
adapted from Knight (1997), Lin et al. (2008) Merlo and Auh (2009) and Wiklund and
Shepherd (2005).

3.5 Respondent profile

Respondents in this study consist of middle- to upper-managerial executives in SMEs.
Total questionnaires distributed were 500, and 117 were valid to be used, which is a 21.3
per cent response rate. All respondent represented the food and beverages industry.
Table I shows the company profile of the respondents.

3.6 Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistic was used to provide an overview of the respondents’ company
background. The average scores for EO, MO and SME performance are 4.877, 5.189 and
3.658, respectively.
 NBRI Frequency (%)
7,1 Industry Food and beverage 117 100

Number of staff 1 to 4 3 2.6

5 to 49 108 92.3
50 to 199 6 5.1
46 Marketing manager report directly to CEO Yes 107 91.5
(or equivalent position) No 10 8.5
Formal background of CEO (or equivalent Finance/accounting 23 19.7
position) Marketing 56 47.9
Sales 17 14.5
Operations 8 6.8
Production/manufacturing 12 10.3
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

Human resources 1 0.9

Highest level with background in Frontline level 1 0.9
marketing Middle management level 22 18.8
Senior management level 70 59.8
Table I. Board level 23 19.7
Demographic profile None 1 0.9
of respondents Total 117 100

4. Data analysis
To test the model developed, we used the partial least squares (PLS) approach. PLS is a
second-generation multivariate technique (Hair et al., 2012) which can simultaneously
evaluate the measurement model (the relationships between constructs and their
corresponding indicators) and the structural model with the aim of minimizing the error
variance (Hair et al., 2013). Smart PLS M2 Version 2.0 (Ringle et al., 2005) was used to
analyze the data. Also following the suggestions of Hair et al. (2013), we used the
bootstrapping method (500 resamples) to determine the significance levels for loadings,
weights and path coefficients.
Common method variance needs to be examined when data are collected via
self-reported questionnaires, and, in particular, both the predictor and criterion
variables are obtained from the same person (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Podsakoff and
Todor (1985, p. 65) also noted that: “Invariably, when self-reported measures obtained
from the same sample are utilized in research, concerns over same-source bias or general
method variance arise”. There are several remedies to this issue suggested in the
literature. One of the common methods used to detect this issue is the Harman’s single
factor test. This is done by entering all the principal constructs into a principal
component factor analysis (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Evidence method bias exists
when a single factor emerges from the factor analysis, or one general factor accounts for
the majority of the covariance among the measures (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In our
analysis, the results returned a six-factor solution, with a total variance explained of
79.962 per cent and the first factor only explained 38.46 per cent which confirms that
common method bias is not a serious problem in this research.

4.1 Measurement model

Convergent validity is the degree to which multiple items to measure the same concept
are in agreement. As suggested by Hair et al. (2010, 2013) we used the factor loadings,
 composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) to assess convergent Effect of
validity. The recommended values for loadings are set at ⬎ 0.5, the AVE should be ⬎ 0.5 market
and the CR should be ⬎ 0.7. From Figure 1, it can be seen that we have conceptualized
EO and MO as second-order constructs. Thus, we followed the method suggested in the
orientation
literature in PLS which is the repeated indicator approach to model the second-order
factors in the PLS analysis. Table II shows that the results of the measurement model
exceeded the recommended values, thus indicating sufficient convergence validity 47
(Figure 2).
After confirming the convergent validity, we proceeded to assess the discriminant
validity using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) method. Discriminant validity is the degree
to which items differentiate among constructs or measure distinct concepts. The
criterion used to assess this is by comparing the AVE with the squared correlations or
the square root of the AVE with correlations. As shown in Table III, we have used the
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

second method which is to compare the square root of the AVE with the correlations.
The criteria is that if the square root of the AVE, shown in the diagonals, is greater than
the values in the row and columns on that particular construct, then we can conclude
that the measures are discriminant. From Table III, it can be seen that the values in the
diagonals are greater than the values in their respective row and column, thus indicating
that the measures used in this study are distinct, demonstrating adequate discriminant
validity.

4.2 Structural equation modeling – partial least squares

To evaluate the structural models’ predictive power, we calculated the R2. R2 indicates
the amount of variance explained by the exogenous variables (Barclay et al., 1995).
All three variables together explained 69.3 per cent of the variance. Using a
bootstrapping technique with a re-sampling of 500, the path estimates and t-statistics
were calculated for the hypothesized relationships.

