Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M. Rahim (1983)
A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict.Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management, 26 2
G. Bruton, D. Ahlstrom, Krzysztof Obłój (2007)
Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies: Where Are We Today and Where Should the Research Go in the FutureEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32
Anil Gupta, V. Govindarajan (2000)
Knowledge Management’s Social Dimension: Lessons from Nucor SteelMIT Sloan Management Review, 42
W. Wales (2016)
Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research directionsInternational Small Business Journal, 34
Yeoh Kheng, Rosli Mahmood (2013)
The Relationship between Pro-Innovation Organizational Climate, Leader-Member Exchange and Innovative Work Behavior: A Study among the Knowledge Workers of the Knowledge Intensive Business Services in Malaysia
(2003)
A project-based view of entrepreneurship: towards actionorientation, seriality and collectivity”, Entrepreneurship: NewMovements
P. Drucker (2006)
Classic Drucker : essential wisdom of Peter Drucker from the pages of Harvard Business Review.
R. Bagozzi, Youjae Yi (2012)
Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation modelsJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40
B. Anderson, Patrick Kreiser, D. Kuratko, J. Hornsby, Yoshihiro Eshima (2015)
Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientationSouthern Medical Journal, 36
G. Day (2011)
Closing the Marketing Capabilities GapJournal of Marketing, 75
(1987)
Reconsidered: the team as hero
Juhi Raghuvanshi, C. Garg (2018)
Time to get into the actionAsia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
A. Greve, J. Salaff (2003)
Social Networks and EntrepreneurshipEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28
D. Hull, John Bosley, Gerald Udell (1980)
Renewing the Hunt for Heffalump: Identifying Potential Entrepreneurs by Personality Characteristics
(2016)
2016), “Dynamic entrepreneurship and technologybased innovation
Malte Brettel, Christoph Chomik, T. Flatten (2015)
How Organizational Culture Influences Innovativeness, Proactiveness, and Risk‐Taking: Fostering Entrepreneurial Orientation in SMEsJournal of Small Business Management, 53
Richard Déry, J. Toulouse (2009)
Social Structuration of the Field of Entrepreneurship: A Case StudyCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences-revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Administration, 13
(2017)
Entrepreneurial Teams Research in Movement. Research Handbook on Entrepreneurial Teams: Theory and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Álvaro Cuervo (2005)
Individual and Environmental Determinants of EntrepreneurshipThe International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1
D. Audretsch, D. Kuratko, A. Link (2016)
Dynamic entrepreneurship and technology-based innovationJournal of Evolutionary Economics, 26
S. Thorgren, J. Wincent, Daniel Örtqvist (2012)
Unleashing synergies in strategic networks of SMEs: The influence of partner fit on corporate entrepreneurshipInternational Small Business Journal, 30
Lowell Busenitz, G. West, W. Calloway, D. Shepherd, Teresa Nelson, Gaylen Chandler, Andrew Zacharakis (2003)
Entrepreneurship Research in Emergence: Past Trends and Future DirectionsJournal of Management, 29
H. Schildt, A. Sillanpää (2004)
The Field of Entrepreneurship: A Bibliometric Assessment
W. Gartner (1990)
What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurshipJournal of Business Venturing, 5
Robert Davis, D. Mcclelland (1962)
The Achieving SocietyTechnology and Culture, 3
Onne Janssen (2000)
Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviourJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73
D. Mcclelland, D. Winter, S. Winter (1969)
Motivating economic achievementSocial Forces, 48
H. Brandstätter (2011)
Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses.Personality and Individual Differences, 51
James Anderson, D. Gerbing (1988)
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACHPsychological Bulletin, 103
David Miller (1983)
The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of FirmsManagement Science, 29
(1934)
1934),The Theory of Economic Development
J. Covin, D. Slevin (1991)
A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm BehaviorEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16
(2017)
Networking and entrepreneurial growth”, The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship
W. Bennis, Patricia Biederman (1997)
Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration
K. Eisenhardt (1989)
Building theories from case study researchSTUDI ORGANIZZATIVI
(2006)
EXPLORATORY INNOVATION, EXPLOITATIVE INNOVATION, AND PERFORMANCE:
F. Welter, Frank Lasch (2008)
Entrepreneurship Research in Europe: Taking Stock and Looking ForwardEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32
Jill Kickul, L. Gundry (2002)
Prospecting for Strategic Advantage: The Proactive Entrepreneurial Personality and Small Firm InnovationJournal of Small Business Management, 40
Catherine Wang, P. Ahmed (2004)
The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysisEuropean Journal of Innovation Management, 7
J. Conant, M. Mokwa, P. Varadarajan (1990)
Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance: A multiple measures‐based studySouthern Medical Journal, 11
Pei-hua Wu, Xiaofang Yao, Shakeel Muhammad (2017)
The effect of female participation in top management teams on the growth performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), 11
Cyrine Ben-Hafaïedh (2017)
Entrepreneurial teams research in movement
E. Turkina, M. Thai (2015)
Socio-psychological determinants of opportunity entrepreneurshipInternational Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11
Danny Miller (2011)
Miller (1983) Revisited: A Reflection on EO Research and Some Suggestions for the FutureEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35
Laura Cardinal (2001)
Technological Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Use of Organizational Control in Managing Research and DevelopmentOrganization Science, 12
Academy of Management Journal, 26
(2008)
Innovative performance impacts of corporate entrepreneurship: an empirical research in Turkey
(2005)
Census of manufacturing industries district-wise report
S. Arunachalam, S. Ramaswami, S. Ramaswami, P. Herrmann, P. Herrmann, Doug Walker (2018)
Innovation pathway to profitability: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing capabilitiesJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46
Monica Lindgren, Johann Packendorff (2003)
A Project-Based View of Entrepreneurship: Towards Action-Orientation, Seriality and Collectivity
Fabian Eggers, S. Kraus, M. Hughes, Sean Laraway, Susan Snycerski (2013)
Implications of customer and entrepreneurial orientations for SME growthManagement Decision, 51
(1999)
Theories of the firm to the dynamics of collective action, for a socio-economy of productive projects
J. Schumpeter, Ursula Backhaus (2017)
The Theory of Economic Development
J. Hage, M. Aiken (1967)
Relationship of centralization to other structural properties.Administrative Science Quarterly, 12
G. Lumpkin, Gregory Dess (1996)
Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It To PerformanceAcademy of Management Review, 21
B. Johannisson (2017)
Networking and Entrepreneurial Growth
(2019)
Small and medium enterprise development authority
K. Hindle, Peter Moroz (2010)
Indigenous entrepreneurship as a research field: developing a definitional framework from the emerging canonInternational Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6
Jun Yan, Li Yan (2016)
Individual entrepreneurship, collective entrepreneurship and innovation in small business: an empirical studyInternational Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12
J. Covin, D. Slevin (1989)
Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environmentsSouthern Medical Journal, 10
W. Bygrave, Charles Hofer (1992)
Theorizing about EntrepreneurshipEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16
R. Benlamri, M. Sparer (2017)
Leadership, Innovation and Entrepreneurship as Driving Forces of the Global Economy
(1989)
Team entrepreneurship
Justin Jansen, F. Bosch, H. Volberda (2006)
Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation and Peformance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental ModeratorsMicroeconomic Theory eJournal
Y. Cho, Joo-Heon Lee (2018)
Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial education and performanceAsia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Gaia Rubera, Ahmet Kirca (2017)
You gotta serve somebody: the effects of firm innovation on customer satisfaction and firm valueJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45
M. Zali, Atieh Chaychian (2017)
Business Startup in Iran: Entrepreneurial Skills, Personality, and Motivation of Iranian Nascent Entrepreneurs
J. Jong, D. Hartog (2007)
How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviourEuropean Journal of Innovation Management, 10
B. Antoncic (2007)
Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation modeling studyInd. Manag. Data Syst., 107
M. Khan, M. Khalique (2014)
An Overview of Small and Medium Enterprises in Malaysia and Pakistan: Past, Present and Future Scenario, 2
W. Gartner, Barbara Bird, Jennifer Starr (1992)
Acting as If: Differentiating Entrepreneurial from Organizational BehaviorEntrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16
F. Leutner, Gorkan Ahmetoglu, Reece Akhtar, T. Chamorro-Premuzic (2014)
The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traitsPersonality and Individual Differences, 63
T. Man, T. Lau, K. Chan (2002)
The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises - A conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competenciesJournal of Business Venturing, 17
A. Miles, B. Matthews, Michael Wilson, D. Brickley (2005)
SKOS Core: Simple knowledge organisation for the Web
Jun Yan, R. Sorenson (2003)
Collective entrepreneurship in family firms: The influence of leader attitudes and behaviorsNew England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 6
S. Hussain (2018)
Towards nurturing the entrepreneurial intentions of neglected female business students of Pakistan through proactive personality, self-efficacy and university support factorsAsia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
A. Rauch, M. Frese (2007)
Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and successEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16
R. House, J. Rizzo (1972)
Toward the measurement of organizational practices: Scale development and validation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 56
R. Kihlstrom, J. Laffont (1979)
A General Equilibrium Entrepreneurial Theory of Firm Formation Based on Risk AversionJournal of Political Economy, 87
S. Bello (2017)
Personality Trait and Innovation Performance of Micro and Small Enterprises
Anil Gupta, V. Govindarajan (2000)
Knowledge flows within multinational corporationsStrategic Management Journal, 21
Salman Khan (2015)
Impact of sources of finance on the growth of SMEs: evidence from PakistanDECISION, 42
Kayhan Tajeddini (2010)
Effect of customer orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on innovativeness: Evidence from the hotel industry in SwitzerlandTourism Management, 31
(1987)
Reconsidered: the team as hero”,Harvard
(2016)
available at:
Purpose – This paper aims to develop an original framework of innovation and to explore the complexity of association between individual and collective (team-based) entrepreneurship, and their simultaneous impacts on innovation in context of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Design/methodology/approach – An integral theoretical framework is developed to encourage innovation and the hypothetical relations are tested with the help of structural equation modeling (SEM) through AMOS. Data were gathered through survey technique and the questioners were distributed through email among 700 entrepreneurs from SMEs operating in five major industrial cities of Punjab province Pakistan. Findings – The results of SEM analyses confirm that both the individual entrepreneur and the collective efforts of all the business members contribute to innovation in SMEs. Entrepreneur’s personality traits have a direct positive impact on innovation while the centralized decision-making by entrepreneur is not associated with innovation. Centralized decision-making is found to be negatively associated with communication and have insignificant positive association with collaboration. Factors associated with the team-based entrepreneurship like communication and collaboration among members of the SME’s contribute to the entrepreneurial orientation and collective entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial orientation and collective entrepreneurship have direct positive impact on innovation in SMEs. Practical implications – It is imperative for SMEs to encourage decentralized organizational culture and participative leadership to bring innovation into their products and processes and further to improve their competitive advantage. Originality/value – To the best of author knowledge, present study is a first attempt that explores the complex association between individual and team-based entrepreneurship and further, empirically investigate the simultaneous impacts of these variables on innovation in context of SMEs. Keywords Innovation, Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) Paper type Research paper © Habib ur Rehman Makhdoom, Cai Li and Shoaib Asim. Published in Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, and Entrepreneurship distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non- pp. 89-107 Emerald Publishing Limited commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full 2398-7812 terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode DOI 