Sokoto Journal of Management Studies, Vol.

10 (1) March, 2016

Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance of Simple Firms in

Nigeria

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AMINU1

Abstract

Many firms in the world consider entrepreneurial orientation as a crucial part of their success
and survival in todays hyper-competitive business environment, yet there is lack of studies on how
different entrepreneurial orientations abstractions exert influence on small firm performance in
the African context generally, and most especially in Nigeria where studies on SMEs are very
scarce particularly on the impacts of strategic orientations on performance. To address this clear
knowledge gap, the present study drew on resource-based view to investigate the effects of
innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking on small firms financial performance using partial
least squares structural equation modeling. Therefore, 125 usable data were gathered from
randomly sampled small firms operating in Kano State, Nigeria. The statistical result revealed
that each of the aforesaid dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation significantly affect simple
firms financial performance independently. The study concluded that simple firms owner-
managers should therefore, consider implementing their business strategies based on such
entrepreneurial postures so as to achieve, sustain, and maximize their positions in both local and
international markets. At the end, the study opened up some avenues for future studies.

Introduction

Entrepreneurial orientation or entrepreneurship as alternatively called (Knight,

1997), which refers to the strategic orientation of a firm that captures specific
aspects of the firms decision-making styles, practices, and methods (Wiklund &
Shepherd, 2005), has been conceptualized in the work of some scholars in
previous years (i.e., Covin & Slevin, 1989, 1991; Miller, 1983). Nowadays, many
businesses in the world consider the entrepreneurial behavior as a crucial part of
their success and survival in todays business environments hyper-
competitiveness (Lyon, Lumpkin, & Dess, 2000). This is quite justifiable given
the fact that the concept of entrepreneurial orientation is being considered as a
global construct of determining firm performance (Shane, Mcgrath, & Macmillan,
2009).

1
. Mohammed Ibrahim Aminu is a student in School of Business Management, College of
Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
mianinuscholar@yahoo.com
 Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance of Simple Firms in Nigeria

Nevertheless, still there is relatively little research on entrepreneurial orientation

and performance relationship in developing countries (Abu-Hassim, Asmat-
Nizam, Abdul-Talib, & Abu-Bakar, 2011), more especially in Nigeria where
studies on SMEs are generally scarce (Okpara, 2009). However, even the
available few studies on SMEs, have paid more attention to access to finance and
infrastructures (e.g., Adaramola, 2012; Adigwe, 2012; Dabo, 2011; Ofoegbu,
Akanbi, & Joseph, 2013; Oreoluwa, 2011), and very little to strategic orientations
and intangible resources (e.g., Aminu, Mahmood, & Muharram, 2015; Shehu,
2014; Shehu & Mahmood, 2014; Asikhia, 2010; Junaidu, 2012) that are of course
an inevitable sources of superior performance (Barney, 1991).

Hence, hitherto no study has been found in the available literature, which has
investigated the impact of various facets of entrepreneurial orientation on the
financial performance of Nigerian simple firms (i.e., firms that are ran and
operated by owner-managers) as categorized by Miller (1983). To address this
knowledge gap, this study draws on resource-based view (Barney, 1991) to
investigate the impact of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking
dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation on the financial performance of simple
firms operating in Kano State, Nigeria. The study structured is in five major
sections starting from the introduction of the study. The second and third sections
review related literature and develop hypotheses, as well as adopt the most
appropriate methodology for this study, while section four presents analysis of the
results for the study and the discussions, conclusions, and direction for future
research are all presented in the last section.