Figure 1.
The research model
 NBRI
7,1

48
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

Figure 2.
The PLS algorithm
results

Table IV shows the structural model analysis. From the analysis, it was found that EO
(␤ ⫽ 0.745, p ⬍ 0.01) was positively related to MO. MO (␤ ⫽ 0.516, p ⬍ 0.01) was
positively related to SMEs’ performance. Next, we tested the mediating effect of MO in
the EO-to-MO relationship. We used the bootstrapping procedure which has been
suggested in the literature to test the indirect effect, and the results show that the
indirect effect (␤ ⫽ 0.384, p ⬍ 0.01) was significant, indicating that there was a
mediating effect. As suggested by Hair et al. (2013), we calculated the variance
accounted for (VAF). The VAF determines the size of the indirect effect in relation to the
total effect (i.e. direct effect ⫹ indirect effect): VAF ⫽ indirect effect/total effect. We
calculated the VAF for this study, and it was 0.71, which is classified as partial
mediation (Hair et al., 2013).

5. Conclusions and managerial implication

The objective of this study is to examine the effect of MO as a mediating variable in the
relationship between EO and SMEs’ performance. The results of this study found that
EO has a significant relationship with MO; thus, H1 was supported. The significant
relationship between EO and MO shows that SMEs in Malaysia are using the
characteristics of EO as proactiveness, risk-taking and innovativeness in meeting the
purposes of MO This finding is consistent with the market knowledge standpoint that
organizations with more collaboration and EOs have greater market information and
indications to explore new market opportunities will perform better (Atuahene-Gima,
2005; Chen et al., 2012; Fernández-Mesa and Alegre, 2015). For this reason, SMEs need to
enhance the EO at various levels of human resource. For example, proactive SMEs will
achieve their targets in premium segments, move faster to maintain advantage,
capitalize a market opportunity for higher returns and be a leader in performance
 Second-order
Effect of
First-order constructs construct Item Loadings AVE CR market
orientation
Innovativeness IN1 0.919 0.839 0.913
IN2 0.914
Proactiveness PA1 0.969 0.941 0.970
PA2 0.971
Risk-taking RT1 0.905 0.800 0.923
49
RT2 0.815
RT3 0.957
Entrepreneurial Innovativeness 0.813 0.591 0.808
orientation Pro-activeness 0.586
Risk-taking 0.876
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

Competitor orientation CO1 0.860 0.729 0.915

CO2 0.847
CO3 0.850
CO4 0.858
Customer orientation CUO1 0.879 0.650 0.915
CUO2 0.898
CUO3 0.896
CUO4 0.848
CUO5 0.730
CUO6 0.512
Inter-functional IO1 0.784 0.711 0.924
orientation IO2 0.709
IO3 0.942
IO4 0.936
IO5 0.820
Market orientation Competitor orientation 0.653 0.671 0.857
Customer orientation 0.879
Inter-functional orientation 0.903
SMEs’ Performance BP1 0.814 0.722 0.928
BP2 0.918
BP3 0.870
BP4 0.795
BP5 0.848
Table II.
Notes: AVE ⫽ average variance extracted; CR ⫽ composite reliability Measurement model

Constructs 1 2 3

1. SMEs performance 0.850

2. EO 0.303 0.769
3. MO 0.516 0.745 0.819

Note: Diagonals represent the square root of the AVE, while the off-diagonals represent the Table III.
correlations Discriminant validity
 NBRI (Brettel and Rottenberger, 2013; Cardoza and Fornes, 2011; Chen et al., 2012; Gaur et al.,
7,1 2011). Consequently, Morgan et al. (2009) posit that proactive SMEs achieve better
performance because they have a greater understanding of customer needs and wants,
and a broader market environment than their competitors (Hult et al., 2004; Jaworski and
Kohli, 1993; Khalili et al., 2013; Knight and Cavusgil, 2004; Kraus et al., 2012; Kreiser
et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2008). However, SMEs have to be intelligent in assessing the
50 potential risks taken. For example, Franco and Haase (2013) describe risk-taking as an
important dimension of EO. It embraces risk acceptance in terms of investment and
strategic decisions, even if the outcomes of these actions are uncertain (Das and Joshi,
2007). Additionally, Aragón-Sánchez and Sánchez-Marín (2005) suggest that if small
firms invest heavily in high-risk projects, they may not be able to sustain these risky
projects long enough to see the fruition of their investment, and their performance may
drop (Li et al., 2008; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005). SMEs are, therefore, advised to
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

calculate risk, and, if possible, delay the high-risk projects and services to gain better
business performance (Amin, 2015; Kraus et al., 2011; Kraus et al., 2012). In addition,
Rhee et al. (2010) found that innovativeness plays an important role in enhancing firm
performance, and the innovative mindset of managers significantly impacts SMEs’
performance. In this context, the success of innovative SMEs has been related with
different characteristics of performance, such as cash flows and profitability, and
increasing the likelihood of existence (Amin, 2015; Boso et al., 2013; Engelen et al., 2014;
Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Characteristics of EO will be able to trigger MO effectively.
For example, Keh et al. (2007) conducted a survey on SMEs in Singapore and found that,
ultimately, actively innovative SMEs with a tendency to take advantage of new
opportunities will improve their performance. Similarly, Avlonitis and Salavou (2007)
highlight that more innovative SMEs in Greece have a significantly better performance.
Consequently, Chen et al. (2012) and Franco and Haase (2013) indicate that firms with
innovative capacity and collective capability are likely to promote collaborative
entrepreneurship and better performance. For this reason, top managers of SMEs are
advised to focus more on improvements in innovativeness, with specific emphasis on
MO practice to increase SMEs’ performance.
The relationship between MO and SMEs’ performance was significant, and H2
was supported. This finding is consistent with the previous studies which found
that MO has enhanced business performance (Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Boso et al.,
2013; Chen et al., 2015; Cheng and Krumwiede, 2012; González-Benito et al., 2009;
Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Lam et al., 2012; Matsuno et al., 2002; Merlo and Auh, 2009;

Hypothesis Beta SE t-value Decision

H1
EO -⬎ MO 0.745 0.047 15.817** Supported
H2
MO -⬎ SMEs performance 0.516 0.065 7.972** Supported
H3
EO -⬎ MO-⬎ SMEs performance 0.384 0.055 7.043** Supported
Table IV.
Hypothesis testing Notes: ** p ⬍ 0.01; * p ⬍ 0.05
 Morgan et al., 2009; Narver and Slater, 1990; Samat et al., 2006). For example, Effect of
Morgan et al. (2009) explained that MO is a complimentary asset that contributes to market
superior firm performance. Additionally, Chen and Hsu (2013) indicate that an EO is
likely to increase firm performance when the level of MO is high; therefore, market
orientation
intelligence plays an important role for firms to enter an international market. In this
situation, SMEs need to understand the concept of MO that can provide performance
benefits to the SMEs. SMEs need to put priority on the strategic planning. External 51
environmental assessment in the strategic planning can help SMEs in identifying
the competitor orientation of the respective industry. Thus, it would be easier for the
SMEs to utilize existing capabilities and opportunities to respond to the threat of
competing companies. As suggested by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) that MO will
significantly increase superior customer value and helps SMEs to develop better
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

products and services rather competitors. To better meet the market needs,
encouragement should be given to all functions in a company to assist other
departments. Information-sharing session on a competitor’s strategy should be
considered as an agenda in management meetings of respective departments to
better identify on how each department could take suitable action to respond. SMEs
have the potential to implement interfunctional orientation in a better way because
the number of the employees is relatively small and the firm is less bureaucratic than
the larger firms. For this purpose, the management must have the initiative to
provide on-going training, learning by doing, mentoring and awareness across the
company.
Meanwhile, MO will mediate the relationship between EO and SMEs’
performance, and H3 was supported. This study shows the indirect effect of EO on
SMEs’ performance partially mediated by MO and emphasizes the significance of
EO in the achievement of the SMEs’ performance. The finding of this study is
consistent with Baker and Sinkula (2009), Gaur et al. (2011), Jaworski and Kohli
(1993), Merlo and Auh (2009), Narver and Slater (1990) and Narver et al. (2004), and
explained that MO plays a mediating role in the relationship between EO and SMEs’
performance. For example, Matsuno et al. (2002) reveal that MO wholly mediates the
relationship between entrepreneurship orientation and business performance, and,
for firms that already retain a high EO, it is highly advisable to promote an MO
while sustaining their level of entrepreneurial proclivity. For this reason, Baker and
Sinkula (2009) suggest that strong EO and MO are essentials for SMEs’ performance
to aggressively pursue new market opportunities regardless of the behavior of
competing firms. As a result, the higher is the EO implemented in a business, the
more willing a company is to implement MO. This analysis shows that highly
entrepreneurial firms tend to be highly market orientated and affects SMEs’
performance. On the other hand, the results of this study show that the
characteristic of entrepreneurial and MO practiced by SMEs in Malaysia has
significantly affected the SMEs’ performance. It indicates that EO offers a holistic
and systematic model for supporting SMEs to build a well-maintained environment
of MO and SMEs performance. As a result, MO characteristics include
interfunctional orientation of departments within a company in meeting the market
needs and also the ability to understand competitor orientation in an atmosphere of
commercial competition, which is essential for SMEs to enhance SMEs’
performance.
 NBRI 6. Limitation and future research
7,1 Although the empirical findings of this study contribute to the existing literature, the
result of the study cannot be generalized. Future studies should adopt the proposed
research model among different type of SMEs to generalize the findings. Finally, the
managerial level of SMEs should be considered as a control variable to develop the
findings more precisely with the mediating role of learning orientation and company
52 size as the moderating variable.

