Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does entrepreneurial orientation always pay off? The role of resource mobilization within and across organizations

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How can a firm harness its resources for releasing the potential of entrepreneurial orientation (EO)? In this study we investigate the moderating roles of both internal and network resource mechanisms on the relationship between EO and firm performance. Specifically, we argue that organizational structure (centralization and formalization) and coordination (knowledge integration), as well as firms’ connections with external stakeholders (business versus institutional networks) are critical for mobilizing resources to support EO activities. Using survey data in two Chinese industries, we find that centralization strengthens the positive relationship between EO and performance, while formalization weakens it. Interestingly, a firm’s business network also strengthens this relationship, while its institutional network dampens it. Finally, knowledge integration positively moderates this relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We conducted structural equation modeling (SEM) to cross validate our findings. The SEM analyses show consistent findings with the hierarchical regression analyses. Since we ran a path analysis (with composites) with SEM and not a latent variable path model, the need for SEM is reduced. The SEM findings are available upon request.

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.

  • Alder, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, B. S., & Eshima, Y. 2013. The influence of firm age and intangible resources on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm growth among Japanese SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3): 413–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review of recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H. 2004. Strategic decision comprehensiveness and new product development outcomes in new technology ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 583–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 421–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. 1987. Stratocracy in high technology firms. California Management Review, 30(1): 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boisot, M., & Child, J. 1996. From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: Explaining Chinas emerging economic order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 606–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., & Walker, O. C., Jr. 2002. Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(3): 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boso, N., Story, V. M., & Cadogan, J. W. 2013. Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, network ties, and performance: Study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6): 708–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

  • Cardinal, L. B., Sitkin, S. B., & Long, C. P. 2004. Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organization Science, 15(4): 411–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J. 1972a. Organization structure and strategies of control: A replication of the Aston study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2): 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J. 1972b. Organizational structure, environment, and performance. Sociology, 6(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chirico, F., Sirmon, D. G., Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. 2011. Resource orchestration in family firms: Investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4): 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. 1997. The innovators dilemma: When new technologies cause great firm to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1): 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Schultz, R. L. 1994. Implementing strategic missions-effective strategic, structural and tactical choices. Journal of Management Studies, 31(4): 481–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Thongpapanl, N. 2010. The moderating impact of internal social exchange processes on the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1): 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. 1997. Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9): 677–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Origer, N. K. 1987. Environment, structure, and consensus in strategy formulation: A conceptual integration. Academy of Management Review, 12(2): 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. 1984. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures the case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3): 265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2): 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Corporate strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L., & Brettel, M. 2015. Entrepreneurial orientation, firm performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 41(4): 1069–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, J. W. 1986. The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 11(2): 280–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, P. P., Tsui, A. S., & Dess, G. G. 2006. The dynamics of guanxi in Chinese high-tech firms: Implications for knowledge management and decision making. Management International Review, 46(3): 277–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2): 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, V., & Gupta, A. 2015. The concept of entrepreneurial orientation. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 11(2): 55–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, V. K., & Batra, S. 2016. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in Indian SMEs: Universal and contingency perspectives. International Small Business Journal, 34(5): 660–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z. X., & Han, Y. L. 2012. Team empowerment and the organizational context: Decentralization and the contrasting effects of formalization. Journal of Management, 38(2): 475–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Clark, K. B. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hite, J. M., & Hesterly, W. S. 2001. The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 275–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrebiniak, L. G., & Joyce, W. F. 1985. Organizational adaptation: Strategic choice and environmental determinism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(3): 336–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. 2003. A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6): 963–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1): 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2006. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11): 1661–1674.

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1995. Specific and general knowledge, and organizational structure. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 8(2): 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabanoff, B., & Brown, S. 2008. Knowledge structures of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders: Content, structure, stability, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(2): 149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketokivi, M., & Castaner, X. 2004. Strategic planning as an integrative device. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3): 337–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., & Weaver, K. M. 2002. Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(4): 71–94.

