Entrepreneurial behaviour, firm size and financial performance: the case of rural tourism family firms

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

	No. of respondents	Percentage
Gender of respondents
Male	119	60.1%
Female	79	39.9%
Generation of firm
Founder-led	117	59.1%
Descendant-led	81	40.9%
Size of firm
Micro (≤9 employees)	70	35.4%
Small (10–49 employees)	99	50.0%
Medium (50–249 employees)	27	13.6%
Large (≥250 employees)	2	1.0%
Age of respondents	Mean (SD)
	46.84 (15.17)

Note: N = 198.

Table 2. Items for EO dimensions and results of factor analysis.

	Component (varimax rotation)	α	AVE
I1: In general, the managers of my firm favor a strong emphasis on the marketing of tried and true products or services//  … on R&D, technological leadership, and innovations	0.65
I2: My firm has marketed no new lines of products or services in the past 5 years//  … many new lines of products or services in the past 5 years	0.78	0.67	0.61
I3: Changes in product or service lines have been mostly of a minor nature// … have usually been quite dramatic	0.89
P1: In dealing with competitors, my firm typically responds to actions which competitors initiate//  … initiates actions which competitors then respond to	0.67
P2: In dealing with competitors, my firm is very seldom the first business to introduce new products/services, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc.//  … very often the first business to introduce new products/services, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc.	0.89	0.75	0.69
P3: In general, the managers of my firm have a strong tendency to ‘follow the leader’ in introducing new products or ideas//  … to be ahead of other competitors in introducing novel ideas or products	0.91
R1: In general, the managers of my firm have a strong proclivity for low-risk projects (with normal and certain rates of return)//  … for high-risk projects (with chances of very high returns)	0.82
R2: In general, the managers of my firm believe that owing to the nature of the environment, it is best to explore it gradually via timid, incremental behaviour//  … , bold, wide-ranging acts are necessary to achieve the firm’s objectives	0.89	0.83	0.74
R3: When confronted with decisions involving uncertainty, my firm typically adopts a cautious, ‘wait-and-see’ posture in order to minimize the probability of making costly decisions//  … a bold posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities	0.87

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
(1) Innovativeness	4.05	1.35
(2) Proactiveness	4.58	1.40	0.578**
(3) Risk-Taking	3.23	1.41	0.560**	0.573**
(4) Financial performance	4.75	1.09	0.283**	0.287**	0.198**
(5) Firm size	1.65	0.48	0.165*	0.215**	0.222*	0.194**

Note: N = 198.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Table 4. Results of multiple regression analysis.

Financial performance	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Generation (founder- vs. descendant-led)	0.07	0.04	0.03	0.03
Innovativeness		0.19*	0.18*	−0.22
Proactiveness		0.19*	0.17*	0.76*
Risk-Taking		−0.02	−0.03	−0.17
Firm size (micro vs. larger)			0.12	0.11
Firm size × Innovativeness				0.39
Firm size × Proactiveness				−0.59°
Firm size × Risk-Taking				0.14
F-value	0.83	5.40***	4.87***	3.47***
Adjusted R²	0.00	0.09	0.10	0.10
R²	0.00	0.11	0.12	0.14

Notes: °p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed). Dependent variable: financial performance.