References
Abebe, M. (2014), “Electronic commerce adoption, entrepreneurial orientation and small-and
medium-sized enterprise (SME) performance”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 100-116.
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

Amin, M. (2015), “The effect of entrepreneurship orientation and learning orientation on SMEs’
performance: an SEM-PLS approach”, Journal for International Business and
Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 215-230.
Aragón-Sánchez, A. and Sánchez-Marín, G. (2005), “Strategic orientation, management
characteristics, and performance: a study of Spanish SMEs”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 287-308.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005), “Resolving the capability – rigidity paradox in new product
innovation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 61-83.
Avlonitis, G.J. and Salavou, H.E. (2007), “Entrepreneurial orientation of SMEs, product
innovativeness, and performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 566-575.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999), “The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning
orientation on organizational performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 411-427.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2009), “The complementary effects of market orientation and
entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 443-464.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995), “The partial least squares (PLS) approach to
causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration”, Technology
Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 285-309.
Baron, R.A. and Tang, J. (2011), “The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: joint effects of
positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Boso, N., Cadogan, J.W. and Story, V.M. (2013), “Entrepreneurial orientation and market
orientation as drivers of product innovation success: a study of exporters from a developing
economy”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 57-81.
Brettel, M. and Rottenberger, J.D. (2013), “Examining the link between entrepreneurial orientation
and learning processes in small and medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 471-490.
Cardoza, G. and Fornes, G. (2011), “The internationalisation of SMEs from China: the case of
Ningxia Hui autonomous region”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 737-759.
Central Bank of Malaysia (2003), “A comprehensive framework for the development of small and
medium enterprises in Malaysia”, Bank Negara Malaysia, available at: www.bnm.gov.my
(accessed 1 December 2012).
 Chang, T.-Z. and Chen, S.-J. (1998), “Market orientation, service quality and business profitability: Effect of
a conceptual model and empirical evidence”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 246-264.
market
Chao, M.C.-H. and Spillan, J.E. (2010), “The journey from market orientation to firm performance:
orientation
a comparative study of US and Taiwanese SMEs”, Management Research Review, Vol. 33
No. 5, pp. 472-483.
Chen, H.L. and Hsu, C.-H. (2013), “Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in non-profit 53
service organizations: contingent effect of market orientation”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 445-466.
Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Li, J. and Paillé, P. (2015), “Linking market orientation and
environmental performance: the influence of environmental strategy, employee’s
environmental involvement, and environmental product quality”, Journal of Business
Ethics, pp. 1-22.
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

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.
Cheng, C.C. and Krumwiede, D. (2012), “The role of service innovation in the market orientation –
new service performance linkage”, Technovation, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 487-497.
Covin, J.G. and Miller, D. (2014), “International entrepreneurial orientation: conceptual
considerations, research themes, measurement issues, and future research directions”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 11-44.
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.
Covin, J.G. and Wales, W.J. (2012), “The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 677-702.
Das, S.R. and Joshi, M.P. (2007), “Process innovativeness in technology services organizations:
roles of differentiation strategy, operational autonomy and risk-taking propensity”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 643-660.
Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), “Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive
superiority”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Demirbag, M., Koh, S.L., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2006), “TQM and market orientation’s impact
on SMEs’ performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 8,
pp. 1206-1228.
Deshpande, R. and Farley, J.U. (1999), “Corporate culture and market orientation: comparing
Indian and Japanese firms”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 111-127.
Deshpandé, R. and Farley, J.U. (2004), “Organizational culture, market orientation,
innovativeness, and firm performance: an international research odyssey”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Eggers, F., Kraus, S., Hughes, M., Laraway, S. and Snycerski, S. (2013), “Implications of customer
and entrepreneurial orientations for SME growth”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 3,
pp. 524-546.
El Makrini, H. (2015), “How does management perceive export success? An empirical study of
Moroccan SMEs”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 126-151.
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.
 NBRI Fernández-Mesa, A. and Alegre, J. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation and export intensity:
examining the interplay of organizational learning and innovation”, International Business
7,1 Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 148-156.
Ferreira, F.A., Marques, C.S., Bento, P., Ferreira, J.J. and Jalali, M.S. (2015), “Operationalizing and
measuring individual entrepreneurial orientation using cognitive mapping and MCDA
techniques”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 12, pp. 2691-2702.
54 Filieri, R. (2015), “From market-driving to market-driven: an analysis of Benetton’s strategy
change and its implications for long-term performance”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 238-257.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Franco, M. and Haase, H. (2013), “Firm resources and entrepreneurial orientation as
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

determinants for collaborative entrepreneurship”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 3,

pp. 680-696.
Gaur, S.S., Vasudevan, H. and Gaur, A.S. (2011), “Market orientation and manufacturing
performance of Indian SMEs: moderating role of firm resources and environmental
factors”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Nos 7/8, pp. 1172-1193.
George, B.A. and Marino, L. (2011), “The epistemology of entrepreneurial orientation: conceptual
formation, modeling, and operationalization”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 989-1024.
González-Benito, Ó., González-Benito, J. and Muñoz-Gallego, P.A. (2009), “Role of
entrepreneurship and market orientation in firms’ success”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 3/4, pp. 500-522.
Gunawan, T., Jacob, J. and Duysters, G. (2015), “Network ties and entrepreneurial orientation:
innovative performance of SMEs in a developing country”, International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Hair, J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T.M. and Ringle, C.M. (2012), “The use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices
and recommendations for future applications”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 No. 5,
pp. 320-340.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Hu, W. and Zhang, Y. (2012), “New venture capability of the transformation from entrepreneurial
orientation to new venture’s performance: theory model and empirical study in China”,
Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 302-325.
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F. and Knight, G.A. (2004), “Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on
business performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 429-438.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. and Slater, S.F. (2005), “Market orientation and performance: an
integration of disparate approaches”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 12,
pp. 1173-1181.
Jalali, A., Jaafar, M. and Ramayah, T. (2014), “Entrepreneurial orientation and performance: the
interaction effect of customer capital”, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management
and Sustainable Development, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 48-68.
 Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, The Effect of
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 53-70.
market
Jia, J., Wang, G., Zhao, X.N. and Yu, X. (2014), “Exploring the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation
orientation and corporate performance: the role of competency of executives in
entrepreneurial-oriented corporations”, Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 326-344.
Jiménez-Zarco, A.I., Pilar Martínez-Ruiz, M. and Izquierdo-Yusta, A. (2011), “The impact of market 55
orientation dimensions on client cooperation in the development of new service
innovations”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Nos 1/2, pp. 43-67.
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.
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

Kemelgor, B.H. (2002), “A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation between