  • Lavie, D. 2006. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 638–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. 1988. First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9(S1): 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Germain, R. 2003. Organizational structure, context, customer orientation, and performance: Lessons from Chinese state-owned enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11): 1131–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., Peng, M. W., Yang, H., & Sun, S. 2009. How do networks and learning drive M&As? An institutional comparison between China and the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 30(10): 1113–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorange, P., & Murphy, D. 1984. Considerations in implementing strategic control. Journal of Business Strategy, 4(4): 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., & Child, J. 1996. Decentralization of decision making in Chinas state enterprises. Management Issues in China, I: 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. 2001. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5): 429–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. 1987. Strategy making and structure: Analysis and implications for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1): 7–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. 1979. The structure of organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, A. M., & Casillas, J. C. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation and growth of SMEs: A causal model. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(3): 507–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbert, S. L. 2007. Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2): 121–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. H., & Luo, Y. 2001. Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5): 455–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. 2000. Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 486–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. 1972. Complex organizations: A critical essay. Glenview: Scott Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavior research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. 1968. Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1): 65–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. 2009. Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33(3): 761–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, J. A. 2005. Economic organization and the firm. Paper presented to the Utah Winter Strategy Conference, Park City.

  • Robins, J. A., & Wiersema, M. 2000. Strategies for unstructured competitive environments: using scarce resources to create new markets. In R. F. K. Bresser, M. Hitt, R. D. Nixon, R. D., & D. Heuskel (Eds.). Winning strategies in a deconstructing world: 201–220. Chichester, John Wiley & Son.

  • Sheng, S. B., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. 2011. The effects of business and political ties on firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 75(1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N. 2002. Misperceiving interactions among complements and substitutes: Organizational consequences. Management Science, 48(7): 900–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. 2006. Revisiting burns and stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, W., & Elfring, T. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intra-and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1): 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J., & Peng, M. W. 2003. Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: Two studies from an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13): 1249–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J., & Tan, D. 2005. Environment-strategy co-evolution and co-alignment: A staged model of Chinese SOEs under transition. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2): 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, J., Tang, Z., Marino, L. D., Zhang, Y., & Li, Q. 2008. Exploring an inverted U-shaped relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance in Chinese ventures. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(1): 219–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 1996. Firm organization, industrial structure and technological innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 31(2): 193–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana, A. 2008. Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3): 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4): 674–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wales, W. J. 2016. Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research directions. International Small Business Journal, 34(1): 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., & Mousa, F. T. 2013a. Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31(4): 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wales, W. J., Patel, P. C., Parida, V., & Kreiser, P. M. 2013b. Nonlinear effects of entrepreneurial orientation on small firm performance: The moderating role of resource orchestration capabilities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(2): 93–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. 2006. The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4): 541–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. L. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32(4): 635–657.

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. 2003. Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13): 1307–1314.

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. 2005. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1): 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. Y., & Li, J. T. 2008. The development of entrepreneurship in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(2): 335–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, S. J. 2001. Entrepreneurial orientation, environment scanning intensity, and firm performance in technology-based SMEs. In W. D. Bygrave, C. G. Brush, P. Davidsson, G. P. Green, P. D. Reynolds, & H. J. Sapienca (Eds.). Frontiers of entrepreneurship research: 365–367. Wellesley: Babson College.

  • Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. 1995. Contextual influence on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1): 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Garvis, D. M. 2000. International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5): 469–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 925–950.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (CityU 1414/06H), City University of Hong Kong (project number: 7004784) and National Science Foundation of China (project number: 71632002). We thank Mike Peng, Zhiang Lin, Orlando Richard, Qing Cao, Erin Miles, and Ciprian Stan for helpful comments, Kathleen Low and Brian Pinkham for able research assistance. The views expressed are ours and not necessarily those of the funding organization.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Haibin Yang

  2. School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75083, USA

    Gregory G. Dess

  3. Institute for Strategic Management, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria

    James A. Robins

Authors
  1. Haibin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory G. Dess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James A. Robins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haibin Yang.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 3 Key measurement items
Full size table

Appendix 2 Chinese Translation of Key Measurement Items

figure baafigure baa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, H., Dess, G.G. & Robins, J.A. Does entrepreneurial orientation always pay off? The role of resource mobilization within and across organizations. Asia Pac J Manag 36, 565–591 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9584-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9584-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation