Research Article
The Impact of International Entrepreneurial Orientation on the Performance of SMEs
in Qatar: The Mediating Role of Degree of Internationalization
Abdulmohsin Abdulla M Alyafei1, Ahmad Bashawir Abdul Ghani2, Mohammed R A Siam3*
1,2,3*Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia
bashawir@uum.edu.my2, r.a.siam@uum.edu.my3*
Article History: Received: 10 November 2020; Revised: 12 January 2021; Accepted: 27 January 2021; Published online: 05 April 2021
Abstract: The main purpose of the current study is to investigate the impact of the impact of international Entrepreneurial orientation on the performance of SMEs in QATAR. Additionally, the study has investigated the mediating role of the degree of internationalisation in the relationship between the international Entrepreneurial orientation on the performance of SMEs in Qatar. The present study used stratified sampling technique. The study used Smart PLS-SEM, which is Smart Partial Least Square Structural EquationModeling (SEM) 3.2.6 version. EO has been indicated to improve organisational competitiveness which leads to value creation and eventually improved organisational performance. The findings indicate that the growth performance of SMEs depends on the ability of an entrepreneur to allocate the strategic limited resources and adapt to changes by setting up proper firm orientation. Successful processes will only be achievable if sufficiently skilled and motivated employees are equipped with precise and current information. The findings of this study have presented important managerial implication and contribution to studies on entrepreneurial orientation of SME firms in Qatar.
Keywords:International, Entrepreneurial Orientation, SMEs, Qatar
1. Background
In the dynamic business environment of today, customers are acknowledged as the most significant lifeline for any organisation or industry; yet, customers come with their own set of challenges particularly related to their needs, demands and behaviours(Starks& Carroll,2018). In light of this, it has been suggested that in order for businesses to solidify their competitive advantage, they need to shift from being production-oriented to being customisation-based(Bumgardner, Buehlmann, Schuler& 2011). They must also devise various customer-driven business strategies so as to fulfil the needs and demands of their customers and ultimately boost sales.
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are the catalysts of sustainable economic growth (Bianchi, Glavas& Mathews, 2017) due to their major rolein developing the economy (Azarloo et al., 2017) and enhancing entrepreneurial initiatives. In short, SMEs facilitate economic delivery and national growth. They are also represented by micro andsmall businesses,but in a ratherdisorganised manner (Ngoma et al., 2017; Mahmood &Hanafi, 2013). Thecontribution of SMEs towards economic growth cannot bedisregarded. The ever-changingbusiness milieu highlights the significance of SMEs and fast-tracks their growth.
As a crucial contributor to human and economic development, the performance of SMEs has been a significant topic of interest in the past two decades (Regnier, 2017). The factors that drive SME performance have been explored through numerous theoretical lenses. The economy is primarily driven by the SME sector, and there is increasing research attention on it. About 90-99.0% of businesses worldwide consist of SMEs of which a majority of them are small businesses. The challenges that accompany the modern business milieu including flexible production, fluctuating customer demands, and the growing significance of information technology have hindered the development of various organisations but at the same time have highlighted the prominent role of SMEs.
SMEs have been acknowledged as a critical aspect of economic development in both developed and developing countries. SMEs make significant contributions to the national GDP. They contribute 53% to the GDP in Japan and Germany, 51% in the UK, 45% in India, 50% in Poland, 45% in South Africa and 49% in Korea (Ismail, Abdul-Halim&Joarder, 2016). SMEs have also been proven as an effective tool for reducing poverty, creating jobs, and driving economic growth via wealth creation apart from serving as the key variable for private sector growthand partnership (Scuotto, Del, Bresciani& Meissner, 2017; Mahmood & Hanafi, 2013). On top of that, SMEs have also been acknowledged as a significant tool for driving national development in both developed and developing countries (Aigboduwa&Oisamoje, 2013). They also facilitate the economic recovery of many Gulf nations. SMEs are made up of micro and small businesses that need to be run by a massive number of labour forceshence creating a high number of jobs (Mahmood & Hanafi, 2013). Many countries support the establishment of SMEs as a means for generating employment,reducing poverty, and improving GDP. A 2014 statistics report for small businesses in theUK indicated that SMEs make up 99.3% of the overall UK private sector with an employee turnover rate of approximately 47.8%. The same report indicated that the SMEs employ
about 13.4 million workers with a turnover of £1,600 billion. Qatar is an Arab Gulf nation rich in oil and gas and with the largest human capital index in the region. Yet, the significant decline in oil prices had made it clear that the country cannot continue to depend solely on its oil and gas sector for the long term. Hence, oil-oriented nations have now begun to develop other sectors of the economy. The Qatari Government highlighted this in their 2030 vision for "Economic Development", outlining economic diversification as the main determinant of its economic growth.