10.1108/APJIE-06-2018-0040 Introduction APJIE Entrepreneurship is an emerging research field, and within a few decades, it has appealed a 13,1 large number of scholars around the world (Déry and Toulouse, 1996; Busenitz et al.,2003; Schildt and Sillanpää, 2004; Bruton et al.,2008; Welter and Lasch, 2008; Hindle and Moroz, 2010; Audretsch et al., 2016). A number of research scholars proclaim that entrepreneurship plays a central role in the economic development of a country. As per Schumpeter (1934) study, the entrepreneur is the main pillar of economic structure who plays a central role in the economic development by transforming innovation into a new, efficient and valuable product and service. According to (Bygrave and Hofer, 1992; Drucker, 2006; Gartner, 1990), innovation emerges from entrepreneurship. Widespread research studies focus on the role of an individual entrepreneur to bring innovation and a limited number of studies shed light on the importance of collective entrepreneurship (Stewart, 1989; Reich, 1987; Yan and Sorenson, 2003; Yan and Yan, 2016). In the present study, we have made an effort to fill the gap in existing literature by studying the simultaneous impact of individual and team-based entrepreneurship to bring innovation within a firm. The study explores the association between communication and collaboration within a firm and collective entrepreneurship. Further, we found controversies in literature in the context of centralized decision-making and innovation. Some scholars suggest a positive relationship between centralized decision- making and innovation (Jansen et al.,2006; Cardinal, 2001), while others such as Yan and Yan (2016) proclaim that entrepreneur’s centralized decision-making hurts innovation from both the individual and team-based efforts. These findings entail some further investigation that will explore whether the conflicting results are due to different cultural backgrounds, the nature of business environment or industry-specific characteristics. In addition, previous studies (Stewart, 1989; Covin and Slevin, 1989; Bennis and Biederman, 2007; Yan and Yan, 2016) explore the association between collective entrepreneurship and innovation and proclaim that through team-based entrepreneurship, it is easy to develop and produce radical innovations within small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The present study tends to explore the interaction between the two types of entrepreneurship, i.e. individual and collective and innovation. A number of research studies support leadership imperative theory of Miller (1983) with empirical findings that the entrepreneur as an individual with his/her distinct personality traits has a direct contribution in the innovativeness of SMEs (Miller, 1983; Kickul and Gundry, 2002; Greve and Salaff, 2003). Apart from Lindgren and Packendorff’s (2003) individualistic orientation of entrepreneurship theory, it is important to explore and investigate the collective dimensions of entrepreneurship because studying entrepreneurship as collective efforts and taking further step toward entrepreneurial teams lead to construct such an entrepreneurship framework that will allow us to have a more realistic image of the phenomenon. So primarily, the present study is aimed at investigating the entrepreneurship field for collective action and further demonstrating its importance for the innovation performance. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first empirical investigation on the nexus of entrepreneurship and innovation performance in the context of SME sector of Pakistan. Section 1 will review the relevant literature of our study and specify all the hypothesized relationships, Section 2 will describe the methodology to approach the objectives of the study; Section 3 will report results of the analysis; finally, Section 4 will cover the implications, limitations and the new dimensions originating from the research. Literature review The following section will cover literature relevant to our study, encompass the individual entrepreneurship, team-based entrepreneurship and its importance to bringing innovation in SMEs. After a brief review of the literature, we will present our hypotheses to examine the Diffusion of hypothetical relations of the research variables. innovation The conceptual definition of innovation performance Schumpeter (1934) describes the term innovation as: Any attempt carried out for the introduction of a new (or improved) product, a new method of production, an opening of a new market, exploitation of a new source of supply and the re- engineering of business management processes. Innovativeness is an organization-wide recognition of unique creation: an introduction of new products, processes or services and application of distinctive administrative systems, or any combinations of these factors that influence the overall firm performance (Bulut and Yilmaz, 2008). Innovative performance can be defined as the tendency of a firm to bring novelty in the product and production process, support new ideas and explore a creative solution to the complex issues (Raghuvanshi and Garg, 2018). By above conceptions, one can conclude that innovation performance comprises of an introduction of new products, searching out unique working methods and techniques, exploring new ideas to solve complex issues, identifying performance gaps, mobilizing support for innovative ideas and transforming innovative ideas into useful applications (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007; Janssen, 2000; Yeoh and Mahmood, 2013). Individual entrepreneurship and innovation in the context of small and medium enterprises A wide range of researchers (McClelland and Winter, 1969; Hull et al.,1980; Cuervo, 2005; Turkina and Thai, 2015; Yan and Yan, 2016) tend to analyze the characteristics of a successful entrepreneur to identify distinctive traits in their personality, and in this attempt they find that entrepreneurial behavior tend to have such characteristics: extroversion, desire for accomplishment, desire for independence, need for power, need for achievement, creativity, innovation, risk-taking, and proactive (Hussain, 2018). Further, most of the studies hold the opinion that centralized decision-making by the entrepreneur tends to benefit innovation, particularly exploitative innovation that is based on existing knowledge of the entrepreneur (Cardinal, 2001; Jansen et al.,2006). A more recent study by Yan and Yan (2016) postulate that with scarce resources held by SMEs, the entrepreneur’s centralized decision-makings tend to bring more incremental innovation then radical. A large number of researchers explore the psychological characteristics of the successful entrepreneur to identify distinctive traits in their personality, which distinguish entrepreneurs from rest of the individuals in a society (Yan and Yan, 2016). The entrepreneurial behavior should have three characteristics that comprised of innovative, proactive and risk-taking