See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321849810

ENTREPRENEUR ORIENTATION AND FIRMS PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING

ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DYNAMISM

Article · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 102

1 author:

Ali Yassin sheikh Ali

SIMAD University
59 PUBLICATIONS   125 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

An economic impact analysis View project

the impact of Accountability dimensions on civil servants' performance. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Yassin sheikh Ali on 16 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

ENTREPRENEUR ORIENTATION AND FIRMS PERFORMANCE: THE

MODERATING ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DYNAMISM

Dr. Ali Yassin Sheikh Ali

Assistant professor; Faculty of Economics- Simad University, Somalia

ABSTRACT
Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) is frequently mentioned as an antecedent of performance and
superior growth, and previous research findings has repeatedly shown a positive relationship
between EO and firm performance appears to exist. However, the question that remains
unanswered is what effect EO might have on performance of firm owned by women, and the
severe environmental dynamics that their firms faces which modifies their entrepreneurship
capability. This research is a first investigation towards the effects of EO on the performance of
small and medium sized firms owned by women entrepreneurs in Somalia.

In this study we employed the multidimensional model of EO and test its relationship with firm
performance using survey data gathered from 315 Small and Micro enterprises owned by Somali
women in Mogadishu.

The current research shows that entrepreneurial orientation positively contributes to firm
performance owned by women entrepreneurs. We further show that environmental dynamics
moderate the relationship between Entrepreneurial orientation and performance of the micro and
small enterprises owned by Somali women.

Keywords: Entrepreneur orientation, firm performance, environmental dynamism, women

entrepreneurs

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is a key ingredient or factor for firm success (Zhongfeng, En, &
Yuan, 2011). Also defined as firm that involves in technological innovation, the processes,
practices, and decision- making activities that lead to new entry, undertakes risky ventures, and
pursue opportunities proactively (Rodney, Cornelia, & Jane, 2008,). While firm performance
defined as the analysis of company’s performance as compared to goals and objectives. Within
corporate organizations, there are three primary outcomes analyzed which include financial and

www.ijebmr.com Page 425

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

non financial performance, market performance and shareholder value performance and in some
cases production capacity performance may be analyzed (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005).
However environmental dynamism refers to the uncertainty of future developments or events
(Seyed, 2012). Uncertainty can occur in many ways, for instance as changes in customer needs,
technological discontinuities, or shifts in the behavior of competitors and suppliers. Thereby,
uncertainty arises from a lack of information on future events, their causes and consequences, as
well as the applicability and consequences of alternative responses to these events (Seyed, 2012).
Although there are potential opportunities resulting from environmental dynamism, we propose
that, in general, dynamism affects firm performance negatively due to the large number of threats
associated with unpredictable environments (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005); Therefore, the extent
to which the company's ability in dealing with dynamics of the environment is an important issue
in determining the positive relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and performance
(John W., Olli, & Sanna, 2009).
The resource-based view suggests that a firm’s performance is dependent on its possession of
valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable resources. This shows that the
entrepreneurial orientation such as risk taking propensity, pro-activeness and innovativeness with
the moderating effect of environmental dynamism which leads to better performance. That is,
Entrepreneurial Orientation can be under the restriction of the dominant logic, yet provides a
differentiation mechanism that emphasizes firm performance.
Some small and medium enterprises in the world have the potential to contribute significantly to
world economy (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005) also the micro business owned and managed by
women had contribution to economy and family income. However, to survive and thrive in the
dynamic business environment, SMEs have to formulate and implement their strategy by
engaging in entrepreneurial behavior (John W., Olli, & Sanna, 2009). One prominent concept of
strategy making in strategic management and entrepreneurship literature is entrepreneurial
orientation (Arief, Thoyib, Achmad, & Fatchur, 2013).
A dynamic environment offers opportunities for firms, but also exposes them to a number of
risks. Technological discontinuities, for instance, open up new growth and profit opportunities
for firms that are able to create and exploit opportunities along the new technological trajectory.
However, not only the environment itself, but also performance consequences of strategic actions
are highly unpredictable when dynamics are involved. As a result, decision making is more
difficult in dynamic than in stable environments, and penalties for wrong strategic decisions are
usually more severe (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). The main aim of this paper is to find out the
effect of entrepreneur orientation on a firm’s performance when dynamic environment is
moderating on their relationship.

www.ijebmr.com Page 426

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

2.1: Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance

Entrepreneurial orientation is described as the involvement of a firm to enter a new market

(Avlontis & Salavou, 2007; Jantunen, Puumalainen, & Saarenketo, 2005). Avlontis & Salavou,
(2007) posited entrepreneurial orientation constitutes an organizational phenomenon that reflects
a managerial capability by which firms embark on proactive and aggressive initiatives to alter the
competitive scene to their advantage. Coulthard, (2007); and Ilhami, (2011), developed almost
three dimensions that characterize the entrepreneurial orientation of a firm: innovativeness, pro-
activeness, risk taking. Innovativeness reflects the tendency to engage in and support new ideas,
novelty, experimentation and creative processes resulting in newness.