selected firms in the Netherlands and the USA”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 67-87.
Khalili, H., Nejadhussein, S. and Fazel, A. (2013), “The influence of entrepreneurial orientation on
innovative performance: study of a petrochemical company in Iran”, Journal of
Knowledge-based Innovation in China, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 262-278.
Kjellberg, H., Azimont, F. and Reid, E. (2015), “Market innovation processes: balancing stability
and change”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 44, pp. 4-12.
Knight, G. (2000), “Entrepreneurship and marketing strategy: the SME under globalization”,
Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 12-32.
Knight, G.A. (1997), “Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm
entrepreneurial orientation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 213-225.
Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2004), “Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the
born-global firm”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 124-141.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,
and managerial implications”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J. and Kumar, A. (1993), “MARKOR: a measure of market orientation”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 467-477.
Kraus, S., Kauranen, I. and Reschke, C.H. (2011), “Identification of domains for a new conceptual
model of strategic entrepreneurship using the configuration approach”, Management
Research Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 58-74.
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.
Kreiser, P., Marino, L., Kuratko, D. 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.
Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D., Dickson, P. and Weaver, K.M. (2010), “Cultural influences on
entrepreneurial orientation: the impact of national culture on risk taking and proactiveness
in SMEs”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 959-983.
Kropp, F., Lindsay, N.J. and Shoham, A. (2006), “Entrepreneurial, market, and learning
orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in South
African firms”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 504-523.
 NBRI Lam, S.-Y., Lee, V.-H., Ooi, K.-B. and Phusavat, K. (2012), “A structural equation model of TQM,
market orientation and service quality: evidence from a developing nation”, Managing
7,1 Service Quality, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 281-309.
Larsen, N.M. and Korneliussen, T. (2012), “Effects of entrepreneurial orientation on online retail
performance”, International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 77-93.
56 Lee, S.M. and Lim, S. (2009), “Entrepreneurial orientation and the performance of service
business”, Service Business, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Lee, S.M. and Peterson, S.J. (2001), “Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global
competitiveness”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 401-416.
Li, Y., Zhao, Y., Tan, J. and Liu, Y. (2008), “Moderating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on
market orientation-performance linkage: evidence from Chinese small firms”, Journal of
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

Small Business Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 113-133.

Lily, J.A.B. and Hartini, A. (2010), “Assessing the relationship between firm resources and
product innovation performance”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 420-435.
Lin, C.-H., Peng, C.-H. and Kao, D.T. (2008), “The innovativeness effect of market orientation and
learning orientation on business performance”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 29
No. 8, pp. 752-772.
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.
Martin, S.L. and Javalgi, R.R.G. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation, marketing capabilities and
performance: the moderating role of competitive intensity on Latin American International
new ventures”, Journal of Business Research.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T. and Özsomer, A. (2002), “The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity
and market orientation on business performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 3,
pp. 18-32.
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.
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. (1983), “Strategy-making and environment: the third link”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 221-235.
Morgan, N.A., Vorhies, D.W. and Mason, C.H. (2009), “Market orientation, marketing capabilities,
and firm performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 909-920.
Morris, M. and Paul, G. (1987), “Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurship firms”, Journal
of Business Venturing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 247-259.
Morris, M.H., Schindehutte, M. and LaForge, R.W. (2002), “Entrepreneurial marketing: a construct
for integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1-19.
Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K. and Wiklund, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurial orientation, risk
taking, and performance in family firms”, Family Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 33-47.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.
 Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F. and MacLachlan, D.L. (2004), “Responsive and proactive market Effect of
orientation and new-product success”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 334-347.
market
Nasution, H.N., Mavondo, F.T., Matanda, M.J. and Ndubisi, N.O. (2011), “Entrepreneurship: its
orientation
relationship with market orientation and learning orientation and as antecedents to
innovation and customer value”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 336-345.
National SME Development Council (2010), “SME Annual Report 2009/2010”, National SME
57
Development Council, Kuala Lumpur.
Ndubisi, N.O. and Agarwal, J. (2014), “Quality performance of SMEs in a developing economy:
direct and indirect effects of service innovation and entrepreneurial orientation”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 454-468.
Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R.K. and Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2010), “Entrepreneurial intention as
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

developmental outcome”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 63-72.

Oly Ndubisi, N. and Iftikhar, K. (2012), “Relationship between entrepreneurship, innovation and
performance: comparing small and medium-size enterprises”, Journal of Research in
Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 214-236.
Oparaocha, G.O. (2015), “SMEs and international entrepreneurship: an institutional network
perspective”, International Business Review.
Payne, A.F. (1988), “Developing a marketing-oriented organization”, Business Horizons, Vol. 31
No. 3, pp. 46-53.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
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.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Todor, W.D. (1985), “Relationships between leader reward and punishment
behavior and group processes and productivity”, Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 55-73.
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. (2012), “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.
Rhee, J., Park, T. and Lee, D.H. (2010), “Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative
SMEs in South Korea: mediation of learning orientation”, Technovation, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 65-75.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, S. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta, Hamburg.
Roach, D.C., Ryman, J. and White, J. (2014), “Culture, conduct and innovation: a deconstruction of
market orientation”, Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 128-145.
Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, M.J., Moreno, P. and Tejada, P. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation and
performance of SMEs in the services industry”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 194-212.
Rothaermel, F.T. and Alexandre, M.T. (2009), “Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: the
moderating role of absorptive capacity”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 759-780.
 NBRI Samat, N., Ramayah, T. and Saad, N.M. (2006), “TQM practices, service quality, and market
orientation: some empirical evidence from a developing country”, Management Research
7,1 News, Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 713-728.
Sciascia, S., D’Oria, L., Bruni, M. and Larrañeta, B. (2014), “Entrepreneurial orientation in low-and
medium-tech industries: the need for absorptive capacity to increase performance”,
European Management Journal.
58 Sekaran, U. (2006), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, John Wiley & Sons.
Semrau, T., Ambos, T. and Kraus, S. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance
across societal cultures: an international study”, Journal of Business Research.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (2000), “The positive effect of a market orientation on business
profitability: a balanced replication”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 69-73.
Tajeddini, K., Trueman, M. and Larsen, G. (2006), “Examining the effect of market orientation on
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

innovativeness”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 529-551.

Tan, C., Bi, R. and Smyrnios, K. (2014), “The role of market orientation in building supply chain
capabilities for fast-growth family SMEs”, Small Enterprise Research, Vol. 21, pp. 20-38.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1995), “Explaining development and change in organizations”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 510-540.
Wales, W., Monsen, E. and McKelvie, A. (2011), “The organizational pervasiveness of
entrepreneurial orientation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 5,
pp. 895-923.
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.
Wang, C.L. (2008), “Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 635-657.
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.
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, J., Jiang, Y. and Zhu, M. (2015), “Perceived environmental turbulence, strategic orientations
and new product success: a comparative study of SMEs and large manufacturing
exporters”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 43-54.
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.
Zuraidah, M.D. and Garry, K. (2010), “Planning for the future SMEs in Malaysia”, Small and
Medium Enterprises in Malaysia; Potential and Prospects, MoHE, Putrajaya, pp. 1-15.

About the authors

Muslim Amin is currently an Associate Professor at Management Department, College of
Business Administration, King Saud University (KSU), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Prior joining to
KSU, he is a Senior Lecturer in Services Marketing at International Business School, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia (UTM-IBS), Malaysia. He has published his research papers in Nankai
Business Review International, The Service Industries Journal, Asia Pacific Education Review,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Services Marketing Quarterly, Clinical Governance: An
 International Journal, The TQM Journal, International Journal of Retailing and Distribution Effect of
Management, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Journal of Hospitality Marketing
and Management, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, Journal for Global market
Business Advancement, Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, orientation
International Journal of Innovation and Learning, International Journal of Islamic Middle Eastern
Finance and Management. His current research interests include service quality, customer
satisfaction, customer loyalty, entrepreneurship marketing, total quality management and
internet banking. Muslim Amin is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: 59
[email protected]
Ramayah Thurasamy, is currently a Professor of Technology Management at the School of
Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Visiting Professor King Saud University, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia and Adjunct Professor at Multimedia University and Universiti Tenaga Nasional,
Malaysia. His publications have appeared in Information & Management, Journal of
Environmental Management, Technovation, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Business
Downloaded by KING SAUD UNIVERSITY At 21:47 20 March 2016 (PT)

Economics and Management, Computers in Human Behavior, Resources, Conservation and

Recycling, International Journal of Information Management, Evaluation Review, Information
Research, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, Social Indicators Research, Quantity &
Quality, Service Business, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Journal of Medical
System, International Journal of Production Economics and Telematics and Informatics among
others. He also serves on the editorial boards and program committee of several international
journals and conferences of repute.
Dr Abdullah M. Aldakhil is the Chairman of the Management Department, College of Business
Administration, King Saud University. His MBA and Phd in Information Operations &
Technology Management are from University of Toledo, USA. He has published his research
papers in international peer-reviewed journals and conferences. His research interest are total
quality management, supply chain management and knowledge management.
Aznur Hafeez Bin Kaswuri holds an MBA from the International Business School, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia (UTM-IBS). He has published his research papers in international
peer-reviewed journals and conferences. His research interests are entrepreneurship marketing,
SMEs’ performance and information technology.

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: [email protected]

View publication stats