that determine the capacity of entrepreneurs to change the way in which things are done, assume the uncertainty associated with change and take the initiative (McClelland, 1961; Kihlstrom and Laffont, 1979; Cuervo, 2005). Albeit, a large number of studies have examined different aspects of personality traits of entrepreneurs and innovation, the results of the studies are still mixed and inconclusive, and require further investigation (Zali and Chaychian, 2017). In the recent era, we find large-scale studies on the nexus of personality trait and business success (Rauch and Frese, 2007; Brandstätter, 2011; Leutner et al.,2014), but only a limited number of scholars explored the association between entrepreneur’s personality traits and innovation performance in SMEs (Bello, 2017). Communication, collaboration and collective (team-based) entrepreneurship APJIE In the current dynamic era, communication and collaboration within a firm enable it to be 13,1 entrepreneurial and continuously innovative by exploring new markets. In entrepreneurship literature, communication and collaboration emphasize the creation of economic values based on novel and mutually generated ideas that emerge from the sharing of information and knowledge (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000a, 2000b). According to Miles et al. (2005), knowledge creation and its proper utilization lead to innovation. It is obvious that effective knowledge management within a firm depends on its ability to communicate and collaborate inside the organization. In a collaborative environment, employees frequently share information with their colleagues that brings innovations in a given firm in a result of shared ideas. In the meantime, it is acknowledged that networks within the firm could be the basis for collective entrepreneurship in the context of decision-making process. Johannisson (2017) examines entrepreneurship in the context of a network. He stated that “entrepreneurs in owner- managed firms have to supplement internal resources in order to adapt to increasingly turbulent environments.” In this sense, “the personal network of the entrepreneur supplies resources on conditions which do not conflict with the small business’ need for flexibility.” Collective entrepreneurship requires a network that allows for sharing and exchange of ideas and resources at the cognitive (e.g. team mental models, networked organizations), affective (e.g. social support) and behavioral (e.g. teamwork) levels. The collective capability of a firm depends on communication and collaboration in an entrepreneurial team. In fact, it has been found that innovative potential, along with collective capability, serves as the most important reasons for collective entrepreneurship (Antoncic, 2007). In his study, Reich (1987) advocates that a firm should put an end to the “myth of the entrepreneurial hero” and acknowledges collective entrepreneurship that emerges from synergetic contributions from employees, as the collective capacity to identify and respond to opportunities is an important component of collective entrepreneurship. Communication, collaboration and entrepreneurial orientation Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) can be defined as a strategic posture of a firm that displays its propensity to be innovative, that is, to generate novel ideas, proactive to beat competitors in recognition of new market opportunities, and open to take risk in exploration of new products, services, and markets (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Firm’s ability to convert its innovative, proactive and risk-taking behavior into performance advantage is influenced by the amount and quality of knowledge exchange that takes place across all the employees of an organization. Entrepreneurial orientation can be defined as the firm’s innovative, proactive and risk-taking behaviour, as well as its internal collective capability (Anderson et al.,2015; Cho and Lee, 2018; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Miller, 2011; Thorgren et al., 2012; Wales, 2016). The collective capability depends on the quality of knowledge exchange in the entrepreneurial team that is based on proper communication and collaboration. A high level of cross-functional communication and a close information flow play a critical role in sharing and integrating knowledge across different departments, which is considered as an important source of development of new and innovative products. So, internal collaboration and knowledge exchange across different functional boundaries boost the firm’s innovativeness. To be proactive, communication and collaboration build up a firm’s capability to identify new market opportunities by increasing the level of market intelligence generation and market responsiveness (Brettel et al., 2015). Collective (team-based) entrepreneurship and innovation in the context of Diffusion of small and medium enterprises innovation Innovation performance cannot be led by a single entrepreneur/owner, and to view an entrepreneur/owner as a single driver of innovation activities leads to a strong individualistic assumption about entrepreneurship (Miller, 1983; Reich, 1987; Man et al., 2002) that ignores the collective efforts made by all the members of an entrepreneurial team. To some extent, it maybe possible that this assumption may create such an individualistic culture that will favor individual efforts and contributions and ignore the collective efforts and contributions made by all the business members (Reich, 1987). Management scholars proclaim that collective action lies at the heart of management sciences and remind us that a collective action perspective in these sciences “cannot ignore the entrepreneurial process at the origins of the organizational processes” (Brechet and Desreumaux, 1999). While, the scholars in the field of entrepreneurship seem to ignore the notion of collectivism, as most of the scholars place an undue focus on a stereotypical entrepreneur, lone and heroic (Ben- Hafaïedh, 2017). Along with an individualistic orientation of entrepreneurship theory and the practical need for role models in the society (Lindgren and Packendorff, 2003), it is important to study entrepreneurship in collective perspective and explore its collective dimensions because viewing entrepreneurship as team-based, and then taking another step toward entrepreneurial teams, will lead to construct such an entrepreneurship framework that will allow us to have a more realistic image of the phenomenon. So, the present study primarily aims at searching the entrepreneurship field for collective action and further demonstrating its importance for the innovation performance. Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in the context of small and medium enterprises In recent literature, Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) has been recognized as one of the most important factors for firm growth, profitability and competitiveness. Further, in an attempt to avoid the adverse effects of short product life cycle and innovative efforts made by the competitors, and to compete in a dynamic environment with continuously changing customers’ priorities, it is important for a firm to adopt EO proactively. Miller (1983, p. 771) defined an entrepreneurial firm as “a firm that engaged in product market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with “pro-active” innovations, beating competitors to the punch.” Miller’sdefinition provides the basic understanding of the underlying field of entrepreneurial firms and acts as a groundwork for the development of unified EO construct. Furthermore, it formalizes the prime components attached to the firm’s forward-looking behavior regarding product market innovation (innovativeness) to take proactive initiatives (proactiveness) and a firm’s propensity to bear the corresponding risks (risk-taking). A wide range of literature adopts the definition and formal conceptualization of Miller, and it is also supported by a large number of empirical findings. A more recent study conducted by Arunachalam et al. (2018) proclaims that the three aspects of EO (innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking) act as catalysts to the continual development of product innovations. According to Rubera and Kirca (2017), entrepreneurial firms are those which are creative in nature and support new ideas and consider environmental dynamics as opportunities rather than threats. Further, along with a high enthusiasm to depart from already existing patterns and practices, these firms also show high willingness to initiate joint innovation development activities with their partners (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Proactiveness stimulates such a robust culture that gives a competitive edge to outperform competitors and boost the firm’s ability to grab new opportunities by knowing the newer needs of customers. It also increases the likelihood of the firm to become a pioneer in serving customers’ new needs by initiating strategic actions APJIE and to gain first-mover advantages (Conant et al., 1990). Proactive firms are those that are 13,1 future orientated and have a propensity to identify new trends in the market to find out substitutes for their products which are going at the end of their life cycles (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Finally, a firm’s risk-taking propensity enriches the firm’s willingness to experiment with new ideas and learn from failures. It is a firm’s critical capability to actively serve the dynamic needs of the customer at the marketplace (Day, 2011). Moreover, the strategy to allocate substantial resources to deal with the uncertain consequences of creative actions increases the introducing speed of new products and ideas (Eisenhardt, 1989). The three-dimensional EO activities have a significant positive association with the innovation output of firms while venturing into uncertain arenas. Innovativeness provides the intent, proactiveness provides the direction, and risk-taking provides the will (Arunachalam et al., 2018). So, it is argued that taken together, firms with higher levels of EO will have greater success in the level of innovations they generate. Small and medium enterprises in the context of Pakistan Literature proclaims that SMEs have a decisive role in the economic development of a country. This sector of the economy is not only important for generation of employment, alleviation of poverty, equal distribution of income, development of enterprises and the development of rural sector, but it also has a major contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP) of a country (Wu et al.,2017). According to Khan (2015), in Pakistan, SMEs act as a catalyst to the structural changes and play a critical role in the macro-economic development and support sustainable growth. In Pakistan, SMEs are a prime sector and Pakistan’s economy heavily depends on SMEs for industrial productivity, export earnings, foreign investments, jobs and its overall economic prosperity (Jan Khan and Khalique, 2014). The statistics of State Bank of Pakistan (2016) indicate that 99 per cent (3 million) enterprises in Pakistan are SMEs and they employ 78 per cent of industrial labor force. Pakistan’s SME sector contributes 30 per cent to the GDP and 25 per cent to the export of manufacturing goods (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2016/2017). To improve SMEs’ establishment and their productivity, Pakistan government has established various institutions and schemes such as Small and Medium Enterprise Development Authority (SMEDA), Small and Medium Enterprise Banks (SMEs Banks), Prime Minister’s Youth Business Loan, Microloan Insurance Scheme, etc. As per Pakistan SMEs Policy (2007), small and medium enterprises are defined as follows (Table I): After an in-depth study of the literature, we propose the following theoretical framework that presents possible relations among different variables developed on the basis of a rigorous study of the underlying field (Figure 1). Hypothesis development On the basis of a rigorous examination of relevant aspects of entrepreneurship literature, we have developed following research hypotheses to test the hypothetical relations among Enterprise category Employment size Annual sales Small and medium enterprise (SME) Up to 250 Employees Up to Rs. 250m Table I. SME definition Source: Pakistan SMEs Policy (2007) entrepreneurship and innovation that were depicted in the theoretical framework of the Diffusion of study: innovation H1. Entrepreneurial personality traits are positively associated with innovation in SMEs. H2. Centralized decision-making is positively associated with innovation in SMEs. H3. Centralized decision-making is negatively associated with communication. H4. Centralized decision-making is negatively associated with collaboration. H5. Communication is positively associated with entrepreneurial orientation. H6. Communication is positively associated with collective entrepreneurship. H7. Collaboration is positively associated with entrepreneurial orientation. H8. Collaboration is positively associated with collective entrepreneurship. H9. Entrepreneurial orientation has direct positive impact on innovation in SMEs. H10. Collective entrepreneurship has direct positive impact on innovation in SMEs. Methodology Measurement scale (see Appendix) Entrepreneurial traits – To measure entrepreneurial traits, we applied a higher-order construct adopted from (Eggers et al., 2013), that is built by three lower order constructs (risk-taking, innovativeness and proactiveness), all measured on three items. Entrepreneurial Orientation – The scale for entrepreneurial orientation was adopted from Tajeddini (2010), to measure the firm’s tendency to involve in entrepreneurial orientation activities. Centralization – Following the literature, we measured centralization by widely used five-item questionnaire of Hage