Pro-activeness reflects firm’s actions in exploiting and anticipating emerging opportunities by

develop and introduce as well as making improvement towards a product (Coulthard, 2007;
lhami, 2011). Risk-taking represents the willingness to commit resources to undergo activities
and projects which resulted in uncertainty of the outcomes (Coulthard, 2007; Ilhami, 2011).
Risk-taking is defined as the extent to which a firm is willing to make large and risky
commitments (Coulthard, 2007; Ilhami, 2011).

In measuring business performance, subjective and self-reported measures by the owners/

managers will be utilized which are consistent with the earlier studies (Fauzul, Takenouchi, &
Yukiko, 2010, Smart & Conant, 1994). As suggested by Jantunen, Puumalainen, & Saarenketo,
(2005), majority of earlier studies have adopted self-reported measures to gather business
performance data which have proven to be reliable. Moreover, Mahmood & Hanafi, (2013)
asserts that public information is unreliable as most of the firms are privately held and they have
no legal obligation to disclose information. According to Wiklund & Shepherd, (2005),
development, growth, progress and financial performance is a common performance
measurement. Thus, the researcher will adopt financial and non-financial performance
measurements in this study.
The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance has become the main
subject of interest in past literatures. According to Wiklund & Shepherd, (2005), it is likely for
firms adopting entrepreneurial orientation (EO) to perform better than companies that adopt
conservative orientation.
Initially, one could question the importance of entrepreneurial orientation for the success of
enterprises. Thus, previous studies showed that entrepreneurial orientation could significantly
improve business performance (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005; Coulthard, 2007; Zainol &
Ayadurai, 2011; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001).
www.ijebmr.com Page 427
 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

Many studies on entrepreneurial orientation and business performance have been associated with
positive results (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Jantunen, Puumalainen, &
Saarenketo, 2005; Coulthard, 2007; Zahra, 1991; Madsen, 2007). However, there is no doubt
there are also studies that revealed that EO does not give positive results to business performance
(Hart, 1992; Matsuno, Mentzer, & Ozsomer, 2002; Morgan & Strong, 2003).
According Lyon, Lumpkin and Dess (2000) research states that entrepreneurial orientation does
influence firms’ performance; they suggested that entrepreneurial orientation positively effects
financial performance. Most researchers measured financial performance by sells growth and
cash flow. Both items are not easily found as most firms don’t discover to their financial
statement to external researchers and even if it’s found it’s hard to confirm whether it reflects
organization’s financial position.

Most researches directed to entrepreneur orientation such miller (1983) , coving and silver
(1989), Lumpkin and Dess (1996) ,wiklund(1999), lee and chio (2000), Kreiser et al.,(2002),
investigated the impact of entrepreneur orientation with different dimensions on business
performance they found that entrepreneur orientation has positive relationship with business
performance. Entrepreneur orientation is positively correlated to business performance but varies
with variation of culture and personality traits (Rauch et al, 2004) thus:

H1: Entrepreneurial orientation has positive effect on performance of women

entrepreneurs in Somalia.

2.2: The moderating effect on environmental dynamism

Many scholars agree that external environment plays an important role in the management
discipline (Goll and Rasaheed, 2005; Galbraith and Schendel, 1983; Bourgeois, 1980), and that
there is empirical evidence that external environment represents a moderating role for the wide
spectrum of business strategies (Greenley and Foxall, 1999). Moreover, various studies have
investigated the moderating role of external environment on the relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation and business performance (Desarbo et al., 2005; Golder and Tellis
1993; Zahra and Covin, 1993).

Environmental dynamism represents the rate of change in an environment. For example,

Wijbenga and van Witteloostuijn (2007) defined environmental dynamism as the rate at which
the preferences of consumers and the products of organizations change over time. Dynamic
environments, by definition, are also unpredictable, devoid of patterns and regularities (Dess &
Beard, 1984).

www.ijebmr.com Page 428

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

Environmental attributes such as dynamism and munificence may moderate the relationship
between the three dimensions such as pro-activeness, innovativeness and risk taking propensity
of entrepreneurial orientation and performance. The following part details the theoretical
relationship between each of the sub-dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation, the external
environment, and firm performance. Firms operating in dynamic environments are more likely to
benefit from new product innovation than firms operating in stable environments (Miller, 1983;
Zahra, 1996).
There is also an intuitive link between the adoption of pro-active firm behaviors and
environmental dynamism. While the industry conditions in a dynamic environment are subject to
rapid change, firms that are pro-active and actively seek out opportunities will outperform firms
that are unwilling to exploit market opportunities. Dynamic environments act to create many new
opportunities for firms, and pro-active strategies can be efficiently and effectively utilized in
order to seize these opportunities and to gain a competitive advantage for the firm than
competitors (Zahra, 1991).
Zahra (1996) found that dynamic environments acted to boost the evidence of pioneering
activities in entrepreneurial firms, which were more uncommon in stable environments.
Proactive activities benefited such a firm, since "by reaching the market first and establishing its
technology as the standard, the pioneer can dictate the rules of competition" (Zahra, 1996).
Lumpkin and Dess (2001) found that "market growth, sales growth and profitability are
positively and significantly related to pro-activeness with dynamism relation." Also Lumpkin
and Dess (2001) argued that dynamics environmental conditions would force organizations to
abandon proactive behaviors, in order to preserve their limited resources. All these arguments
suggest that proactive behaviors will be more and more positively related to firm performance in
munificent environments than in dynamic environments.
Different views support suggests that dynamic environments will also result in a stronger link
between entrepreneurial risk-taking and firm performance. Firms that do not take risks in
dynamic environments will lose market share, growth rate and will not be able to maintain a
strong industry standing relative to more aggressive competitors (Covin and Slevin, 1999; Miller,
1983).
Baird & Thomas, (1985) found a stronger relationship between entrepreneurial risk-taking and
firm performance in dynamic environments. According to Baird & Thomas, (1985),
organizations need to make bold, being risky taking, risky strategic decisions in order to handle
with the constant state of change common in dynamic environments. These arguments suggest
that entrepreneurial risk-taking will be more positively associated with firm performance in
dynamic environments than in stable environments.
Dynamic environment plays a moderating role on the relationships between various
organizational variables and business performance (Zahra, 1993). Anderson (2004) found out

www.ijebmr.com Page 429

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

that the relationship between decision making process and business performance is moderated by
a dynamic environment. Hence, a strong argument for entrepreneurial orientation acceptance
exists when the company operates in a dynamic environment. Thus:

H2: Environmental dynamism moderate the relationship between entrepreneurial

orientation and performance of women entrepreneurs in Somalia.
3.1: Research design

This research employed explanatory research design to test the relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance using regression analysis also used descriptive
design to investigate the characteristics of women entrepreneurs in Somalia

This study conducted through cross-sectional survey design because it is a popular and common
strategy in business and management. Cross-sectional survey is a research design used to
investigate population by selecting samples to analyze and discover occurrences.

3.2 Research population

The study conducted Women entrepreneurs In Somalia; four region participated the study, first
region is Banadir region where the capital city of Mogadishu locates in Mogadishu, Mogadishu
is the largest Region in Somalia and is selected majority of the respondents from it considering
appropriate for providing a focal point for the study of the EO and performance of Somali
women entrepreneurs: moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Second region is Puntland
was previously known as the north-eastern region of Somalia. In 1998, it adopted the name
Puntland and established its own regional administration. Puntland supports a unified Somalia.
The third region participated the survey is Somaliland is located in the north-west region of
Somalia. It declared its independence in 1991 but has not received international recognition.
Somaliland has its own government and the fourth region is south central Somalia, researcher
selected four regional capital cities such as Marko in Lower Shabelle, Kismayo in Juba
administration, Baidawa in Bay Region and Baldwyn in Hiiran region.

3.3: Sample Size

According to Israel (1992), there are several techniques for determining the actual sample size.
However, this study follows the formula technique, which calculates the desired sample size.
Yamani (1967, cited in Israel, 1992) provided a useful formula to calculate the sample size,
considering the level of error tolerated.

www.ijebmr.com Page 430

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

The n is sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of precision. Based on the above
formula, the sample size for the current is 360 after rounding. After determining the actual
sample size, several calculations were conducted in order to obtain the sub-sample for the four
zones. Since the entrepreneurs in each zone is not equal in numbers to other zones, this study
follows proportionate stratified random sampling, where each zone is represented according to
its proportion in the population. For instance, the sub-population for Banadir zone is 70%,
Somaliland 13%, Puntland 6% and South-central 6% of women entrepreneurs.

3.4 Measurement of variables

3.4.1: Entrepreneurial orientation (IV)

Entrepreneurial orientation – to measure dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation, we employed

the nine-item five point interval scale type scale ranging from strong agreement with the question
to strong disagreement ‘Entrepreneurial Orientation’ scale developed by (Covin and Slevin
1989), this scale is widely used to test entrepreneurial orientation of the firm.

According to Kreiser, Marino and Weaver (2002) the scale is the most commonly utilized
instrument in Operationalizing EO. This scale is intended to assess three components of firm-
level entrepreneurial orientation – innovativeness, risk-taking and pro-activeness.

Previous studies have reported evidence of reliability and validity for the EO scale (e.g. Knight
1997; Naman and Slevin 1993; Kreiser et al. 2002). In the present study, the Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha value for the overall scale was 0.825.

3.4.2: Firm performance (DV)

Firm performance is the dependent variable of this study and it is defined as the result of
business process, practice and activities, this construct developed by researcher is based on two
financial measurements, profitability with five items, and liquidity with 6 items while non-
financial measurements was used for six subjective questions measuring budget goal
achievement, new product development, customer satisfaction and market share using Five point
likert scales, For the following criteria and on a scale from 1 (top 20%) to 5 (lowest 20%), how
would you rank your company relative to your closest competitors in your industry for the last
three years? , the construct was validate using factor analysis, the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
value for the overall scale was 0.890.

www.ijebmr.com Page 431

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

3.4.3: Environmental Dynamism: ED refers to the perceived insatiability of a firm’s market

because of continuing changes. Opportunities emerge from the dynamism of an industry where
social, political, technological, and economic changes bring about new developments that can
enrich a firm’s niche. ED was measured by 3 items on five point scales ranging from strong
agreement with the question to strong disagreement and adopted from the studies of (Miller and
Friesen, 1982; Zahra, 1991).

4. DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

According to below table 1, Ages of the respondents, majority of them were in between the ages
of 36-45 years (53.2%) while other respondents are above 46 years (15.6%) respectively, the rest
are 25-35 (31.2%). in terms of Marital status, the frequency of the single were 63 with
percentage of 20.9%, married frequency were 181 with percentage of 60.1%,This result showed
that the majority of women entrepreneurs are married due to their being entrepreneurship We can
infer here that married women are working in order to contribute to their family income. They
have many people who depend on them back at home. Conversely, the widows and the divorcees
just live with their families and relatives. They don’t venture as married women do, while
number of divorced women were 57 with percentage of 18.9%.

In terms of Level of education as appeared in the below table, the most and clustered area of the
whole respondents were in the level of primary degree which shown that the number of primary
education respondents were 164 which results 54.5%, the second respondents were in the level of
secondary which shown that the number of secondary level respondents were 80 which results
26.6%, the diploma holders was 52 respondents which results 17.3% while the degree holders
are smallest one 5 women entrepreneurs are graduated from university this definitely will
influence their business performance.

www.ijebmr.com Page 432

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

Table 1- Demographic characteristics of the respondents

Demographic Profile Frequency Percent

Age

25-35 94 31.2

36-45 160 53.2

Above 46 47 15.6

Total 301 100.0

Marital status

Single 63 20.9

Married 181 60.1

Divorced 57 18.9

Total 301 100.0

Educational Background

Primary Education 164 54.5

Secondary 80 26.6

Diploma 52 17.3

Degree 5 1.7

www.ijebmr.com Page 433

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

Demographic Profile Frequency Percent

Total 301 100.0

www.ijebmr.com Page 434

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

4.2: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY TEST

In order to achieve this objective and ensure the validity of the measures, exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) were conducted for the EO, Firm performance and environmental Dynamism
construct by using principle components (PC) with varimax rotation. PC is widely used and it is
most appropriate when the data reduction is the major concern for the researcher (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2010).

A: Factor and Reliability Analysis on Entrepreneurial orientation construct

There were 9 items for EO construct, which were adopted from previous studies, representing
Entrepreneurial orientation on women owned and managed micro and small enterprises. to
determine how many components (factors) to ‘extract’, we need to consider a few pieces of
information provided in the output. Using Kaiser’s criterion, we are interested only in
components that have an eigenvalue of 1 or more.

