Economics and Business

Quarterly Reviews

Amin, Hindu Jibril. (2021), Effect of Entrepreneurial Marketing Dimensions on

Small and Medium Enterprises Performance in Nasarawa State. In: Economics
and Business Quarterly Reviews, Vol.4, No.2, 196-208.

ISSN 2775-9237

DOI: 10.31014/aior.1992.04.02.356

The online version of this article can be found at:

https://www.asianinstituteofresearch.org/

Published by:
The Asian Institute of Research

The Journal of Economics and Business is an Open Access publication. It may be read, copied, and distributed
free of charge according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

The Asian Institute of Research Journal of Economics and Business is a peer-reviewed International Journal. The
journal covers scholarly articles in the fields of Economics and Business, which includes, but not limited to,
Business Economics (Micro and Macro), Finance, Management, Marketing, Business Law, Entrepreneurship,
Behavioral and Health Economics, Government Taxation and Regulations, Financial Markets, International
Economics, Investment, and Economic Development. As the journal is Open Access, it ensures high visibility and
the increase of citations for all research articles published. The Journal of Economics and Business aims to
facilitate scholarly work on recent theoretical and practical aspects of Economics and Business.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

 The Asian Institute of Research
Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews
Vol.4, No.2, 2021: 196-208
ISSN 2775-9237
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved
DOI: 10.31014/aior.1992.04.02.356

Effect of Entrepreneurial Marketing Dimensions on Small and

Medium Enterprises Performance in Nasarawa State
Hindu Jibril Amin1
1
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Baze University, Abuja, Nigeria

Correspondence: Hindu Jibril Amin, Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences,
Baze University, Abuja, Nigeria Tel: +2348036006609 / E-mail: hindu.amin@bazeuniversity.edu.ng

Abstract
Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) Dimensions play a critical role in small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
performance. The extant study explored the effect of EM dimensions on the performance of SMEs operating within
Nasarawa State, Nigeria. EM was conceptualized as innovativeness, risk-taking, and value creation. The research
population was 1979 registered SMEs in Nasarawa state, Nigeria. The sample size was 322 which was determined
using Raosoft sample size calculator. Out of 322 sets of questionnaire distributed, 136 were validly filled and
returned. The data collected were analyzed using Regression Analysis technique to test the study’s hypotheses
using Statistical Product and Service Solutions software. Results specify that all three of the EM dimensions under
study have significant effect on SME performance. In terms of contribution to the model, the explanatory variables
were able to contribute 62.1 percent to the variable of interest (SME performance). On individual basis,
innovativeness explained the most to the criterion variable. The findings of this study offer important insights for
owners and managers of SMEs, researchers, and policymakers to further understand the effects of EM dimensions
on SMEs’ performance. SMEs should be encouraged to embrace the entrepreneurial dimensions of innovativeness,
risk taking, and value creation to increase business performance.

Keywords: Entrepreneurial Marketing, Innovativeness, Nasarawa State, Risk-Taking, SME Development, Value
Creation

1. Introduction

The concept of entrepreneurial marketing is a blend of two concepts, entrepreneurship and marketing. It forms a
fresh direction in the marketing world. Both basic theories are innovatively combined which are associated with
marketing and business practices called entrepreneurial marketing (Gilmore & Coviello, 1999; Hoy, 2008). In the
aspect of entrepreneurship in marketing theory education, this idea has generated major gaps between large and
small business enterprises (Carson, 1993; Stokes, 2000). Schindehutte and Morris (2010) state that the complete
convergence of marketing and entrepreneurship is entrepreneurship marketing. Hills and LaForge (1992) note that
the marketing and entrepreneurship fields are analogous in that both fields are boundary spanning, include all-
encompassing environmental interaction, and require risk and uncertainty assumptions. In addition, both

196

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

marketing and entrepreneurship have clients as their focal point (Hisrich, 1992). In their approach to management,
both areas are change-oriented, opportunistic in nature and creative in their approach to management (Collinson
and Shaw, 2001). According to scholars, the interface between marketing and entrepreneurship can also help
entrepreneurs cope with change, find promising opportunities and improve their creative skills (Collinson, 2002).
Entrepreneurship marketing growth, as a traditional entrepreneurial marketing conceptualization, is not only a
partnership between marketing tools and entrepreneurial processes, but fully covers all aspects of administrative
marketing and entrepreneurship. Kilenthong (2012) has shown that a higher degree of entrepreneurial orientation
contributes to a higher level of marketing for entrepreneurs.

In the technologically advanced nations such as the United States of America (USA) and Japan, more than 99
percent of all companies are SMEs. SMEs account for 99 percent of all enterprises in the European Union, account
for two-thirds of all private sector employment and have generated around 85 percent of new jobs in the past five
years (Fatoki 2019). The SME sector's contribution is one of the reasons for low unemployment and high economic
growth rates in many developed countries (Ayyagari, Beck & Demirgüç-Kunt, 2007; Pandya, 2012; European
Union, 2018).