2. Literature Review
The multidimensionality of EO allows researchers to study the effect of EO on organisational performance. Some indicated that EO positively affects organisational performance, whilst others indicated otherwise (Kreiser& Davis, 2010). Davis (2007)attempted to justify the inconsistency by attributing it to the treatment of EO as either a one-dimensional or multidimensional construct. The next parts will discuss the effect of the multidimensionality of EO on organizational performance.
The first EO dimension is innovativeness which entails theinclination to develop novel products, services and processes that are profitable and more superior to that of the competitors' (Paul et al., 2017). Innovativeness has been highlighted as a crucial factor for organisational success and survival (Hameed et al., 2018). Empirical evidence has linked innovativeness to improved organisational performance.Zahra and Covin (1995)outlined the role of EO in enhancing wealth, marketplaces, as well as the search for and management of opportunities hence leading to better competitive advantage. Swierczek and Ha (2003) indicated a positive relationship between EO and SME performance. Innovativeness aids SMEs in identifying market trends, making fast decisions about new products and other developments, as well asgrabbing new prospects, all of which would lead to improvedorganisational performance (Swierczek& Ha, 2003). Likewise, Coulthard (2007) delineated innovativeness as a crucial driver towards improved performance in the context of the automotive components industry and wine industry, accelerated by the customers' solid buying power. Meanwhile, Moreno and Casillas (2008) indicated a positive relationship between EO and performance in their study on 434 SMEs.
The second EO dimension is proactiveness, i.e. the organisational ability to discover and pursue new prospects, introduce new offerings (Covin&Slevin, 1991), and exploit future opportunities so as to develop a superior competitive advantage (Miller, 1983). Although proactiveness has been indicated to improve organisational performance, several past studies reported otherwise (Rauch, Wiklund, Frese& Lumpkin, 2004). In his study on the wine, automotive, franchising and music industries in Australia, Coulthard (2007) discovered that proactiveness plays a primary role in the automotive industry but only came in third in the rank of importance in the wine and franchising industries, suggesting that the significance of proactiveness varies according to industry. Competing companies in the automotive industry need to come up with high-quality products to differentiate themselves from each other. In the franchising industry, proactiveness is crucial as the start-up phase. Regardless, Coulthard (2007) maintained that proactiveness is a key aspectof boosting organisational performance. Likewise, they have outlined proactiveness as a crucial determiner of organisational success and survival.
The third and final EO dimension is risk-taking, as suggested by Miller (1983). This entails theinclination of an organisation to take risks in venturing into new markets without first considering its implications (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).Coulthard (2007) stated that risk-taking has varied implications on organisational performance. According to Swierczek and Ha (2003), although Thai SMEs are less of a risk-taker, they are much more innovative and proactive than Vietnamese SMEs as they have more experience with war situations and economic negligence. New ventures are more prone to risk-taking (Lumpkin et al., 2006).
In the context of the wine industry, Coulthard (2007) indicated thatrisk-taking negatively affects organizational performance. The reason for this is vague, but it could be because of how the industry defines 'risk'. In contrast, the automotive industry deems calculated risk-taking as crucial in boosting its performance as indicated by the respondents. As for the franchisingindustry, risk-taking is rated as the second most important dimension by the respondents.Coulthard (2007) pointed out that risk-taking would affect performance, be it positively or negatively. Nevertheless, Coulthard (2007) and Matsuno et al. (2002) also indicated the need for strategydevelopment to reduce risks and theirensuing effects which would, in turn, serve as openings for improving organisational survivability.
In their study on 140 firms in China, Ma and Haung (2016) found that EO significantly affects the operations of international companies. Their finding is in line with that of Zhang, Tansuhaj and McCullough (2009) who indicated the significant effect of IEO on the performance of 155 international firms. Similarly, Zhou(2007) also
indicated the significant effect of IEO on organisational performance in a study involving 775 SMEs in China using the three-dimensional IEO theoretical model introduced by Miller (1984).
In their study on 155 companies in Spain, Ripollés-Meliá et al. (2007) discovered thatIEO-oriented companies perform better than those without. Ripollés-Meliá, BlesaandMonferrer (2012) later studied 135 international SMEs in Spain and indicated the positive link between IEO and international market orientation. Likewise, Dimitratos et al. (2004) found a positive link between EO and organisational performance in their study on 152 Greek companies operatingacross borders.EO has been indicated to improve organisational competitiveness which leads to value creation and eventually improved organisational performance(Hatsfield, Johansen & Knight, 2017). Value creation is achieved by exploiting opportunities. Although several inquiries such as that of Migliori, PitinoConsorti andLucianetti(2017) indicated that EO has a negative effect on organisational performance, others maintained a positive and significant relationship between the two.There is evidence that the link between EO and organisational performance is significantly determined by company age and size ( Su, Xie& Li, 2011Su, Xieand Li (2011) indicated an inverted U-shaperelationship between EO and organisational performance in new start-ups and a linearly positive relationship in much more established companies.This inconsistency has been attributed to the liability of newness between the companies. Liability of newness refers to the restricted resources that a newly-established company has which would affectits typically high-risk EO strategy. This discussion on EO-performance relationship has given an interesting insight about the.
H1: IEO has a significant impact on the firm performance of SMEs in QATAR.
Internationalisationentails the foreign market exposure of a company which is commonly measured by the number of foreign markets it has entered into (Hittet al., 2003). But the most common measure is the percentage of foreign sales to total sales (FSTS) or the company's financial performance (Mohamad & Ching, 2009). Radulovich (2008, p.63) stated that 'company internationalisation' has been defined using numerous terminologies including 'export intensity', 'international business intensity', 'internationalisation'as well as 'scale and scope of internationalisation' by various studies. Export intensity is the ratio of production output against export and is typically stated as export to total sales ratio (Francis & Collin, Dodd, 2004; Verwaal&Donkers, 2002). High export intensity level suggests greater internationalisation, i.e.a measure of the effectiveness of the companies'internationalised activities.
Caloff and Beamish (1995) conceptualized internationalisation as the process involved in an exchange transaction and its adaptation into the international markets. Meanwhile, Johanson and Mattson (1988) delineateinternationalisation as the adoption process of a company's operations including its strategies, structure, and resourcesinto international associations; the definition would also entail raw materials import, subsidiary formations, joint ventures or subcontractors, and the export and import of products and services.
Most studies on the relationship between EO/IEO and international performance are focused on Chinese companies, and most had indicated a positive and significant link between the two. In their study on 607 Chinese companies, Liu, Li and Xue (2011) discovered that EO positively affects internationalisation. The authorsdefined internationalization as the extent of the companies'aggressiveness in pursuing foreign markets, selling products and enhancing foreign sales, as well as boosting direct foreign investments.
Zhang et al. (2012) indicated a significant link between EO and internationalisation in their study on 117 SMEs entailing the EO dimensions of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking as well asthe two dimensions of internationalization degree namelymulti-nationality (international sale to total sale percentage) and county scope (number of host countries). In their study on 185 export companies in Finland, Kuivalainen et al. (2007) found that the IEO dimension of competitive aggressiveness positively affects the degree of internationalisation. Likewise, Knight (2000),in his study on 268 US-based SMEs,found that IEO significantly affects international performance. In their study on 148 Italian companies, Hagen et al. (2014) also indicated that EO significantly affects international performance.
Basing their study on the five-dimensional model by Sundqvist et al. (2012), discovered that EO significantly affects organizational export orientation leading to increased organisational performance and profitability. Using the same five-dimensional model in their study on Greek companies,Dimitratos, Plakoyiannaki,Pitsoulaki and Tüselmann (2010) came to the conclusion that innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking positively enhanceorganisational performance. Hence, both studies have proven that the three EO dimensions of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking have a significant and positive effect on both internationalisation and organisational performance.