Four items was loaded less on their respective factor (IV06, IV07, IV08, IV09) their
Communalities are less than the cut score of .50 (.495, .481, .487, .496), which indicated that
each item has no contribution to their respective factor; the less communalities were delete (IV07
and IV08).

The eigenvalues for each component are listed. Only the two components recorded eigenvalues
above 1 (2.114, 2.050). The Factor loading on all the dimensions ranged from 0.804 to 0.645.,
these two components explain a total of 59.5 % of the variance. The Cronbach alpha for the two
factors was 0.718, and 0.722 respectively.

Table 2: Exploratory Factor analysis for Entrepreneurial orientation

FACTORS ITEMS F1 F2

F1: People in our business are .753 -.027

encouraged to take calculated
PROACTIVENESS risks with new ideas.

We initiate actions to which .751 .242

competitors then respond

We always try to take initiative .656 .374

in every situation (e.g. against
competitors, in projects, when

www.ijebmr.com Page 435

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

working with others, etc.)

It is very often that our business .645 .305

is the first to introduce new
products, services,
administrative techniques, etc.

F2: Our firm actively introduce .205 .804

improvements and innovations
INNOVATION in our business

Changes in our product or .086 .768

service lines have been quite
dramatic

Our firm encourages .296 .722

development of employees ideas
for the purpose of business
improvement

Percentage Variance 30.204 29.289

Explained

Eigenvalues 2.114 2.050

Reliability 0.718 0.722

B: Factor and Reliability Analysis on Environmental Dynamism

Initially the questionnaire had three dimension i.e. Environmental Dynamism, hostility and
heterogeneity. Environmental Dynamism sounds suitable for the current paper, factor analysis
was conducted on Environmental Dynamism only and the result from table 3 shows Dynamism
with 3 items as one factor loading, with (MSN) value above 0.50, KMO was (.624) and Bartlett
sphericity test was significant. The one factor cumulatively captured 56% variance of the date
and Eigen value 1.691. The original name of the factor remains. The reliability of the factor was
acceptable (α= .607).

www.ijebmr.com Page 436

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

Table 3: Exploratory Factor analysis for environmental Dynamism

Items Factor Loading F1

In our industry methods of production and .792

selling strategies change often and in major
ways

Our firm must change its marketing practices .774

frequently

The rate of products/Service obsolete in our .681

industry is high

Percentage Variance Explained 56.362

Eigenvalues 1.691

Reliability 0.607

C: Factor and Reliability Analysis on Firm Performance

The 15 items of the firm performance (dependent variable) were subjected also to principal
components analysis (PCA). Earlier to performing PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis
was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of
.3 and above. The Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin value was .868, exceeding the recommended value of .6
(Kaiser 1970, 1974) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett 1954) reached statistical
significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

Principal components analysis revealed the presence of three components with eigenvalues
exceeding 1, explaining 25%, 18%, and 14% of the variance respectively. Three factors were
extracted from the analysis. Two items was loaded less on their respective factor (NFP1 and
FL03); items Communalities were less than the cut score of .50 (.277, .378 respectively), which
indicated that the item has no contribution to their respective factor; the two items was deleted
and all other items were loaded high on their respective factor.

www.ijebmr.com Page 437

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

First factor was labeled as” firm profitability” and it consisted 5 items, the factor explained 25%
of the variance with Eigenvalue greater than one. The reliability of the factor was acceptable (α=
.727).

The second factor of the construct was labeled as “Firm liquidity” and accounted for 18% of
variance explained with Eigenvalue greater than 1. The factor obtained a high internal
consistency (α= .839). The factor consisted of five (5) items. The third factors was named “Non
financial measurements” and it consisted of three (3) items with internal consistency (α= .721)
and its acceptable and reliable, the factors explained variance accounted 14% with Eigenvalue
greater than 1. Moreover, the three factors explained an overall 58% of variance while the
overall alpha was also very high (α= .846).

Table 4: Exploratory Factor analysis for firm performance

FACTORS ITEMS F1 F2 F3

F1: I lost part of my capital .753 .148 .190

in the process of doing
PROFITABILITY this business

The share I invested at .735 .132 .198

the beginning of this
business has grown
larger than the original
amount.