Nowadays, marketing is no longer perceived as a function in a business, rather as a wider practice that can be
stretched to goods as well as other products, such as services, locations, people, ideas, and causes (Kotler, 2011).
During the past four decades, marketing as practiced by businesses today has changed dramatically (Kilenthong
Hills, & Hultman, 2015). Marketing, once thought to be an act of sales and advertisement, was forced into this
new direction by changes in different components (Day and Montgomery, 1999). Significant advances in the
academic marketing area have followed this change to the new view of marketing, and marketing behaviours found
in these advancements share identical essence with entrepreneurial behaviours. First, advertising has moved from
a transactional approach to a relational approach (Gronroos, 1990; Webster, 1992). Also, marketers have accepted
the idea of co-creation and enabled their clients by incorporating them into their modern method of product
advancement (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). They give consumers the chance to participate and pick elements
of new product offerings, claiming that doing so will increase the possibility of the success of their new products
(Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft, & Singh, 2010).

1.1 Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Marketing

Several studies (Hacioglu, Eren, Eren, & Celikkan 2012; Becherer, Helms, & McDonald 2012; Gorica and
Buhaljoti, 2016; Eggers, Niemand, Kraus, & Breier 2020) identified the seven-dimension paradigm developed by
Morris, Schindehutte, & LaForge (2002), which is based on both entrepreneurial orientation and marketing
orientation. The seven dimensions comprise of proactiveness, opportunity-driven, resource leveraging,
innovativeness, risk-taking, value creation, and customer intensity. The first five constructs are associated with
entrepreneurial orientation, and the last two dimensions are related to marketing orientation.

1.1.1 Proactiveness
Proactiveness is described by the firm’s orientation towards looking for new ways to achieve a competitive edge
over large-scale competitors by gradual improvements to current manufacturing and marketing practices (Morris
et al. 2002). Proactiveness can be defined as the opportunity-seeking and forward-looking perspective when
launching new products ahead of market competition, which contributes to shift in the marketing environment
(Hacioglu et al., 2012).

1.1.2 Opportunity Driven

Opportunity driven can be described as identification and pursuit of untouched market opportunities irrespective
of resources under control (Morris et al., 2002), while the degree-of-fit defines the market opportunities with
reference to resources and capabilities of the firm; it is the ability of the firm to choose the “right opportunity” at
the “right time,” leading to long term success (Becherer et al. 2012). (Becherer et al. 2012).

197

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

1.1.3 Customer intensity

Customer intensity is the process of discovering creative methods to customer acquisition, retention, and growth
(Morris et al. 2002). It is distinguished by the characteristics of customer equity, intuitive relationships, and
emotional dimension to a firm’s marketing efforts.

1.1.4 Risk-taking
Entrepreneurial Marketing incorporates the dimension of risk management or calculated risk-taking, which
represents the explicit efforts to recognize the risk factors and then to manage or mitigate those factors (Morris et
al. 2002).

1.1.5 Innovativeness
Innovation is characterized by the firm’s capability to create new ideas that can be commercialized into new
products, services, technologies, and markets (Runserspanjol, 2001: cited in Morris et al. 2002; Gamage et al.
2019; Gamage et al. 2020b). In the context of EM, the dimension of innovativeness can be ranged from opportunity
identification, concept generation towards product development, and creative augmentation of a firm’s resource
base to support innovation (Hacioglu et al. 2012; Carson and Gilmore, 2000).

1.1.6 Resource leveraging

Resource leveraging can be identified as the firm’s ability to recognize a resource which has not being used
optimally, see how the resource could be used in non-conventional ways, and convince those that control the
resource to let the marketer use it in a more productive manner (Morris et al. 2002). Hence, entrepreneurs are not
merely constrained by the resources under their control but can leverage resources in diverse ways such as using
others’ resources to accomplish own purpose, complementing one resource with another to reach higher combined
value, getting the use of resources that others haven’t recognized, using certain resources to obtain other resources,
and reaping the benefits of resources more than others in the past (Morris et al. 2002).

1.1.7 Value Creation

Value creation is a process of discovering unexploited sources of customer value and creating unique combinations
of resources to produce value (Morris et al. 2002), which leads to acquiring a competitive advantage over large-
scale businesses (Becherer et al. 2012).

1.2 SME Performance

Bandara, Jayasundara, Gamage, Ekanayake, Rajapackshe, Abeyrathne, & Prasanna (2020) stated how
performance is a construct that has several meanings in the works of literature. Majority of researchers have
defined SME performance on the basis of the firm’s substantial outcomes in terms of sales growth, the efficiency
of investment, customer acquisition, increasing market share, and returns, which can be identified as ‘complex
series of actions that integrate skills and knowledge’ (Hoque, Awang, and Gwadabe, 2018). Additionally, they
indicated how the SME performance in terms of outcome constructive management activities involved efficiency,
effectiveness, productivity, and growth. They exemplified performance as the power of a firm to yield satisfactory
results and actions. Furthermore, Fatoki (2019) as well as Mojekeh et al. (2018) have explained firms’ performance
as a set of both financial and non-financial indicators. Similarly, Mojekeh, Nwokolie, & Okwuraiwe (2018)
acknowledged return on assets (ROA), return on investments (ROI), return on equity (ROE), market share sales
growth, and profitability as financial performance measures. In terms of non-financial performance it is measured
in terms of customer contentment, worker commitment, innovation capability, internal business process
improvement, and service delivery effectiveness as non-financial performance measures (Mojekeh et al. 2018).