and Aiken (1967), regarding the extent to which the decision-making authority is concerted at the firm’s top-level management. Collaboration – To measure the collaborative behavior among business members, we used six items scale developed by Rahim (1983). Communication – To measure communication among the business members, we adopted the eight-item scale developed by House and Rizzo (1972), and three items were dropped due to poor factor loading. Collective entrepreneurship – To measure collective entrepreneurial tendency of the respondent firms, we applied an eight- item scale developed by Yan and Yan (2016). This scale was developed based on the definition of collective entrepreneurship and previous studies of Yan and Sorenson (2003) Entrepreneurial trait Risk-taking Entrepreneurial Collaboraon Figure 1. Proacve orientaon Theoretical Innovave Innovaon framework for individual and Collecve collective Centralized Communicaon entrepreneurship entrepreneurship for decision-making SMEs and Stewart (1989). Innovation – To measure the product, process and market-related APJIE innovations, we used five-item innovation scales developed by Kickul and Gundry (2002). 13,1 Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent the business was engaged in the three listed types of innovation. All the constructs’ items were measured by seven-point Likert scales, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Data collection In Pakistan, more than 85 per cent of the manufacturing companies can be classified as SMEs that have a great potential to promoting economic growth and competiveness (Jan Khan and Khalique, 2014). When we study the regional SMEs establishment of Pakistan, we come to know that Punjab has the largest share of 65.26 per cent, Sindh has 17.82 per cent, Khyber Pakhtoon Khwa (KPK) has 14.21 per cent, and Balochistan has 2.09 per cent share of the total 2.96 million establishment. The number of SMEs (manufacturing) in the country is over 400,000, whereas the number of all other units is less than 10,000. Hence, SMEs constitute more than 98 per cent of total number of manufacturing units (SME Base Line Survey, SMEDA Pakistan, 2019). On the basis of above figures, we took manufacturing SMEs as our population. Further, as mentioned above, comparing to other regions, Punjab had the largest share of 65.26 per cent in the total 2.96 million SMEs establishment; therefore, we decided to select this region as the sample frame of our study. Based on Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (2005) (Census of Manufacturing Industries-2013 District-Wise Report), we selected five major industrial cities of Punjab named Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad, Gujranwala and Sialkot as a sample frame. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of each district maintained a register for listed (manufacturing, services and retail) SMEs in that region which provided holistic approach for sample selection. Simple random technique was applied to select sample and a total of 700 major registered SMEs were selected as the sample frame. The survey instruments were distributed through email among selected firms and target respondents of the survey were owners or top-level managers. A total of 480 survey instruments were returned with the response rate of 68.57 per cent, which is considered a good response rate in Pakistan. The sample distribution is depicted in Table II. Analyses and results In the present study, we have used SEM technique as this technique is particularly suitable to test a multilevel theoretical framework and makes it possible to evaluate several relationships between observed and latent variables simultaneously (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012). As suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we used a two-step SEM approach. In the first step, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the validity of the measurement model and the discriminant validity of individual constructs. In the second step, a structural model was developed to estimate the path coefficients for hypothetical relationships between the constructs. Measurement model validity Before going to test hypothetical relationships between different variables of the study, we estimated the validity of all construct measures. For this purpose, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out using the software solution AMOS 21. CFA results of measurement construct, entitled entrepreneurial traits, stated a good fit, goodness-of-fit indexes: (x /df = 7.71; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.989; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.975; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.039, P < 0.05. Results of CFA for centralized decision-making construct also showed a good fit, Diffusion of Variables Items Frequency (%) innovation Gender Male 410 85.42 Female 70 14.58 Age of owner/manager 20-30 years 115 23.95 31-40 years 150 31.25 41-50 years 96 20.00 51-60 years 85 17.70 Above 60 years 34 07.08 Educational qualification Matric 120 25.00 Entre/Equal 135 28.12 Bachelor/Equal 98 20.41 Master/Equal 75 15.62 Other Tech. Education 52 10.83 Respondent’s status Owner 320 66.67 Manager 160 33.33 Regional distribution Lahore 229 47.70 Multan 63 13.12 Faisalabad 77 16.05 Gujranwala 76 15.83 Sialkot 35 07.30 No. of employees 1-100 396 82.50 Table II. 101-250 84 17.50 Sample descriptive Business age 1-10 years 181 37.70 statistic and 11-20 years 234 48.80 distribution Above 20 years 65 13.50 Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x /df = 3.51; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.994; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.995; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.993; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.072, P < 0.05. Results of CFA for collaboration measurement construct also indicated a good fit, Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x /df = 2.61; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.990; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.985; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058, P < 0.05. CFA results of measurement construct, entitled communication, showed a good fit, Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x /df = 4.31; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.989; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.981; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.976; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.080. P < 0.05. Results of CFA for entrepreneurial orientation measurement construct also indicated a good fit, Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x /df = 3.98; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.983; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.978; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.078. P < 0.05. Results of CFA for collective entrepreneurship measurement construct also indicated a good