Literature and Hypotheses

Entrepreneurial orientation or strategic posture as alternatively called can be

broadly seen as the overall competitive orientation of a firm (Covin & Slevin,
1989). Thus, the firms entrepreneurial-conservation orientation is demonstrated
by the firms top managers ability in taking business-related risks in favor of
innovation and changes. This is in order to obtain and sustain competitive
advantage for their firms as well as competing aggressively with competitors.
From the aforesaid definition, it is important to understand what entrepreneurial
firms are all about in order to understand entrepreneurial orientation in a more
clear term. According to Miller (1983), an entrepreneurial firm is a firm that
engages in product and market innovation, undertaking somewhat risky business,
as well as being proactive against its competitors. Based on this understanding of
entrepreneurial firms, entrepreneurial orientation refers to the strategic orientation
2
Sokoto Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 10 (1) March, 2016

of a firm that captures specific aspects of the firms decision-making styles,

practices, and methods (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). Similarly, Lumpkin and
Dess (2001) defined entrepreneurial orientation as the firms strategy-making
process as well as styles that engage in entrepreneurial activities. These activities
include the willingness of a firm to innovate and renew market offerings, take
business related risks in trying out new and uncertain goods and services, as well
as succeeding in competing with rival firms by being proactive (Covin & Slevin,
1991).

Covin and Slevin (1989) earlier argued that unlike conservative firms in which
top level management decision is decidedly non-innovative, risk-averse, and
reactive, entrepreneurial oriented firms are characterized as those that are
innovative, (told) business-related risk, and also proactive in their decisions. More
so, Covin and Slevin also extensively discussed the role of such entrepreneurial
orientation dimensions on the performance of small firms, and thus theorized that
they are highly significant to the performance of such firms as earlier
acknowledged by Miller (1983). More recently, Lumpkin and Dess (2001) argued
that each of the various dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation can be tested
differently on firm performance, because the relationship of every single
dimension with performance is contingent on the context of business. Equally,
various empirical studies conducted in some contexts other than Nigeria have
reaffirmed such relationships (e.g., Baba & Elumalai, 2011; Wang et al., 2001).
Hence, this study develops and proposes the following relationships based on the
independent effect of each dimension on performance as also suggested by
Mahmood and Hanafi (2013).

Innovativeness and Simple Firm Financial Performance

Wang et al. (2001) held that innovativeness refers to the effort of a firm in
finding new opportunities and new solutions. This involves an experimentation
and creativity, which result to new goods and services or improving technological
processes. In other words, innovativeness is the willingness of a firm to support
the creativity, new ideas, as well as experimentation in producing goods and
services (Mahmood & Hanafi, 2013), and also concerns with the openness of a
firm to new idea (Pratono et al., 2013). Wang et al. (2001) further posited that the
firms innovativeness can be in many forms, such as: Technological
innovativeness (consist of efforts on research and engineering in order to develop
new goods and services as well as process); Product-market innovativeness (such
as market research, market segmentation, product designed, advertisement and

3
 Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance of Simple Firms in Nigeria

promotions); and, administrative innovativeness (which refers to as innovations in

management systems, organizational structure, and control techniques). Thus, the
study hypothesizes that:

H1: There is significant relationship between innovativeness and simple firms

financial performance

Proactiveness and Simple Firm Financial Performance

On the other hand, proactiveness is associated with seeking first mover advantage
and forward-looking efforts to shape the firms business environment by
introducing new product and process ahead of competitors (Lyon et al., 2000).
Consequently, proactiveness as a dimension of entrepreneurial orientation, refers
to an opportunity-seeking and forward-looking behavior, which is characterized
by introduction of new products or services ahead of competitors in an
anticipation of expected future demand (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese,
2009). Proactiveness also includes an initiative effort and applying existing
advantages in shaping business environment and responding to competitive
challenges (Wang et al., 2001). Thus, managers with proactiveness posture and
always the first to come-up with proactive moves in terms of their firms products
and beat other competitors (Miller, 1983). Moreover, non-entrepreneurial firms
always imitate the moves of entrepreneurial ones instead of leading the way;
entrepreneurial firms are often in good position to source and sustain performance
over non-entrepreneurial ones. Hence, this study hypothesised that:

H2: There is significant relationship between proactiveness and simple firms

financial performance

Risk-taking and Simple Firm Financial Performance

Risk-taking as a last dimension of entrepreneurial orientation of this study, is

concerned with bold actions by venturing into an unknown market, borrowing
heavily, and committing considerable resources to venture in to uncertain market
environments (Rauch et al., 2009). As such, risk-taking is the degree of the
managers ability and willingness to commit large and risky resources in
uncertain or unknown ventures (Wang et al., 2001). In other words, risk-taking
involves activities such as high borrowing and high percentage of resources
commitments into uncertain projects and unknown markets (Lyon et al., 2000).
Such risky investment if it succeeds often generates and yields high return. In
4
Sokoto Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 10 (1) March, 2016

essence, firm with mangers who are so bold in taking business related risks are
more likely to achieve and sustain performance over non-entrepreneurial firms
that are characterized as risk-averse (Miller, 1983). Consequently, this study
hypothesised that:

H3: There is significant relationship between risk-taking and simple firms

financial performance

Methodology and Measures

The present study was designed as a quantitative approach, which engages in

hypothesis testing of the causal relationship between independent and dependent
variables, which is commonly known as causal research (Sekaran & Bougie,
2013). Generally, organizational researchers drawing on quantitative research
approach usually embark on survey analysis as it is considered the most
appropriate for collecting information on predetermined instruments that yield
statistical data on a large sample for the purpose of generalization (Creswell,
2003). This study is also on the basis of the cross-sectional method in which data
are collected over a single period of time. Therefore, 125 valid data were gathered
from Nigerian simple firms that are located and operated in Kanto State, which
were classified as small firms under the classification of Nigerian National Policy
on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Small and Medium Enterprises Report,
2009), and therefore, the questionnaires were responded to by owner-managers
representing such firms. However, all measures of this studys constructs were
adapted from previous studies. For financial firm performance, which is the
dependent variable of this study, three items basically on financial perspective
were adapted from the work of Spillan and Parnell (2006). Similarly, three items
for entrepreneurial orientations dimensions of innovativeness, proactiveness, and
risk-taking were also adapted from the work of Milovanovi and Galeti (2008).
All of these twelve items of this study are reflective and were measured using
Likert scale (1-7) ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, and thus
analyzed by partial least squares structural equation modeling using SmartPLS
version 3.2.1.

Analysis and Results

To ascertain individual item reliability and other measurement model

assessments, this study performed PLS algorithm (Geladi & Kowalski, 1986).
Based on the report generated by Smart PLS version 3.2.1, the individual item or

5
 Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance of Simple Firms in Nigeria

factor reliability of all twelve items of this study are therefore reliable as they are
all above the threshold of 0.70 except items IN02 and RT01, which are 0.637 and
0.681 respectively. Although the aforementioned two items are below 0.70,
following Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt's (2014) recommendation of accepting
any reflective item with loadings of 0.40 to 0.60 provided the grand average of its
main construct is at least 0.70. These items were, therefore, maintained as they
have above 0.40 factor loadings and also the averages of their respective
constructs lodgings are all above the required level of 0.70. Thus, all the adapted
items of this study are, therefore, reliable for measuring their respective
constructs.

Table 1: Results of measurement model: item and internal consistency

and convergent validity (n 125)
Construct Item Loading AVE CR
Financial Performance FP01 0.845 0.805 0.925
FP02 0.924
FP03 0.920
Innovativeness IN01 0.773 0.552 0.786
IN02 0.637
IN03 0.809
Proactiveness PR01 0.810 0.660 0.853
PR02 0.860
PR03 0.763
Risk-taking RT01 0.788 0.566 0.796
RT02 0.783
RT03 0.681

On the other hand, the internal consistency reliability analysis for all constructs is
above the threshold of .70, and also the average variance extracted (AVE) that
represents the convergent validity of a reflective construct is also above the
threshold of 0.50. Consequently, as presented in Table 1, both the items and
constructs of this study, satisfy the requirements of item reliability, internal
consistency reliability, as well as convergent validity of measurement model
analysis (see Hair et al., 2014). Similarly, as presented in Table 2, the
discriminant validity of each of these constructs is also achieved as the square
root of the AVE (i.e., diagonal bolded figures) of each variable is higher than its

6
Sokoto Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 10 (1) March, 2016

correlation with any other variable, and this therefore, indicates the
distinctiveness of each variable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Table 2: Results of measurement model: Discriminant validity (n 125)

Construct 1 2 3 4
1 Financial Performance 0.897
2 Innovativeness 0.689 0.897
3 Proactiveness 0.671 0.771 0.812
4 Risk-Taking 0.670 0.656 0.630 0.752

Note: The elements on the diagonal (bold headed) correspond to the square root
of the AVE of the construct.

Having satisfied the requirements of the measurement model analysis, the study
went ahead to test the significance of the aforementioned hypothesized
relationships using 5000 Bootstrapped subsamples. Hence, the result of the
structural model based on 5000 Bootstrapped subsamples on 125 cases presented
on Table 3 reveals that all dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation exert
influence on simple firms financial performance. Specifically, innovativeness is
significantly related to simple firms financial performance (=0.285, p<0.01),
and hence H1 (i.e., there is significant relationship between innovativeness and
simple firms financial performance) is supported. Proactiveness is also positively
related to performance ( =0.244, p<0.01), this statistical evidence also supported
H2 which states that there is significant relationship between proactiveness and
simple firms financial performance. Equally, H3 (i.e., there is significant
relationship between risk-taking and simple firms financial performance) is also
supported (=0.329, p<0.01). Consequently, the statistical data support all H1, H2
and H3 hypothesized relationships at 1 percent (i.e., 0.01) alpha value. However,
the coefficient of determination (i.e., R-Square [R2 value]) for the whole model is
0.581 (see Figure 1), which indicates that the exogenous variables (i.e.,
innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking) of this study explain more than 58
percent variance of the endogenous variable (i.e., simple firms financial
performance).

7
 Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance of Simple Firms in Nigeria

Table 3: Results of structural model analysis: beta value, standard

error and t value (n 125)
Hypothesis Beta Std. T Decision
Error value
H1: Innovativeness -> Performance 0.285*** 0.109 2.615 Supported
H2: Proactiveness -> Performance 0.244*** 0.096 2.549 Supported
H3: Risk-taking -> Performance 0.329*** 0.083 3.939 Supported
Note: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1

IN01 0.773

0.637 Innovativenes
IN02 s
0.809

IN03
0.285

FP01
0.845
PR01 0.810
Financial
0.924
0.860 Proactiveness 0.244 Performance FP02
2
PR02 R = 581
0.920

0.763
FP03
PR03

0.329

RT01
0.788

0.783
Risk-taking
RT02

0.681
RT03

Figure 1: Result for structural model analysis and coefficient of

determination

8
Sokoto Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 10 (1) March, 2016

Even though the R2 value that represents the combined effects of these exogenous
latent variables on the latent endogenous variable (Hair et al., 2010; Hair et al.,
2006; Hair et al., 2014) is moderate based on Chin's (1998) rule of thumb. It is
equally important to assess the respective effect size (i.e., the change in the value
of the R2 when a particular exogenous variable is excluded from the whole model)
of each of these variables using the following formula developed by Cohen
(1988).

R2 Included R2Exluded
f2 = 1-R2Included

Where:

f2 is the F-square value that determines the effect size of a specific exogenous
variable on the endogenous variable. R2 Included represents the R2 value of the
endogenous variable before omitting a particular exogenous construct. And lastly,
R2Exluded is the change in the R2 value of the endogenous variable after excluding a
particular exogenous variable from a model. Based on the above formula, the f2
values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35, indicate small, medium, and large effects
respectively (Cohen, 1988). Hence, using this formula, each of innovativeness,
proactiveness, and risk-taking contributes a small effect on the total variance of
simple firms financial performance in this study. See Table 4.

Table 4: Assessment of the Effect Size: F-Square (f2)

R-Square R-Square F- Effect
Construct Included Excluded Square Size
Innovativeness 0.581 0.552 0.069 Small
Proactiveness 0.581 0.558 0.054 Small
Risk-taking 0.581 0.524 0.137 Small

Discussions and Conclusions

This study investigated the impact of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-

taking on Nigerian simple firms financial performance. However, the study is
among the few empirical studies on the impact of these entrepreneurial
orientations dimensions on small firms, which is very rare in literature generally.
Although there are some previous studies that have investigated such relationships
in some developed and developing countries other than Nigeria, but there is

9
 Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance of Simple Firms in Nigeria

generally a lack of such studies particularly on the independent effect of each of

these factors on small firms performance more especially in the African context
and particularly Nigeria where studies on SMEs are generally scarce (see Okpara,
2009). Consequently, this study contributes to our understandings on the impacts
of these variables on the financial performance of firms that are run and operated
by owner-managers.

Theoretically, as there is a lack of studies on entrepreneurial orientation as

antecedents of firm performance in most of developing economies more
especially the African context (Abu-Hassim et al., 2011), conducting the present
study on the effects of this studys independent variables on simple firms
financial performance in the Nigerian context on the platform of resource-based
theory has gone a long way in extending the scope of this theory and its
practicability across borders. More so, the results further extended the
generalization of the impact of entrepreneurial orientations dimensions on
financial performance to the African context. Contextually, the study also shades
more light on the indisputable impacts of these variables on small firms
performance in the Nigerian context. Thus, to conclude, this study remains a
yardstick to the practicing and potential owner-managers to conceive of and
implement their strategies using such entrepreneurial postures to achieve, sustain,
and maximize their financial performance over their competing firms both locally
and at the international.

On the other hand, like many positivism studies, this study has some limitations,
which may be required to be addressed in any future research. One of the major
limitations of this study concerns the method of collecting data on cross-sectional
basis, thus future effort may be required to conduct a similar study preferably in
the same context using longitudinal survey method that collects data over two or
more points of time, so as to compare and contrast with the present studys
findings and to be able to draw cause-effect interference appropriately. Second,
although the purpose of this study is to examine the effects of such
entrepreneurial orientations facets on simple firms financial performance
without any systematic influences of other factors (i.e., cause-effect
relationships), nevertheless, some owner-managers traits such as education and
experience might have been taken into consideration identity a class of owner-
managers whose firms are more entrepreneurial and more successful. Thus, a
future study may be needed preferably using multi-group analysis (MGA) to
investigate such traits that influence owner-managers and their firms
entrepreneurial postures in relation to their financial performance.
10
Sokoto Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 10 (1) March, 2016

References

Abu-Hassim, A., Asmat-Nizam, Abdul-Talib, & Abu-Bakar, A.-R. (2011). The

effects of entrepreneurial orientation on firm organisational innovation and
market orientation towards firm business performance. In International
Conference on Sociality and Economics Development, 10: 280284;
Singapore.

Adaramola, A. O. (2012). Policy support and performance of small and medium

scale enterprises in south-west Nigeria. European Journal of Business and
Management, 4 (9): 1019.

Adigwe, P. K. (2012). Project finance for small and medium scale enterprises
(SMEs) in Nigeria. African Research Review, 6 (1): 91100. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v6i1.8

Aminu, M. I., Mahmood, R., & Muharram, F. M. (2015). The Intangible

Resources and Small Firms Multilevel Performance: A Partial Least Squares
Approach. Asian Social Science, 11 (16): 187195.
doi:10.5539/ass.v11n16p187

Asikhia, O. (2010). Customer orientation and firm performance among Nigerian

small and medium scale businesses. International Jounal of Marketing Studies,
2 (1): 197212.

Baba, R., & Elumalai, S. (2011). Entrepreneurial Orientation of SMEs in Labuan

and its effects on Performance (No. 1113). Sarawak.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17 (1).

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation

modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research
(pp. 295336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd
ed.). New Jarsey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
doi:10.1234/12345678

11
 Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance of Simple Firms in Nigeria

Covin, J. G. & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in

hostile and benign environment. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 7587.

Covin, J. G. & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as

firm behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 725.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). A framework for design. In Research Design: Qualitative,

Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed., pp. 226). New Delhi:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Dabo, Z. (2011). The impact of economic reforms on entrepreneur`s performance:

A study of small and medium enterprises in Kaduna (Northern. In 10th
International Entrepreneurship Forum, Tamkeen, Bahrain, 9-11 January 2011
(pp. 911).

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with

Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18 (1): 3950.

Geladi, P. & Kowalski, B. (1986). Partial Least-Squares Regression: A Tutorial.

Analytica Chimica Acta, 185, 117. doi:10.1016/0003-2670(86)80028-9

Hair, J. F.; Black, W. C.; Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate

Data Analysis (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F. J.; Black, W. C.; Babin, B. J.; Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). New Jarsey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Joseph, F.; Hair, J.; Hult, G. T. M.; Ringle, C. M. & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer
on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Califonia:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Junaidu, A. S. (2012). Export Performance of SMEs in the Nigerian Leather

Industry and the Mediating Effect of Perception of Export Difficulty.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences,
2(10): 554567.

12
Sokoto Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 10 (1) March, 2016

Knight, G. A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure

firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12 (3): 213
225. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(96)00065-1

Lumpkin, G. T. & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial

orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of evironment and
industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16: 429451.

Lyon, D. W.; Lumpkin, G. T. & Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing entrepreneurial

orientation research: Operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision
making process. Journal of Management, 26 (5): 10551085.

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, 4 (1): 8291.

Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms.

Management Science (pre-1986), 29(7), 770. doi:0025-
1909/83/2907/0770S01.25

Milovanovi, B. M. & Galeti, F. (2008). Linking entrepreneurial orientation with

the performance of Croatian hotel industry. In 4th International Conference
An Enterprise Odyssey: Tourism - Governance and Entrepreneurship (pp.
17). Cavtat.

Ofoegbu, E. O.; Akanbi, P. A. & Joseph, A. I. (2013). Effects of contextual

factors on the performance of small and medium scale enterprises in Nigeria:
A Case Study of Ilorin Metropolis. Advances in Management & Applied
Economics, 3(1): 95114.

Okpara, J. O. (2009). Strategic choices, export orientation and export performance

of SMEs in Nigeria. Management Decision, 47 (8): 12811299.
doi:10.1108/00251740910984541

Oreoluwa, R. (2011). Small and medium scale enterprises and economic growth
in Nigeria: An assessment of financing options. Pakistan Journal of Business
and Economic Review, 2(1): 7897.

13
 Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance of Simple Firms in Nigeria

Pratono, A.; Wee, T. C.; Syahchari, D. H.; Tyaznugraha, A.; Mat, N. K. N. &
HadiatiFitri. (2013). The Direct Effect of Entrepreneurial Orientation and
Innovation Success on Firm Performance. American Journal of Economics, 3
(1): 16. doi:10.5923/j.economics.20130301.01

Rauch, A.; Wiklund, J.; Lumpkin, G. T. & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial

orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and
sugestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 154.

Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2013). Research methods for business: a skill-building

approach (6th ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Shane, S.; Mcgrath, R. & Macmillan, I. (2009). Is entrepreneurial orientation a

global construct? A multi-country study of entrepreneurial orientation, growth
strategy, and performance. The Journal of Business Inquiry, 8: 1225.

Shehu, A. M. (2014). Relationship between market orientation and firm

performance: a look at Nigerian SMEs. Developing Country Studies, 4 (12):
8794.

Shehu, A. M. & Mahmood, R. (2014). Influence of entrepreneurial orientation

and business environment on small and medium firm performance: a pls
approach. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 4 (4): 101114.

Small and Medium Enterprises Report. (2009). Report of the vision 2020 national
technical working group on small and medium enterprises ( SMEs ). Abuja.
Retrieved from http://www.npc.gov.ng/vault/files/small and medium
enterprises ntwg report.pdf

Spillan, J. & Parnell, J. (2006). Marketing resources and firm performance among
SMEs. European Management Journal, 24 (2-3): 236245.
doi:10.1016/j.emj.2006.03.013

Wang, H.; Yen, Y.; Hong, J. & Tsai, Y. (2001). Emperical evidence between
corporate entrepreneurial orientation and performance: A perspective of
multidimensional construct.

14
Sokoto Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 10 (1) March, 2016

Wiklund, J. & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small

business performance: a configurational approach. Journal of Business
Venturing, 20 (1): 7191. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001

15