1.3 Problem Statement

Several scholars have recognized various entrepreneurial marketing constructs. Cases in point are Hadiyati and
Lukiyanto (2019) study which offered entrepreneurial marketing dimensions in relation to philosophy marketing,
marketing strategy, methods, and marketing intelligence, whereas Eggers et al. (2020) established a valid scale for
EM, showing its inner frame and prediction of performance on the basis of three EM dimensions of change driving,

198

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

bootstrapping, and risk-taking. Similarly, Mugambi and Karugu (2017) acknowledged EM dimensions of strategic,
innovation, market, and resource leverage orientations. On the other hand, Kilenthong, Hills, and Hultman (2015)
discovered six underlying factors of EM behaviours, namely growth orientation, opportunity orientation, total
customer focus, value creation through networks, informal market analysis, and closeness to the market. In terms
of SMEs Performance, it is conceptualized as Financial Performance, Production Performance, Innovative
Performance, Market Performance, and Owner/Manager’s Personal Performance. Thus, different researchers have
come up with different concepts in the name of entrepreneurial marketing, therefore this extant study focuses on
innovativeness, risk-taking, and value creation, which have not been studied together within the context of
Nasarawa State SMEs.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

i. To examine the influence of innovativeness on SME Performance

ii. To assess the effect of risk-taking on SME Performance
iii. To determine the impact of value creation on SME Performance

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study
exists. It is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study.

2.1.1 Resource Based View (RBV)

The resource-based theory was chosen for this study as it offered a more solid foundation for the investigation of
the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on the success of small and medium-sized businesses than the other
theories. Wernerfelt (1984) and Barney (1991), in their work on firm capital and sustained competitive advantage,
are proponents of RBV. The central idea in resource-based theory is that organizations compete against others on
the basis of their resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). According to the theory, in order to
have a sustainable competitive advantage, a business organization must have valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-
substitutable resources, which include everything within the organization. The resource-based view was developed
under the theory of the firm, in which an organization is described as the summation of strategically important
resources where everything matters. Resource-Based View is often associated with entrepreneurial orientation
performance and growth since the analysis of orientation of entrepreneur’s values in terms of innovativeness, risk
taking, value creation and customer focus has become one of the most important estimation tools in the last decade
for enterprise performance and competitive strength as well as innovation.

2.2 Empirical Review and Hypotheses Development

In an empirical review, the researcher looks at different empirical studies done by other researchers on subjects
that are similar to the extant study. It deals with the prior empirical relationship between the various predictor
variables and the variable of interest. The explanatory variables to be discussed are: innovativeness, risk-taking,
value creation and customer focus; while the criterion variable is the SME Performance.

2.2.1 Innovativeness and SME Performance

Lomberg, Urbig, Stöckmann, Marino, & Dickson, (2017) describe innovativeness as the propensity of business
enterprises to inculcate the spirit of generating creative ideas or processes to introduce new products or services
through experiment or feasibility study. Also, Covin & Miller (2014) describe innovativeness as the preparedness
of business organizations to come up with new ideas in terms of processes/procedures or products in the
marketplace. Numerous works of research have been embarked on to examine the relationship between
innovativeness and SMEs performance in various countries.

199

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

A research carried out by Bowen, Rostami, & Steel (2010) revealed that innovation and business success
are related to each other. Businesses that adopt innovations are known to exhibit higher levels of productivity
and economic growth than non-innovating firms (Jimenez & Sanz-Valle, 2011; Ngo & O’Cass,
2013). Furthermore, Wang and Yen (2012) established positive relationship between innovativeness and
performance among Taiwanese small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in China. In addition, Casillas and Moreno
(2010) reported positive relationship between innovativeness and firm’s growth in terms of sales, assets and
employment. Similarly, Hughes and Morgan (2007) reported positive relationship between innovativeness and
product performance but not customer performance. Also, in a study conducted by Sadiku-Dushi, Dana, and
Ramadani (2019) which explored the impact of seven entrepreneurial marketing dimensions on a firm’s overall
performance (measured in terms of efficiency, profit, owner’s personal goal, and firm and owner’s reputation) in
Kosovo State confirmed that innovativeness, exhibits significant positive effects on overall firm performance. As
a result of the above discussion, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: Innovativeness is significantly related to SME Performance

2.2.2 Risk-Taking and SME Performance

In the entrepreneurship discourse, risk taking is emphasized as an important feature of entrepreneurship and
a contributor to performance. Risk-taking is essential for the success and growth of a business, which is based
on how entrepreneurs perceive and manage the risks in their environment. In the recent past, Linton and Kask
(2017) describe risk taking as a key factor in the origins of entrepreneurial orientation: the roots of entrepreneurial
orientation are related to the fact that entrepreneurial firms are more inclined to take risks than other types of firms.
Dewan, Shi, and Gurbaxani (2007) found relationship between firms’ risk-taking tendency and marginal product
of IT. The study revealed that firms were able to produce higher marginal product of IT when it took higher
entrepreneurial risk. On the other hand, firms’ low-level risk allows lower product of IT. Risk-taking orientation
has also been considered as having a direct relation with the possibility of seizing valuable deals and, in general,
is positively related to success (Frese, Brantjes, and Hoorn, 2002). Risk taking is related to a readiness to make
more resources to projects where the cost of failure may be high (Miller and Friesen, 1982). This is because risk-
taking is essential for the success and growth of a business, which is based on how entrepreneurs perceive and
manage the risks in their environment. Sadiku, Dana, and Ramadani (2019) examined the impact of seven EM
dimensions on a firm’s overall performance (measured in terms of efficiency, profit, owner’s personal goal, and
firm and owner’s reputation) in Kosovo State. The outcomes of the study submitted that calculated risk-taking has
a significant negative effect on a firm’s overall performance. Consequently, the study hypothesized the following:
H2: Risk-taking is significantly associated with SME Performance