fit, Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x /df = 2.24; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.990; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.993; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.988; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.051. P < 0.05. Results of CFA for innovation measurement construct also specified a good fit, Goodness-of-fit indexes: (x /df = 3.86; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.984; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.967; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.935; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.077. P < 0.05. The standardized factor loading (SFL) of each items for all the constructs is exceeding the threshold value of 0.50, alpha coefficients of each measurement construct are also greater than 0.70 and statistically significant at a level of 5 per cent (Tables III-IX). Test of hypotheses APJIE The CFA results specified that our model is an acceptable measurement model, so we 13,1 proceed to evaluate the structural model with the help of AMOS 21. Figure 2 depicts that the overall fit statistics indicate an adequate fit for the model, structural model goodness-of-fit indexes: (x /df = 17.72; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.967; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.982; non-normed fit index (NNFI) = 0.941; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.071; AGFI = 0.982). P < 0.05. Table X depicts the path analyses results for the main variables of the study that provide a partial support to hypothetical relationships of our study. As per SEM results, entrepreneurial traits are found to have a significant positive association with Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) Alpha Entrepreneurial traits ET1 0.564 0.679 ET2 0.546 ET3 0.654 ET4 0.732 ET5 0.746 ET6 0.538 Table III. ET7 0.675 Construct measure ET8 0.742 and validity ET9 0.737 assessment (entrepreneurial Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x /df = 7.71; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987; comparative fit index (CFI) = traits) 0.989; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.975; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.039. P < 0.05 Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) a Centralized decision-making CD1 0.675 0.698 CD2 0.653 CD3 0.548 Table IV. CD4 0.639 Construct measure CD5 0.664 and validity assessment 2 Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x /df = 3.51; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.994; comparative fit index (centralized decision- (CFI) = 0.995; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.993; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.072. P < making) 0.05 Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) a Collaboration CB1 0.576 0.665 CB2 0.653 CB3 0.632 CB4 0.548 CB5 0.687 Table V. CB6 0.751 Construct measure and validity Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x /df = 2.61; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987; comparative fit index assessment (CFI) = 0.990; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.985; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058. (Collaboration) p < 0.05 innovation in SMEs (b = 0.02, p < 0.05). Our study postulates that centralized decision- Diffusion of making has a negative association with collaboration but the results specify an insignificant innovation positive association between two variables (b = 0.70, p > 0.05). We supposed that centralized decision-making has a negative association with communication, and the results also provide a support to our supposition (b = 0.06, p < 0.05). Our study suggests that there is a negative association between centralized decision-making and innovation in SMEs, but SEM results state that there is no any association between centralized decision- making and innovation (b = 0.00, p > 0.05). The SEM analysis also suggests positive Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) Alpha Communication CM1 0.538 0.712 CM2 0.639 CM3 0.612 CM4 0.589 Table VI. CM5 0.615 Construct measure 2 and validity Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x /df = 4.31; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.989; comparative fit index assessment (CFI) = 0.981; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.976; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.080. (Communication) P < 0.05 Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) Alpha Entrepreneurial orientation EO1 0.687 0.731 EO2 0.586 EO3 0.664 EO4 0.597 EO5 0.574 Table VII. EO6 0.583 Construct measure EO7 0.677 and validity assessment Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x /df = 3.98; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.987; comparative fit index (entrepreneurial (CFI) = 0.983; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.978; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.078. P < 0.05 orientation) Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) Alpha Collective entrepreneurship CE1 0.529 0.626 CE2 0.547 CE3 0.652 CE4 0.576 CE5 0.535 Table VIII. CE6 0.598 Construct measure CE7 0.612 and validity CE8 0.593 assessment (collective Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x /df = 2.24; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.990; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.993; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.988; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.051. p < 0.0 entrepreneurship) relationships between elements of the two sources of innovation in SMEs. Communication APJIE among business members was found to have a positive significant association with the 13,1 entrepreneurial orientation (b = 0.59, p < 0.05), and in the meantime it was found to be positively associated with collective entrepreneurship (b = 0.02, p < 0.05). Collaboration among the business members has a positive association with entrepreneurial orientation (b = 0.64, p < 0.05), and it is also significantly associated with collective entrepreneurship (b = 0.02, p< 0.05). Collective entrepreneurship is found to have a significant positive association with innovation in SMEs but the relationship is very weak (b = 0.02, p < 0.01). We have also Measurement scale Items Standardized factor loading (SFL) Alpha Innovation INN1 0.653 0.695 INN2 0.587 INN3 0.743 INN4 0.648 Table IX. INN5 0.579 Construct measure and validity 2 Notes: Goodness-of-fit indexes: x /df = 3.86; goodness off it index (GFI) = 0.984; comparative fit index assessment (CFI) = 0.967; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.935; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.077. p < (Innovation) 0.05 Figure 2. Path diagram Diffusion of From Path To Standardized b P value Results innovation CD ! COMU 0.06 * H3 Supported CD ! CB 0.70 0.34 H4 Not Supported CD ! INN 0.00 0.98 H2 Not Supported COMU ! CE 0.02 *** H6 Supported CB ! EO 0.64 * H7 