Dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation and small and medium enterprise performance in emerging economies

Figures & data

Table 1: Descriptive data

	Frequency	Percentage
Level of education
Primary education and below	65	22.34
Secondary education	86	29.55
Certificate	62	21.31
Diploma and graduate	78	26.80
Total	291	100.00
Age of business
5 years or less	98	33.68
6 to 10 years	107	36.77
11 to 20 years	67	23.02
21 years or more	19	6.53
Total	291	100.00
Firm size
Micro enterprises	50	17
Small enterprises	193	66
Medium enterprises	40	14
Large enterprises	8	3
Total	285	100.00

Table 2: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test

KMO measure of sampling adequacy	0.899
Bartlett's test of sphericity
Approximate chi-square	0.00026
Degrees of freedom	78
Significance	0.000

Table 3: Total variance explained by extracted factors

	Initial eigenvalues			Extraction sums of squared loadings			Rotation sums of squared loadings
Component	Total	% of variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of variance	Cumulative %
1	6.571	50.550	50.550	6.571	50.550	50.550	5.047	26.015	26.015
2	1.602	12.326	62.876	1.602	12.326	62.876	5.042	50.592	24.578
3	1.252	9.634	72.510	1.252	9.634	72.510	4.697	72.510	21.918
4	0.794	6.106	78.616
5	0.573	4.404	83.020
6	0.430	3.308	86.328
7	0.361	2.773	89.102
8	0.345	2.651	91.753
9	0.307	2.365	94.118
10	0.284	2.182	96.299
11	0.212	1.630	97.930
12	0.193	1.487	99.416
13	0.076	0.584	100.000

Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Table 4: Pattern matrix for exploratory factor analysis after oblique rotation

	Component
Item	1	2	3
Competitive aggressiveness
Firm typically seeks to avoid competitive clashes, preferring a ‘live and let live’ posture	0.951	0.035	0.094
Firm makes no special effort to take business from competitors	0.876	0.09	0.054
In response to competitor's actions, the firm is very aggressive	0.825	0.070	0.047
Firm typically adopts a very competitive ‘undo the competitors' posture	0.823	0.022	0.034
Firm offers products/services to customers in a different way from competitors	0.223	0.197	0.131
Pro-activeness
In dealing with competitors, the firm is seldom the first business to introduce new products/services	0.076	0.947	0.036
Firm is always the first to introduce new products/services	0.022	0.900	0.040
In dealing with competitors, the firm typically responds to actions competitors initiate	0.030	0.898	0.038
Firm has a tendency to be ahead of competitors in introducing novel business ideas or products/services	0.028	–0.895	0.032
Risk-taking
Firm likes to take big financial risks	0.074	0.015	0.907
Firm invests only in business that ensures success and profitability	0.017	0.023	0.835
Firm believes that higher financial risks are worth taking for higher rewards	0.017	0.013	0.756
Firm pursues new business ideas while well aware that some will fail	0.146	0.043	0.752

Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: oblimin with Kaiser normalization.

Table 5: Structure matrix for exploratory factor analysis after oblique rotation

	Component
Item	1	2	3
Competitive aggressiveness
Firm makes no special effort to take business form competitors	0.911	0.488	0.541
In response to competitors’ actions, the firm is very aggressive	0.887	0.520	0.536
Firm typically seeks to avoid competitive clashes, preferring a ‘live and let live’ posture	0.882	0.409	0.412
Firm typically adopts a very competitive ‘undo the competitors’ posture	0.831	0.420	0.476
Firm offers products/services to customers in a different way from competitors	0.424	0.403	0.402
Pro-activeness
Firm is always the first to introduce new products/services	0.508	0.931	0.502
Firm has a tendency to be ahead of competitors in introducing novel business ideas or products/services	0.507	0.926	0.494
In dealing with competitors, the firm typically responds to actions which competitors initiate	0.472	0.895	0.427
In dealing with competitors, the firm is seldom the first business to introduce new products/services	0.398	0.890	0.396
Risk-taking
Firm likes to take big financial risks	0.418	0.401	0.859
Firm pursues new business ideas while well aware that some will fail	0.582	0.494	0.853
Firm invests only in business that ensures success and profitability	0.430	0.385	0.814
Firm believes that higher financial risks are worth taking for higher rewards	0.439	0.399	0.771

Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: oblimin with Kaiser normalization.

Table 6: Correlation matrix for extracted factors and SME performance

	Test variable
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Type of industry
2. Firm size	–0.412**
3. Level of education	–0.343**	0.410**
4. SME performance	–0.123	–0.167**	0.339**
5. LnProfit	–0.178**	0.140*	0.482**	0.574**
6. LnROA	0.023	–0.272**	0.258**	0.416**	0.765**
7. LnROI	0.009	–0.293**	0.233**	0.398**	0.731**	0.917**
8. Competitiveness	–0.137*	0.119*	0.330**	–0.548**	0.489**	0.358**	0.348**
9. Pro-activeness	0.051	–0.095	–0.288**	0.485**	–0.532**	–0.401**	–0.358**	–0.323**
10. Risk-taking	–0.121*	0.138*	0.398**	–0.676**	–0.618**	0.431**	–0.393**	–0.306**	0.424**

Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Table 7: Parameter estimates (β) and model parameters for dimensions of EO

	Models
	Model 1^a	Model 2^b	Model 3^c
Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation	Parameter Estimates (β)
Competitive aggressiveness	–		−0.747**
Risk taking		−0.247**	−0.518**
Pro-Activeness	0.548**	0.627**	0.486**
Model Parameters*
R^2	0.300	0.355	0.795
F – ratio	123.794	79.164	639.933
Adjusted R^2	0.297	0.350	0.792
R^2 Change	0.300	0.055	0.440
F-Change	123.794	24.478	614.413
Sig. F-Change	0.000	0.000	0.000

^aPredictors: (Constant), Pro-activeness; ^bPredictors: (Constant), Pro-activeness, Risk taking; ^cPredictors: (Constant), Pro-activeness, Risk taking, Competitive aggressiveness; *^dDependent Variable: SME Performance

Figure 1: Strength of relationship between competitive aggressiveness and SME performance

Figure 2: Strength of relationship between pro-activeness and SME performance

Figure 3: Strength of relationship between risk-taking and SME performance