2.2.3 Value Creation and SME Performance

The aim of market orientation is to provide superior value to customers (Narver and Slater, 1990). The information
gained from consumer and competitor research ensures that superior value is given. When a company conducts a
detailed study of its customers' needs and wants, as well as the actions of rivals in the industry, it is in a stronger
position to formulate strategies that will help the company compete efficiently and ensure its long-term viability
(Kumar, Jones, Venkatesan, & Leone, 2011).

Value creation is at the core of a company's entrepreneurial and marketing strategy (Rezvani and Khazaei, 2014).
Despite the fact that value creation is a prerequisite for exchange, effective business owners prioritize the
entrepreneurial approach to value creation in order to gain a competitive advantage (Özdemir, 2013). The customer
and transaction relationship have always been more relevant in conventional marketing. The core concept in
entrepreneurial marketing is constant and creative value creation, based on the belief that value creation is a
prerequisite for transactions and relationships.

Works of research have shown that, the relationship between marketing orientation and performance has been
extensively studied (e.g., in the hotel industry, manufacturing sector, financial and non-financial services), and
there is widespread consensus that marketing orientation (MO) has an impact on SME performance (Ekaterina and
Utz, 2014; Jawad, Fayaz, & Shoaib, 2016; Hussain, Ismail, & Akhtar, 2015; Oluwatoyin, Olufunke, & Salome,
2018).

200

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

In a study conducted by Murray, Gao, and Kotabe (2011) which focused on the internal mechanism by which MO
influences performance in export markets. The researchers came up with three marketing orientation constructs:
marketing capabilities, competitive advantages, and performance relationships. According to Murray, et al. (2011),
marketing capabilities partially mediate the relationship between marketing orientation and performance, while
competitive advantages partially mediate the relationship between marketing capabilities and performance.

Furthermore, in another study by Hussain, et al. (2015) which examined marketing orientation using three
dimensions, competitor orientation, customer orientation, and inter-functional coordination, and how these
dimensions influence the performance of SMEs in Pakistan. The results of the study discovered that all the three
dimensions of marketing orientation have significant influence on the performance of SMEs in Pakistan. Therefore
from the above discussions, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H3: Value Creation is significantly related to SME Performance

3. Research Methodology

Key research methodologies include quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods (Kumar, 2012; McNulty &
Zattoni, 2013). This study chooses a quantitative method. The quantitative method is suitable to examine the
relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable in the research. Also, a cross sectional
research design will be engaged in this study for the reason that the data will be collected at a single point in time
(Kumar, Abdul Talib & Ramayah 2013; Zikmund, Babin, Car & Griffin n 2013; Sekaran & Bougie 2013). The
choice of a cross sectional design is due to its cost effectiveness and time saving which meets the requirement of
this study (Sekaran 2010; Wilson 2013). With regards to sample size, a sample size of 322 was drawn from a
population of 1979 SME operators and managers operating within Nasarawa State and are registered with both
SMEDAN and Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC). Simple random technique was adopted since this type of
technique gives equal opportunity to participants of being selected. The Cronbach’s alpha was used as a measure
of reliability. Inferential statistics using correlations and multiple regression analysis were used for data analysis
using the statistical product for service solution (SPSS) software. Inferential statistics were utilized to substantiate
the relationship between the predictor variables and the criterion variable.

The following regression model was used: Y = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + e

Where Y = SME Performance; β0 = Constant; β1, β2, and β3 = Coefficient of Predictor variables; X1, X2, and X3
= predictor variables; e = Error Term

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Response Rate and Demographic Information

All 322 businesses in the sample were contacted, and the questionnaire was self-administered. The researcher
formed contact with the business owners and managers in order to clear up any ambiguities and boost response
rates. Over the course of data collection phase, 164 completed copies of the questionnaire were obtained from
respondents, and the screening process was completed after that. Despite the researcher's request to double-check
completed copies of the questionnaire for missing data, 28 of the 164 responses were found to have some issues
and were not included in this report, leaving 136 responses for analysis. The response rate is shown in Table 1.
The research sampling is summarized in Table 1:

Table 1: Questionnaire Response Rate

Total Questionnaire Administered 322
Total Non-Response 158
Total Numbers of Questionnaires Returned 164
Unusable Responses* 28
Usable Responses 136
Note: * Unusable Responses were because of missing data and alterations.

201

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

The questionnaire comprises of primarily two parts: first part encompasses demographic information about
entrepreneurs and second part involves measurement questions for Innovativeness, Risk-taking, Value Creation
and SME performance. Likert scale was used in the second part of the questionnaire, labelled by ‘1’ for strongly
Disagree and ‘5’ for strongly Agree.

4.2 Demographic Analysis

To examine the demographic characteristics of the 136 complete cases, descriptive statistics were computed.

Gender
In terms of Gender, the total number of respondents that are Male has a frequency of 75 respondents, which
accounted for 55 percent. The Female gender on the other hand showed a frequency of 61 respondents which
accounted for 45 percent of the total participants.