My business experiences .728 .112 .181

losses from time to time

My business is relatively .722 .151 .205

experiencing high profit
margin because our sales
are greater than the cost
of purchases & sales.

The amount of my .702 .125 .232

current assets is larger
than the original

www.ijebmr.com Page 438

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

investment at the time of

business start.

F2: In my experience, there .119 .726 .143

were times I could not
LIQUIDITY pay the rentals,
electricity & the balance
owed by the supplier

It takes longer than one .016 .675 .216

year to convert current
assets (inventories &
receivables) into cash

The current balance of -.059 .669 .449

the liability were
borrowed before one
year

How do you rate your .314 .657 -.149

business’ ability to pay
its bills within 3 to 12
months?

The current assets of the .289 .627 -.179

company are more than
the current liabilities

F3: Market Development .284 .115 .693

which offers New
NON-FINANCIAL Product Development
MEASUREMENTS
My market share .395 .024 .668
increased last three years

My product and service .473 .087 .602

quality drive customer
satisfaction.

www.ijebmr.com Page 439

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

% variance explained 25 18 14
for each

Eigenvalues 3.310 2.368 1.817

Reliability 0.727 0.839 0.721

Note: The scale used for these items rang from strongly disagree to strongly agree (5-point likert
scale)

4.3: INTER CORRELATION OF VARIABLES

Table 5 below shows the result of the correlations coefficient among the variables. The tables
indicated that the mean value for both variables is above average, indicating that they are
positively and sufficiently correlated with each other. The table5 shows, Entrepreneurial
orientations (EO) as the dependent variable suppose to have correlation with environmental
dynamism and firm performance. The results of Bivariate correlation depicted a consequential
relationship of variables as shows in below table, such as firm performance (r=.463, p=.000), and
environmental dynamism (r=.205, p=.000) with the entrepreneurial orientation. Moreover the
dependent variable in this study (firm performance) is considerably and positively correlated
with environmental Dynamism (r=.258, p=.000).

Table 5: Mean, Std. Deviation and Zero-order correlation for all variables

Variables Mean Std. 1 2 3

Deviation

Entrepreneurial 3.09 .870 1

Orientation

Firm Performance 3.52 .728 .463 1

Environmental 3.15 .998 .205 .258 1

Dynamism

4.4: HYPOTHESIS TEST

www.ijebmr.com Page 440

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

H1: Entrepreneurial orientation has positive effect on performance of women

entrepreneurs in Somalia.

Regression analysis was used to test the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and
firm performance (H1), the regression analysis result in Table (6) indicates that EO dimensions
has positive and significance influence on performance of women entrepreneurs (β= .463, t=
9.235, p<.001), therefore, this findings supports H1.

Table 6: Coefficients of EO and Firm Performance

Variable Beta t Sig.

Entrepreneurial
.463 9.235 .000
orientation

H2: Environmental dynamism moderate the relationship between entrepreneurial

orientation and performance of women entrepreneurs in Somalia.

Environmental dynamism also called as “environmental variability or volatility, its perceived

frequency of change in market or industry, examples of environmental dynamism is changes in
technology, customer preferences and competitive actions.

To test the indication that There is moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the
relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance, to test this hypothesis we
employed hierarchical regression to see if there is moderation or not. One of the important
criteria for assessment of the moderation is the amount of additional variance explained by the
interaction terms.

www.ijebmr.com Page 441

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

Table 7:Model Summary of E-Dynamism interaction with EO and FP

Change Statistics
Std. Error
R Adjusted R of the R Square F Sig. F
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change

1 .463a .215 .212 .647 .215 85.288 1 312 .000

2 .492b .242 .238 .636 .028 11.391 1 311 .001

3 .505c .255 .248 .632 .013 5.265 1 310 .022

The 1st model gives the results of the impact of Entrepreneurial orientation ( IV) on firm
performance (DV), the 2nd model gives the results of the impact of the environmental dynamism
(moderator) on the firm performance (as if it is a predictor variable) and the 3rd model gives us
the results of the impact of the interaction terms. The R2 change must be significant and to
ascertain this we look at the “Sig. F Change” this will tell us if the R2 change is sufficient, the p
value should be less than 0.05 to be significant. Here the p-value 0.022< 0.05 as such there is
indication of moderation effect.