In their study on 217 manufacturing companies in Finland, Jantunen et al. (2005) indicated that EO has a significant and positive effect on internationalisation degree. In another study on 513 SMEs in Finland, Kuivalainen et al. (2007) also indicated the significant relationship between EO and internationalisation degree. Frishammar and Andersson (2009) derived similar findings in their study on 188 companies in Sweden; they found that companies with high EO levels can manage foreign operations more successfullyand that they perform better than companies with low EO levels.Likewise, Jantunen et al. (2005) also indicated that EO significantly affects international performance.
Studies have indicated the positive direct effect of entrepreneurship on international market ventures. Companies with strong entrepreneurial orientations are more likely to venture into internationalmarkets. In the context of Malaysia, Senik et al. (2014) also indicated thatorganisations with high entrepreneurial tendencies are more prone to internationalisation. Numerous past studies have also outlined the positive relationship between entrepreneurial tendencies and internationalisation (Zhang, Ma & Wang, 2012). Some studies suggest that entrepreneurial managers play a significant role in influencing the selection and timing of international market entries. Research on new ventures also indicates that entrepreneurial tendencies significantly affect the decision of a company to venture into international markets. Studies onnewly established international firms also showed positive correlations (Cavusgil, &Knight 2015), especially SMEs.
According to De Clercq et al. (2005), the early cultivation of entrepreneurial culture shapes a company's tendency to venture into international markets with better preparedness, and at an earlier time than their rivals (Autio et al., 2000). The top management's entrepreneurial approach andcompetencies are highly crucial in helping the company face rapid changes and competitive markets. Drawing on the resource-based view theory, Barney (1991) highlighted the significance of tangible and intangible organizational assets as a competitive advantage when venturing into international markets. Scholars have outlined three keycharacteristics of an entrepreneur.
Risk-taking entails the extent to which managers are prepared to take risks with unclearimplications and of which may pose a high probability of failure (Covin&Slevin, 1991; Miller & Friesen 1983). Companies with a high inclination to take market risks tend to perform better. According to Zahra and Covin (1995), companies with high-risk tendencies are more prone to enter into business ventures or strategies with undefined returns. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) and Miller (1983) exemplified risk-takingbehaviours as taking debts or utilising resources and technological innovations with hopes of gaining returns. Covin and Slevin (1989) and Miller and Friesen (1978) conceptualisedproactiveness as the response of a company towards the external environment and its aggressive measures to stay competitive such as by introducing new products, services, andmanagerialsystems. Venkatraman (1989) delineated the concept as the preemptiveutilisation of resources in searching for new market prospects and in experimenting with the uncertainties posed by theexternal environment.
H2: IEO has a significant impact on the DOI of SMEs in QATAR.
H3: DOI has a significant impact on the firm performance of SMEs in QATAR.
H4: DOI mediates the relationship between IEO and firm performance of SMEs in QATAR. 3. Methodology
The present study used a stratified sampling technique. According to Sekaran and Bougie (2013) sampling technique refers to a procedure of sampling in which the researcherseparated the whole population of the study into distinctive stratum and afterwardsrandomly select a subject from every stratum. The study used Smart PLS-SEM, which is Smart Partial Least Square Structural EquationModeling (SEM) 3.2.6 version. It is a second-generation statistical tool that enables theresearchers to analyses concurrently multiple variables. Smart PLS-SEM is considered aspart of regression techniques design at the same time to estimate the relationshipsbetween the measurement model (indicators) and structural model (constructs) (Basheer et al., 2019).
4. Results
The PLS-SEM path model comprises of two components, the measurement model (calledouter model in PLS-SEM) and structural model (known as the inner model in PLS-SEM)(Hair et al., 2014). Precisely, the measurement modelrefers to a component of the path model that encompasses indicators and theirconnections
with their respective latent construct. However, this study concerned themeasurement models, which comprises a reflective and formative construct.
Figure 1. Measurement Model
Individual item reliability was evaluated by examining the outer loadings of each latent Construct (Muneer et al., 2019: Hameed et al., 2019). Following the rule of thumb for retaining indicators itemswith loadings above 70 (Hair et al., 2014).