Age
The respondents’ age ranged from 20 to 50 years and above. 8 percent or frequency of 11 participants fall within
the age range of 20 to 29 years. The age range between 30 and 39 years have frequency of 58 participants or 43
percent. The age range of 40 to 49 years have a frequency of 52 respondents or 38 percent of the total participants.
Finally, the age respondents, of 50 years and above have a frequency of 15 respondents or 11 percent of the total
participants.

Educational Level
In terms of educational level, this classification was categorized into High School, Diploma, HND/BSc and
Postgraduate Level of education.

Respondents that have High School educational level have a frequency of 63 respondents or 46.3 per cent of the
total respondents. In the Diploma holders category a total of 30 respondents or 22.1 percent of the total respondents
fall in this category. In the HND/BSc category, 25 respondents or 18.4 percent of the total respondents fall into
this category. Finally, the Postgraduate category has a frequency of 18 respondents or 13.2 percent of the total
research participants.

Table 2: Demographic Analysis

VARIABLES FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Gender
MALE 75 55
FEMALE 61 45
TOTAL 136 100
Age in Years
20 – 29 11 8
30 – 39 58 43
40 – 49 52 38
50 and above 15 11
TOTAL 136 100
Educational Level
HIGH SCHOOL 63 46.3
DIPLOMA 30 22.1
HND/BSc 25 18.4
POSTGRADUATE 18 13.2
TOTAL 136 100.0

4.2 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach alpha coefficient is used to assess item reliability (internal consistency) under each variable construct.
The coefficient was created by Cronbach's (1951). The rule of thumb says that Cronbach's alpha value of 0.6 and

202

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

above is considered an acceptable range for measuring item reliability (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black 1998).
In this study, combined Cronbach alpha value of 0.749 was found to be suitable for this analysis as shown in Table
3.
Table 3: Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.749 4

4.3 Analysis and Results

The SPSS 22.0 edition was used to analyze the data in this study. The correlation between the dependent variable
(SME performance) and the independent variables was measured using correlation analysis in this study. Multiple
regression analysis is used to analyze the significant impact level of independent variables (INNOVATIVENESS,
RISK-TAKING, and VALUE CREATION) on dependent variable (SME Performance) in order to evaluate the
three formulated hypotheses.

To test for multicollinearity in this study, the Durbin-Watson test yields a valid value of 1.716, which falls within
the satisfactory range of 1.5 to 2.5. (Durbin & Watson, 1950). All of the VIFs (Variance Inflation Factors) are less
than the threshold value of 5.00, and tolerance values are within the appropriate range of 0.1 to 1.0 (Kutner,
Nachtsheim, & Neter 2004), meaning that the model is free of multicollinearity issues.

4.3.1 Interpretations
The correlation coefficient (r) was used to measure the extent of the relationship between variables. Hair, Black,
Babin and Anderson (2018) assert that a correlation coefficient is a coefficient that indicates the strength of
association between any two metric variables and the value ranges from +1 to -1, where +1 indicates a perfect
positive relationship, 0 indicates no relationship and -1 indicates a negative relationship or reverse relationship (as
one variable grows larger, the other variable grows smaller. The purpose of the correlation analysis was to
determine how the criterion variable (SME_Perf) was related to the explanatory variables. Cohen (1988) states in
the guidelines that, if r = .10 - .29 then there is a low effect (low correlation); r = .30 -.49 has a medium effect
(moderate correlation) and 𝑟 = .50 − .99 has a large effect (strong correlation). Therefore, innovativeness,
risk_taking, and value creation have strong correlation, moderate correlation, strong correlation and moderate
correlation respectively as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Correlations
SME_Perf Innov_Tiness Risk_Taking Val_Creation
Pearson Correlation SME_Perf 1.000 .760 .375 .511
Innov_Tiness .760 1.000 .266 .490
Risk_Taking .375 .266 1.000 .231
Val_Creation .511 .490 .231 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) SME_Perf . .000 .000 .000
Innov_Tiness .000 . .001 .000
Risk_Taking .000 .001 . .003
Val_Creation .000 .000 .003 .
N SME_Perf 136 136 136 136
Innov_Tiness 136 136 136 136
Risk_Taking 136 136 136 136
Val_Creation 136 136 136 136

Table 5, shows a multiple regression results of the effect of entrepreneurial marketing dimensions on SME
performance of entrepreneurs in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. The fitness of the regression model is based upon the

203

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

adjusted R-squared value and the F-test of the regression. The R-squared value of the regression is called the
coefficient of determination. It is the ratio of the squared variation that is explained by the regression (explained
sum of squares or SSE) divided by the total variation (total sum of squares or SST). It is a value between zero and
one (Wooldridge, 2015). Coefficient of determination, 𝑅2 measures the amount of variation in the dependent
variable explained by the variation in the independent variable (Keller, 2018). The results of regression analysis
show that the Adjusted R2 is 0.621 which suggests that innovativeness, risk taking initiative, and value creation
explain 62.1% of the variations in the performance of the small and medium scale enterprises operating within
Nasarawa State.

Table 5: Model Summaryb

Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 .793a .629 .621 1.738 1.716
a. Predictors: (Constant), Val_Creation, Risk_Taking, Innov_Tiness
b. Dependent Variable: SME_Perf

The projected regression model fitted the data well as it was statistically significant at F (3, 132) is 74.754 as
shown in Table 6. This indicates that the combination of the explanatory variables significantly predict SME
performance. The implication is that the regression of innovativeness, risk taking initiative, and value creation on
SME performance is statistically significant at p<0.05 level of significance. Besides, Durbin Watson (DW) test
was 1.716 which is within the 1.5 and 2.5 recommended value for independent observations. Consequently, there
was no autocorrelation as shown in Table 5.

Table 6: ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 677.175 3 225.725 74.754 .000b
Residual 398.582 132 3.020
Total 1075.757 135
a. Dependent Variable: SME_Perf
b. Predictors: (Constant), Val_Creation, Risk_Taking, Innov_Tiness

Of the three dimensions of entrepreneurial marketing investigated in this study, and as shown in Table 7,
Innovativeness (β = 0.637, t = 10.313, p<0.05), Risk Taking Initiatives (β = 0.169, t = 3.055, p<0.05), and Value
Creation (β = 0.159, t = 2.602, p<0.05), had a positive and significant contribution to the performance of the
selected SMEs in Nasarawa State.

The results show that Innovativeness (β = 0.637, t = 10.313, p<0.05), Risk Taking Initiatives (β = 0.169, t = 3.055,
p<0.05), and Value Creation (β = 0.159, t = 2.602, p<0.05) significantly predict SME performance of entrepreneurs
in Nasarawa State.

Table 7: Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Collinearity Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 4.666 1.320 3.535 .001
Innov_Tiness .535 .052 .637 10.313 .000 .735 1.361
Risk_Taking .146 .048 .169 3.055 .003 .916 1.091
Val_Creation .127 .049 .159 2.602 .010 .749 1.336
a. Dependent Variable: SME_Perf

204

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

The established regression equation was as follows:

SME_Perf = 4.666 + 0.535Inno_Tiveness + .146Risk_Taking +.127Val_Creation

4.4 Discussion on the Results

One of the results of this study showed that the coefficient for innovativeness (β = 0.535) is statistically significant
and different from zero. This is because its p-value is 0.000 which is below the 5% degree of significance.
Therefore, a unit increase in innovativeness will result in a 0.535 improvement in SME performance. Hence, the
null hypothesis was rejected, and a finding made that Innovativeness is significantly related to SME Performance.
The result is in agreement with earlier studies such as Wang and Yen (2012) who established a positive relationship
between innovativeness and performance among Taiwanese small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in China. Also,
the finding of the study is in line with Casillas and Moreno (2010) study which reported a positive relationship
between innovativeness and firm’s growth in terms of sales, assets and employment.

Furthermore, another result of this study showed that the coefficient for risk-taking β = (0.146) is statistically
significant and different from zero. This is because its p-value is 0.003 which is below the 0.05 degree of
significance. Thus, a unit increase in risk-taking will result in a 0.146 improvement in SME performance. So, the
null hypothesis was rejected, and a finding made that risk-taking is significantly associated with SME
Performance. The result agrees with earlier studies such as Linton and Kask (2017) study which describe risk
taking as a key factor in the origins of entrepreneurial orientation. Also, the finding is in line with Dewan, Shi, and
Gurbaxani (2007) study which found a relationship between firms’ risk-taking tendency and marginal product of
IT.

Similarly, Value Creation is positively and significantly related to SME Performance and therefore the third
hypothesis of this study which stated that value creation is significantly related to SME Performance is supported.
This finding is consistent with the Rezvani and Khazaei, (2014) study which highlighted the importance of value
creation by stating that Value creation is at the core of a company's entrepreneurial and marketing strategy.
Furthermore, the outcome of this study is in alignment with the study conducted by Narver and Slater, (1990)
which stated that the goal of market orientation is to provide superior value to customers. The result showed that
value creation has significant impact on the growth and performance of SMEs.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The study concluded that there was positive statistically and significant effect of entrepreneurial marketing on
SMEs performance in Nasarawa State, Nigeria with the result of the multiple regression analysis which showed
that the regression coefficients for Innovativeness, Risk Taking Initiatives, and Value Creation were significant
and also statistically different from zero and at p<0.05 level of significance.

It is therefore, recommended that SMEs should embrace the entrepreneurial dimensions of innovativeness, risk
taking, and value creation to increase business performance of SMEs. Also, SMEs operators should adopt the
creation of innovative solutions or new product lines; SME owners and managers should be free to take initiative
for the best interest of the organization and provide superior value to customers which will increase firm
performance.

5.1 Limitations and Future Studies

Business owners were the only ones who responded to this survey, and the research was limited to the
organizational level. As a result, a detailed analysis of study variables at other levels, such as group and individual,
cannot be in-depth. In addition, as the extant research used a quantitative method to achieve its objectives, future
studies might utilize mixed methods techniques to explore the scope of the study variables in order to provide a
more in-depth understanding of the issues. Finally, the study’s constructs were limited to three explanatory
constructs such as innovativeness, risk-taking, and value creation; leaving out proactiveness, customer intensity,

205

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

opportunity driven, and resource leveraging. Therefore, future studies should examine in detail all the dimensions
of EM vis-à-vis SMEs in Nasarawa State.