The results of the model 1 are consistent with previous test, showing a positive effect of EO in
the performance of the firm (β =0.463, p =0.000), and EO variable explains the additional
variance (ΔR2 = 0.215, p< 0.01). when proposed ED in Model 2 the relationship between EO
and firm performance decreased, and this indication when environment is dynamic the
entrepreneurial orientation will effect less on firm performance, In Model 3, adding the ED
variable increases the variance explained (ΔR2 = 0.255, p < 0.01), suggesting that this factor also
affects the performance of the firm.

www.ijebmr.com Page 442

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

Table 8: Results of the regression analysis (Coefficients)

Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.326 .135 17.250 .000

EO .388 .042 .463 9.235 .000

2 (Constant) 2.025 .160 12.669 .000

EO .359 .042 .428 8.494 .000

Dynamism .124 .037 .170 3.375 .001

3 (Constant) 1.181 .401 2.947 .003

EO .639 .129 .763 4.951 .000

Dynamism .412 .131 .565 3.154 .002

EO_ED -.094 .041 -.578 -2.294 .022

The hypothesis (H2) in this study predicts moderating effect of Environmental dynamism (ED)
on the relationship between EO and firm performance. To test this hypothesis, the interaction
effect between EO and ED was added. Model 3 reveals significant interaction effect of ED on
the relationship between EO and performance of the firm (β = -0.578, p < 0.05), which is
supporting the hypothesis of the investigation.

5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study was basically proposed to identify the relationship between Entrepreneurial
orientation and Firm performance in women owned and managed micro and small enterprises in
Somalia. Further, the study was also tested the moderating influence of environmental dynamism
on the relationship between Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance.

www.ijebmr.com Page 443

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

The first hypothesis of this study states Entrepreneurial orientation dimensions is positively
associated with firm performance. The standardized regression coefficient of EO is positive and
statistically significant in the prediction of dependent variables (financial performance). This
findings supported by an existing literature, as expected, the present study confirms the link
between entrepreneurial orientation dimension and firm performance such as (e.g., Covin &
Slevin, 1991; Covin et al., 2006; Lumpkin, Dess, 1996; Zahra, 1993 & Ali & Ali, 2014).

The second hypothesis stated that environmental dynamism has moderating influence on the
relationship between the entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance; the findings
supported the existence of moderation effect of the environmental dynamics to EO and firm
performance relationship and its inline with the related literature e.g., (Covin & Slevin, 1989;
Lumpking & Dess, 2001; Robertson and Chetty, 2000).

It is commonly thought that the higher the entrepreneurial orientation, the higher the
performance of the entrepreneur. Therefore, if that were true this study should have found that
women owned micro and small enterprises adopt entrepreneurial orientation attain a higher
performance financially and non-Financially indicators.

Empirically, this finding supports previous studies that EO is related positively and significantly
with the firm performance (e.g., Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Wiklund & Sheperd, 2005; Coulthard,
2007; Hui Li, et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2009; Frank, et al., 2010; Huang, et al.,2011; Rundh, 2011)
that EO associated positively with the firm performance. Nevertheless, when we incorporate
environmental determinants as a moderating variable, the positive relationship between EO and
the firm performance will be weakened and this is indication of existence of moderation effect.
Our results also indicate that the effect of EO on business performance is greater or lower,
according to high or low environmental determinants, supporting, thus, findings highlighted in
previous studies (e.g., Covin & Slevin, 1989; Lumpking & Dess, 2001; Robertson & Chetty,
2000).

This study contributes to the literature by broadening the knowledge on the linkage between EO
and the performance of firms. Many studies have explored the linkages between
entrepreneurship and the performance of firms using the EO measure (Covin & Slevin, 1986;
Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Wiklund, 1998). However, none of these looked at specific business
enterprises in the Sub-Saharan African context and especially in Somalia. Hence, this study has
managed to extend the geographical coverage of the investigation, and by establishing a
significant association between EO and performance, it has lent additional credence to previous
findings.

www.ijebmr.com Page 444

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

Based on practical contributions, this study found that the women entrepreneurs should have
realized the importance of Environmental Dynamism in relation of EO and firm performance.
Women entrepreneurs can improve its ability to demonstrate innovative behavior, proactive and
bold in taking risks. In addition, the understanding of women entrepreneurs about the existence
of competitors also should be a concern for women managers. To that end, the proactive
behavior becomes a major concern for companies in an effort to improve performance. This was
confirmed by the statements of Lumpkin and Dess (1996) that proactive dimension has greater
dominance compared to other dimensions, since the beta of Pro-activeness is large compared to
innovation.