Table 1. Outer Loadings
DOI IEO OP DOI1 0.892 DOI2 0.865 DOI3 0.915 DOI4 0.874 DOI5 0.889 INN2 0.887 INN3 0.891 IPR1 0.891 IPR2 0.895 IPR3 0.911 IRT1 0.914 IRT2 0.867 IRT3 0.858 P1 0.916 P10 0.935 P11 0.922 P12 0.933 P2 0.943 P3 0.935 P4 0.937 P5 0.931 P6 0.929 P7 0.926
DOI IEO OP
P8 0.938
P9 0.945
INN1 0.860
According to Basheer et al. (2019), internal consistency reliabilitycan be defined(Zahra et al., 2019). In the present study,the composite reliability coefficient was chosen to ascertain the internal consistencyreliability of measures adapted based on two main justifications. Firstly, the compositereliability coefficient offers a much less biased assessment of reliability than Cronbach'salpha coefficient because the later assumes all items contribute equally to the constructwithout considering the actual contribution of an individual item loadings.
Table 2. Reliability
Cronbach's Alpha rho_A CR (AVE)
EPS 0.971 0.973 0.973 0.670
OCL 0.978 0.978 0.980 0.750
TMS 0.962 0.963 0.967 0.768
In this study, discriminant validity was achieved using the square root of AVE, asrecommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). This was ascertained by comparing thecorrelations between the latent constructs with square roots of AVE (Fornell&Larcker,1981).
Table 3. Validity
EPS OCL TMS
EPS 0.898
OCL 0.769 0.866
TMS 0.766 0.721 0.876
In evaluating the structural model, four essential assessments are required in the model.These include (a) assessment of path coefficients using bootstrapping methods, (b)assessing the R2 values (c) assessment of effect-size of the independent variables to thelatent dependent variable, and (d) the assessment of predictive relevance, whichdiscussed below.
In testing hypothesis, that assessment of path coefficientsbootstrapping procedure is normally used. In this case, 5,000 sample is the minimumnumber required for bootstrapping, and the number of cases is the actual number ofthe sample used in the analysis. Again, for this study, the path coefficients critical t-valuesfor two-tailed tests at 10%, 5%, 1% significance levels is 1.65, 1.96, and 2.58respectively (Hair et al., 2014). Hence, 1.96, 2.58 significant level at 5%, 1% were usedin this study.
Table 4. Direct Results
(O) (M) (STDEV) T Statistics P Values
DOI -> OP 0.534 0.533 0.099 5.385 0.000
IEO -> DOI 0.934 0.934 0.008 118.568 0.000
IEO -> OP 0.852 0.853 0.014 58.937 0.000
Following the discussion on mediation analysis from different points of view, this studyused Hair et al. (2014) recommendation in testing the significanceof the mediation through bootstrapping techniques. Bootstrapping procedure hasan advantage over any other mediation analysis methods (Hair et al., 2014; Hayes &Preacher, 2010). The present study tested the mediating effect of DOI hierarchicalcomponent model (HCM) on the relationship between IEO and OP using Smart PLS 3.2.6 v.
Table 5. Mediation
(O) (M) (STDEV) T Statistics P Values
IEO -> DOI -> OP 0.499 0.498 0.093 5.344 0.000
R-square: R2 is essential in evaluating the predictive capacity of the structural model. Thevalue of R2 explains the total variation in the latent dependent variable explained byindependentvariables (Saad, 2011). R2 can be assessed using two ways; you either considerthe effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable or for the endogenous latentvariables in the structural research model. On the other hand, the overall effect on theendogenous latent variable regarded as weak, moderate, and substantial when the valuesare 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 respectively (Hair et al., 2011).
Effect Size: effect size is all about the contribution of each independent variable inexplaining the dependent variable. The assessment is made using f2(Cohen, 1988).Therefore, f2 of .02, .15, and .35 are considered as small, moderate and large.
Table 6. F-Square
DOI IEO OP
DOI 0.153
IEO 6.857 0.233
OP
Predictive Relevance: Another way of assessing a structural model by evaluating themodel's capacity to predict. It is assessed using Geisser'sQ2, which usually proposes thatthe model should be able to predict each of the indicators of endogenous latent constructs(Hair et al., 2011). Therefore, a Q2 value which is above zero shows that the exogenousvariable has predictive relevance for the endogenous variable being considered.
Table 7. Q-square
SSO SSE Q² (=1-SSE/SSO)
DOI 1195.000 379.819 0.682
IEO 2151.000 2151.000
OP 2868.000 983.546 0.657
5. Discussions and Conclusions
The findings of this study have presented important managerial implication and contribution to studies on entrepreneurial orientation of SME firms in Qatar. The top management of SME firms must make sure that all three elements (innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking) of EO are performed in the firms, paying particular attention to the risk-taking dimension. Wiklund and Shepherd (2005) suggested that targeting solely on any one element only will deter entrepreneurs from competing and enhancing their firm performance. In order to
get the SMEs firms ready for the implementation of the elements, the Government and its agency should render essential support and consultative services to them. On the other hand, the current study of IEO ascertains that in an SME firm, owner-managers who are trained and skilled have the ability to enhance quality and speed up the processes. Enhanced quality could relate to better firm performance. To have skilled ownedmanagers participate in setting means and goals can push for more commitment from them in speeding up the processes to realise the profit and firm performance. The growth performance of SMEs depends on the ability of an entrepreneur to allocate the limited strategic resources and adapt to changes by setting up proper firm orientation. Successful processes will only be achievable if sufficiently skilled and motivated employees are equipped with precise and current information. To facilitate dynamic requirements, employees may be required to engage dramatically new responsibilities which may involve new skills and capabilities (Robinson, 1982; Hashim, 2000).
References
1. Aigboduwa, J. E., &Oisamoje, M. D. (2013). Promoting small and medium enterprises in the Nigerian oil and gas industry. European Scientific Journal, 9(1).
2. Basheer, M., Siam, M., Awn, A., & Hassan, S. (2019). Exploring the role of TQM and supply chain practices for firm supply performance in the presence of information technology capabilities and supply chain technology adoption: A case of textile firms in Pakistan. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 7(2), 275-288.
3. Bianchi, C., Glavas, C., & Mathews, S. (2017). SME international performance in Latin America. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development.
4. Blesa Pérez, A., MonferrerTirado, D., &RipollésMeliá, M. (2012). International market orientation and management capabilities as determinants of the new ventures' international behaviour.
5. Bumgardner, M., Buehlmann, U., Schuler, A., &Crissey, J. (2011). Competitive actions of small firms in a declining market. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(4), 578-598.
6. Calof, J. L., & Beamish, P. W. (1995). Adapting to foreign markets: Explaining internationalisation. International business review, 4(2), 115-131.
7. Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalisation. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1), 3-16.
8. Coulthard, G. S. (2007). Subjects of empire: Indigenous peoples and the 'politics of recognition'in Canada. Contemporary political theory, 6(4), 437-460.
9. Davis, J. L. (2007). Firm-level entrepreneurship and performance: An examination and extension of relationships and measurements of the entrepreneurial orientation construct.
10. Dimitratos, P., Lioukas, S., & Carter, S. (2004). The relationship between entrepreneurship and international performance: the importance of domestic environment. International Business Review, 13(1), 19-41. 11. Dimitratos, P., Plakoyiannaki, E., Pitsoulaki, A., &Tüselmann, H. J. (2010). The global smaller firm in
international entrepreneurship. International Business Review, 19(6), 589-606.
12. Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics.
13. Hagen, B., &Zucchella, A. (2014). Born global or born to run? The long-term growth of born global firms. Management International Review, 54(4), 497-525.
14. Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., &Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European business review.
15. Hameed, W. U., Basheer, M. F., Iqbal, J., Anwar, A., & Ahmad, H. K. (2018). Determinants of Firm's open innovation performance and the role of R & D department: an empirical evidence from Malaysian SME's. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 8(1), 29.
16. Hameed, W., Nawaz, M., Basheer, M. F., & Waseem, M. The Effect of AmanahIkhtiar Malaysia (AIM) on Microenterprise Success in Sabah State Malaysia.
17. Hartsfield, S., Johansen, D., & Knight, G. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation, strategy, and marketing capabilities in the performance of born global firms. International Business: Research, Teaching, and Practice, 2(1), 12-38.
18. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2002). Strategic entrepreneurship: Integrating entrepreneurial and strategic management perspectives. Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset, 1, 16.
19. Johanson, J., & Mattson, L. (1988). Internationalisation in industrial system–a network approach. Reprinted (1993) in Buckley P &Ghauri P (Ed). The internationalisation of the firm.
20. Knight, G. (2000). Entrepreneurship and marketing strategy: The SME under globalisation. Journal of international marketing, 8(2), 12-32.
21. Kreiser, P. M., & Davis, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The unique impact of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Journal of small business & entrepreneurship, 23(1), 39-51.
22. Kuivalainen, O., Sundqvist, S., & Servais, P. (2007). Firms' degree of born-globalness, international entrepreneurial orientation and export performance. Journal of world business, 42(3), 253-267.
23. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
24. Ma, R., & Huang, Y. C. (2016). Opportunitybased strategic orientation, knowledge acquisition, and entrepreneurial alertness: the perspective of the global sourcing suppliers in China. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(3), 953-972.
25. Mahmood, R., & Hanafi, N. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance of women-owned small and medium enterprises in Malaysia: Competitive advantage as a mediator. International Journal of Business and Social Science (IJBSS), 4(1), 82-90.
26. Migliori, S., Pittino, D., Consorti, A., &Lucianetti, L. (2019). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and performance in university spin-offs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(3), 793-814.
27. Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) revisited: A reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 35(5), 873-894.
28. Mohamad, M. H., & Ching, I. S. (2009). Variations in performances in Chinese small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Management Studies (IJMS), 16(1), 97-113.
29. Moreno, A. M., & Casillas, J. C. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and growth of SMEs: A causal model. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 32(3), 507-528.
30. Muneer, S., Basheer, M. F., Shabbir, R., & Zeb, A. (2019). Does Information Technology Expedite the Internal Audit System? Determinants of Internal Audit Effectiveness: Evidence from Pakistani Banking Industry. Dialogue (1819-6462), 14(2).
31. Paul, Justin, SundarParthasarathy, and Parul Gupta. "Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review and future research agenda." Journal of world business 52, no. 3 (2017): 327-342.
32. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Frese, M., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2004). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: Cumulative empirical evidence. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 1, 64-1.
33. Regnier, P. (2017). Small and Medium Enterprises in Distress: Thailand, the East Asian Crisis and Beyond: Thailand, the East Asian Crisis and Beyond. Routledge.
34. Ripollés-Meliá, M., Menguzzato-Boulard, M., & Sánchez-Peinado, L. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation and international commitment. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 5(3-4), 65-83.
35. Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., Bresciani, S., & Meissner, D. (2017). Knowledge-driven preferences in informal inbound open innovation modes. An explorative view on small to medium enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management.
36. Senik, Z. C., Isa, R. M., Sham, R. M., &Ayob, A. H. (2014). A model for understanding SMEs internationalisation in emerging economies. JurnalPengurusan (UKM Journal of Management), 41.
37. Shepherd, D. A., &Wiklund, J. (2005). Entrepreneurial small businesses: a resource-based perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd..
38. Starks, P., & Carroll, W. (2018). Hospitality Business Simulations Today: New Generation Simulations for New Generation Students in a New Generation Marketplace. In Innovation in Hospitality Education (pp. 181-193). Springer, Cham.
39. Su, Z., Xie, E., & Li, Y. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in new ventures and established firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(4), 558-577.
40. Sundqvist, S., Kyläheiko, K., Kuivalainen, O., & Cadogan, J. W. (2012). Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrepreneurial-oriented behavior in turbulent export markets. International Marketing Review.
41. Swierczek, F. W., & Ha, T. T. (2003). Entrepreneurial orientation, uncertainty avoidance and firm performance: an analysis of Thai and Vietnamese SMEs. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 4(1), 46-58.
42. Xu, Z., Lin, D., Li, J., Li, Z., & Liu, Y. (2011). Entrepreneurship education and employment performance. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship.
43. Zahra, M., Hameed, W. U., Fiaz, M., & Basheer, M. F. (2019). Information Technology Capability a Tool to Expedite Higher Organizational Performance. UCP Management Review (UCPMR), 3(1), 94-112.
44. Zahra, S. A., &Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of business venturing, 10(1), 43-58.
45. Zhang, M., Tansuhaj, P., & McCullough, J. (2009). International entrepreneurial capability: The measurement and a comparison between born global firms and traditional exporters in China. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(4), 292-322.
46. Zhang, Y. (2012). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on business performance. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship.