References

Ayyagari, M., Beck, T., & Demirgüç-Kunt, A. (2007). Small and medium enterprises across the globe. Small
business economics, 29(4), 415-434.
Bandara, K., Jayasundara, J., Gamage, N, Ekanayake, E., Rajapackshe, P., Abeyrathne, G. & Prasanna, R.
(2020). Entrepreneurial Marketing & Performance of Small & Medium Enterprises in Developed and
Developing Economies: A Conceptual Exploration.
Barney J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management Sciences,
17(1), 99-120.
Becherer, R. C., Helms, M. M., & McDonald, J. P. (2012). The effect of entrepreneurial marketing on outcome
goals in SMEs. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 3.
Bowen, F. E., Rostami, M. & Steel, P. (2010) timing is everything: A meta-analysis of the Relationships
between organizational performance and motivation, Journal of Business Research, 63 (11): 1179-1185
Casillas, J. C. and Moreno, A. M. (2010). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and growth: The
moderating role of family involvement. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(3-4), 265-291.
Carson, D. & Gilmore, A. (2000). Marketing at the interface: not ‘what’ but ‘how’. Journal of marketing theory
and practice, 8(2), 1-7.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Collinson, E. (2002). The marketing/entrepreneurship interface. Journal of Marketing Management 3 (4),
337{340.
Collinson, E. and E. Shaw (2001). Entrepreneurial marketing a historical perspective on development and
practice. Management Decision 39 (9), 761{766.
Covin, J. G., & Miller, D. (2014). International entrepreneurial orientation: conceptual considerations, research
themes, measurement issues, and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1),
11-44.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Day, G. S., & Montgomery, D. B. (1999). Charting new directions for marketing. The Journal of Marketing,
63(4), 3-13.
Dewan, S., Shi, C., & Gurbaxani, V. (2007). Investigating the risk–return relationship of information
technology investment: Firm-level empirical analysis. Management science, 53(12), 1829-1842.
Durbin, J., & Watson, G.S. (1950). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression I. Biometrika, 37(4),
409-428.
Eggers, F., Niemand, T., Kraus, S., & Breier, M. (2020). Developing a scale for entrepreneurial marketing:
Revealing its inner frame and prediction of performance. Journal of Business Research, 113, 72-82. 9
Ekaterina, P. and Utz, D., 2014. The impact of market orientation on Business Performance: The Case of
Tatarstan Knowledge-Intensive Companies, Russia. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 12,
pp.225-231.
European Union 2018 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/businessfriendly-environment/performance-review en
(accessed on 25 April 2019).
Fatoki, O. (2019). Entrepreneurial Marketing and Performance of Small and Medium Enterprises in South
Africa. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 8, 1429-1437.
Frese, M., Brantjes, A., & Hoorn, R. (2002). Psychological success factors of small scale businesses in Namibia:
The roles of strategy process, entrepreneurial orientation and the environment. Journal of developmental
Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 259-282.
Gamage, S. K.N., Ekanayake, E. M. S., Abeyrathne, G. A. K. N. J., Prasanna, R. P. I. R., Jayasundara, J. M. S.
B., & Rajapakshe, P. S. K. (2019). Global Challenges and Survival Strategies of the SMEs in the Era of
Economic Globalization: A Systematic Review.
Gamage, S. K. N., Ekanayake, E., Abeyrathne, G. A. K. N. J., Prasanna, R. P. I. R., Jayasundara, J. M. S. B., &
Rajapakshe, P. (2020). A review of global challenges and survival strategies of small and medium
enterprises (SMEs). Economies, 8(4), 1-24.
Gilmore, A., & Coviello, N. (1999). Methodologies for research at the marketing/entrepreneurship interface.
Journal of research in marketing and entrepreneurship.
Gorica, K., & Buhaljoti, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial Marketing: Evidence from SMEs in Albania. American
Journal of Marketing Research, 2(2), 46-52.

206

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

Gronroos, C. (1990). Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: The marketing and organizational
behavior interface. Journal of Business Research, 20(1), 3-11.
Hacioglu, G., Eren, S. S., Eren, M. S., & Celikkan, H. (2012). The effect of entrepreneurial marketing on firms’
innovative performance in Turkish SMEs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 871-878
Hadiyati, E., & Lukiyanto, K. (2019). The Effect of Entrepreneurial Marketing Dimensions On Micro, Small,
and Medium Enterprise Performance in Indonesia. International Journal of Scientific & Technology
Research, 8(10).
Hair, F.J, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings,(Fifth
Edition). Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hair J.F. (Jr), Black W.C., Babin B.J. and R.E., Anderson, R.E. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.).
Stamford, USA: Cengage Learning.
Hills, G. and R. LaForge (1992). Research at the marketing interface to advance entrepreneurship theory.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 (3), 33{59.
Hisrich, R. (1992). The need for marketing in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 7
(3), 53{57.
Hoque, A. S. M. M., Awang, Z., & Gwadabe, U. M. (2018). The Effect of Entrepreneurial Marketing on
Bangladeshi SME performance and the Role of Organizational Culture: A Structural Equation Modelling.
Journal of Management and Operation Research, 1, 1-21.
Hoy, F. (2008). Organizational learning at the marketing/entrepreneurship interface. Journal of Small Business
Management, 46(1), 152-158.
Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer co-creation in new product
development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 283-296.
Hughes, M. and Morgan, R.E. (2007). Deconstruction the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and
business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(5),
651-661.
Hussain, J., Ismail, K., & Akhtar, C. S. (2015). Market orientation and organizational performance: case of
Pakistani SMEs. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(5), 1-6.
Jawad, H., Fayaz, A.S. and Shoaib, Ch. A., 2016. Market Orientation and Organizational Performance in Small
and Medium Sized Enterprises: A Conceptual Approach. City University Research Journal, 6, pp.166-180.
Jimenez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning and Performance. Journal of Business
Research (64).
Keller, G. (2018). Statistics for management and economics (11th ed.). Stamford, USA: Cengage Learning.
Kilenthong, P. (2012). An empirical investigation of entrepreneurial marketing and the role of entrepreneurial
orientation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago).
Kilenthong, P., Hills, G. E., & Hultman, C. M. (2015). An empirical investigation of entrepreneurial marketing
dimensions. Journal of International Marketing Strategy, 3(1), 1-18.
Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4),
132-135.
Kumar, A. (2012). Using phenomenological research methods in qualitative health research. International
Journal of Human Sciences, 9, 790-804 doi: 10.14687/ijhs
Kumar, M., Abdul Talib, S. & Ramayah, T. 2013. Business Research Methods. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R., & Leone, R. P. (2011). Is market orientation a source of sustainable
competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of marketing, 75(1), 16-30.
Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear regression models, (Fourth Edition).
McGraw Hill/Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Linton, G., & Kask, J. (2017). Configurations of entrepreneurial orientation and competitive strategy for high
performance. Journal of Business Research, 70, 168–176.
Lomberg, C., Urbig, D., Stöckmann, C., Marino, L. D., & Dickson, P. H. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation:
the dimensions' shared effects in explaining firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
41(6), 973-998
McNulty, T., & Zattoni, A. (2013). Developing corporate governance research through qualitative methods: A
review of previous studies. Corporate Governance, 21, 183-198.
Miller, D. & Friesen, P.H. (1982) Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic
momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, p.1-25.
Mojekeh, M. O., Nwokolie, C. E., & Okwuraiwe F. E. (2018). Entrepreneurial Marketing and the Performance
of the Selected Small and Medium Scale Enterprises in Nigeria. Journal of Economics, Business, and
Management, 2, 1-23 DOI: 10.21276/sjebm.2018.5.10.9.
Morris, M. H., Schindehutte, M., & LaForge, R. W. (2002). Entrepreneurial marketing: a construct for
integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives. Journal of marketing theory and
practice, 10(4), 1-19.

207

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440

Asian Institute of Research Economics and Business Quarterly Reviews Vol.4, No.2, 2021

Mugambi, E. N., & Karugu, W. N. (2017). Effect of entrepreneurial marketing on the performance of real estate
enterprises: A case of Optiven Limited in Nairobi, Kenya. International Academic Journal of Innovation,
Leadership and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 46-70.
Murray, J.Y., Gao, G.Y. and Kotabe, M., 2011. Market Orientation and Performance of Export Ventures: The
Process through Marketing Capabilities and Competitive Advantages. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39, pp.252-269, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0195-4.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of
marketing, 54(4), 20-35.
Ngo, L. V. & O’Cass, A. (2013) Innovation and business success: The mediating role of customer
Participation, Journal of Business research, 66(8): 1134-1142
Oluwatoyin, A.M., Olufunke, A.P. and Salome, I.O., 2018. The Impact of Market Orientation on Performance of
Selected Hotels in Ondo State, Nigeria. Open Journal of Business and Management, 6, pp.616-631.
https://doi.org/10. 4236/ojbm.2018.63047.
Özdemir, Ö.G., 2013. Entrepreneurial Marketing and Social Value Creation in Turkish Art Industry: an
Ambidextrous Perspective. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 15(1), pp.39- 60.
Pandya, V. M. (2012, September). Comparative analysis of development of SMEs in developed and developing
countries. In The 2012 International Conference on Business and Management (pp. 6-7).
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co‐creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Rezvani, M. and Khazaei, M., 2014. Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Marketing Dimensions According to
Characteristics of Institutions: Institutions Age and Size. International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied
Research, 3(4), pp.207-213.
Sadiku-Dushi, N., Dana, L. P., & Ramadani, V. (2019). Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions and SMEs
performance. Journal of Business Research, 100, 86-99.
Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial marketing strategy: lessons from the Red Queen.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 11(1), 75-94.
Sekaran, U. (2010). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 4th edition. New York: John
Willey and Sons, Inc
Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 6th edition.
Chichester: John Willey and Sons Ltd.
Shaw, E. (1999). Networks and their relevance to the entrepreneurial/marketing interface: A review of the
evidence. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 24-40.
Stokes, D. (2000). Putting entrepreneurship into marketing: The process of entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of
Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1 16.
Wang, H. K. & Yen, Y. F. (2012). An empirical exploration of corporate entrepreneurial orientation and
performance in Taiwanese SMEs: a perspective of multidimensional construct. Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, 23(9), 1035-1044.
Webster, F. (1992). The changing role of marketing in the corporation. Journal of Marketing, 56(4), 1-17.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2015). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 6e. Mason, OH: South-Western
CENGAGE Learning.
Zikmund, W.G., Barry, J.B., Jon, C. & Griffin, C.M.G. (2013). Business Research Method. 8th edition. New
York: Cengage Learning.

208

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3857440