Reference

Arief, M., Thoyib, A., Achmad, S., & Fatchur, R. (2013). The role of Entrepreneurial Orientation
on the Firm Performance Through Strategic Flexibility ; A Conceptual Approach. International
Journal of Business and Behaviorial Sciences .

Avlontis, G., & Salavou, H. (2007.). Enterpreneurail orientation of SMEs, product

innovativeness, and performance. Journal of Business Research, , 566-75.

Coulthurd, M. (2007). The Role of Enterpreneurial Orientation on firm Performance and the
potential influence of Relational Dynmism. Journal of Global Business and Technology , 29-39.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1999). A Conceptual Model of Enterpreneurship as Firm Behavior.
Enterpreneurship theory and Practice.

Fauzul, M. F., Takenouchi, H., & Yukiko,T. (2010). Enterprenuership Orientation and Business
performance of small and medium scale enterprises in Sri lanka.Asian Socisl Science. Journal of
business Research , 445-76.

Hart, S. L. . (1992). An Integrative Framework for Strategy -making Processes. academy of

Management Review , 327-351.

Ilhami, Y. (2011). Enterpreneurial orientation, Excutivess' Individualism and Firm Performance:

the Moderating Role of Exucative. far East journal of Psychology and Business.

Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., & saarenketo,S. (2005). Enterpreeurial Orientation, Dynamic
Capabilities and international performance. Journal of International Enterpreneurship, , 223-
243.

www.ijebmr.com Page 445

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

John W., C., Olli, K., & Sanna, S. (2009). export Markat Orientation Behavior and Export
Performance: Quadratic and Moderating Efrfect Under Differing Degree of Market Dynamism
and Internationalization. Journal of International Marketing , 71-89.

lumpkin, G., & Dess, G. (1996). Clarity the EO Construct and Linking in to Performance.
Academy of Management Reviews. , 135-172.

Lumpkin, G.,& Dess,G. (2001). Linking Two Dimentation of EO to Firm Performance: The
Moderating Role of Envoroment and Indusrty life Cycle. Journal nBusiness Venturing, , 429-
451.

Madsen,E. (2007). The significance of Sustained of enterpreneurial Orientationon Performance

of Firm- A Longittudinal Analyses. Entreprenuership & Regional Development , 185-204.

Mahmood, R., H anafi, N. (2013). Enterpreneurial Orientation and Business Performance of

Women- Owned Small and Meddium Enterprises in Malaysia: Comprative Advantage as a
Mediator. nternational Journal of Business and SWwocial Science, , 82-90.

Matsuno, K., Menrzer, J. T., & Ozsomer, A. (2002). The Effect of Enterpreneurial Proclivityand
Market Orientation on Business Performance . Journal of Marketing , 18-32.

Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of Enterpreneurship on three types of firms. . Management

Science , 770-791.

Morgan, R., & Strong, C. (2003). Business Performance and Dimentations of Strategies
Orientation. Journal of Business Research , 163-176.

Rodney, R., Cornelia, D., & Jane, S. (2008). Entrepreneurial Orientation Versus Small Business
Orientation: What are Their Relationships to Firm Performance? Journal of Small Business
Management, , pp. 567-588.

Seyed. H. J. (2012). Enviromental Determinants, Entrepreneurial Orientation And Export

Performance: Emppirical Evidance From Iran . Serbian Journal Of Management .

Smart, D., & Conant, J. (1994). Entrepreneurial Orientation, distinctive Marketing Competencies
and Organitional Performance . Journal of Applied usiness Research, , 28-38.

Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). entreperebeurial Orientation and Small Businessw
Performance: A Configurational Approach. Journal of Business Venturing, , 71-91.

www.ijebmr.com Page 446

 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research

Vol. 1, No. 05; 2017

ISSN: 2456-7760

Zahra, S. (1991). Predictors and Finencial Outcomes of Corporate Entrepreneurship: An

Exploratory Study. Journal of Business Venturing , 259-286.

Zahra, S. (1996). Technology Strategy And Financial Performance: Examing the moderating
Role of the Firms Competqatiove Enviroment. Journal of Business Venturing (11), , 189-219.

Zainol, F., & Ayadurai, S. (2011). Entrepeneurial Orientation and Firm Performance: The Role
of Personality Traits in Malay Family Firms in Malaysia. . International Journal of Business and
Social Science , 59-72.

Zhongfeng, S., En, X., & Yuan, L. (2011). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance in
New Ventures and Estabilished Firms. Journal of Small Business Mnagement .

www.ijebmr.com Page 447

View publication stats