Supported COMU ! EO 0.59 *** H5 Supported CB ! CE 0.02 *** H8 Supported ETR ! INN 0.02 * H1 Supported EO ! INN 0.01 *** H9 Supported CE ! INN 0.02 *** H10 Supported Table X. Notes: ***p = 0.01; *p = 0.05 Path analyses found a weak but significant positive association between entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in SMEs (b = 0.01, p < 0.05). Overall findings of the study support our presented model; eight out of ten hypotheses were empirically supported with the data of four hundred and eighty enterprises. Discussion The study aimed at exploring the association between individual and team-based entrepreneurship and their simultaneous impact on innovation in the context of SMEs. It cannot be presumed that either leadership imperative theory of Miller (1983) or the collective entrepreneurship theory of Reich (1987) and Stewart (1989) alone is able to offer a broad explanation to the sources of innovation for SMEs. So, the present study is intended to fill the gap in existing entrepr eneurship literature that either stresses on the individual entrepreneur’s role to bring innovation or only focuses on the significance of team- based entrepreneurship. The results of SEM analyses unravel the contribution of the individual entrepreneur and also depict the importance of collective entrepreneurship to bring innovation in SMEs. Entrepreneur’s personality traits have a direct positive impact on innovation, while opposed to the previous research finding (Yan and Yan, 2016), centralized decision-making has no significant association with innovation. Centralized decision- making has a negative association with communication among business members and has an insignificant positive association with collaboration. In line with previous research findings of (Stewart, 1989; Yan and Yan, 2016), collective entrepreneurship is positively associated with innovation. What is more, our findings suggest that collective efforts have a strong association with innovation than individual efforts. Factors associated with team- based entrepreneurship (communication and collaboration among business members of SMEs) contribute to entrepreneurial orientation and collective entrepreneurship and ultimately to bringing innovation in SMEs. On the other hand, the factors that are associated with individual entrepreneurship, like centralized decision-making, negatively influence the collective entrepreneurship. Also, centralized decision-making discourages both communication and collaboration among business members of SMEs, ultimately hindering the process of innovation by discouraging collective effort within the firm. Factors that center to collective entrepreneurship, i.e. communication and collaboration, also improve the entrepreneur’s individual contribution to innovation by enhancing his/her knowledge about new markets, products, processes and technology. Research implications APJIE In line with the previous research findings, the present study proclaimed with the help of 13,1 empirical evidence that the individual entrepreneur and team-based entrepreneurship contribute to innovation in SMEs. At the same time, the study exposed a mechanism that helps to understand the complexity in relationships between the two sources of innovation in SMEs. Factors that lead to collective entrepreneurship, i.e. communication and collaboration, boost the entrepreneur’s individual contribution to innovation by enhancing his/her knowledge about new products, markets, processes and technology. Findings of this study provide empirical support to the collective entrepreneurship theory which suggests that collective entrepreneurial capability makes a significant and distinctive contribution to innovation. In contrast, the factors that are associated with individual entrepreneurship, like centralized decision-making by the entrepreneur, have a negative impact on collective entrepreneurship, as they hinder the process of communication and collaboration among business members which ultimately discourages innovation within the firm. So, one of the most important implications of this study is that the SMEs in pursuit of innovation should create such an environment that encourages communication and collaboration among business members, empowers all employees and promotes decentralized decision-making process. Consistent with the leadership imperative theory of entrepreneurship (Miller, 1983), the present study also confirms it empirically that the entrepreneur as an individual acts as a catalyst to bring innovation in small enterprises. So, the second practical implication for the entrepreneur is that he/she as a leader of a small business should neither underestimate his/her own potentials and downplay his/her efforts and nor should act as an only “organizing genesis” because the collective entrepreneurship has a significant contribution to innovation in SMEs. The third managerial implication generating form this study is that the SMEs who want to improve entrepreneurial orientation activities within the firm should do their best to promote communication and collaboration both horizontally and vertically and encourage decentralized organizational structure because such activities have a direct positive impact on entrepreneurial orientation activities within the firm. The study also suggests that entrepreneurial personality traits have a direct positive impact on innovative activities. So, another important implication for the entrepreneur is also generated that he/ she should be proactive, innovative and risk-taker, as these traits also encourage innovation. Conclusion Despite a number of implications originate from the present study, there are also some limitations associated with this research. First, the present study is based on cross-sectional data that makes it difficult to draw a causal relationship between investigated variables. So the future research can be based on the longitudinal approach for a better understanding of causal relationships between individual entrepreneurship, team-based entrepreneurship, and innovation in SMEs. Second, most of the data about each of the research variables are collected directly from entrepreneurs; in future, data about different variables may be collected from different sources, like data about factors that comprise of collective entrepreneurship should be collected from other members (employees) of an organization. Third, in our study, we used a sample of manufacturing SMEs only; in future research, the sample frame can encompass manufacturing, service and retail businesses that will improve the generalizability of the results. Fourth, the model used in our study comprises only a few factors related to individual entrepreneurship and team-based entrepreneurship; in future studies, more variables can be considered to explore the complex relationships between individual entrepreneurship, team-based entrepreneurship and innovation. Finally, the intervening impact of environmental and cultural factors on the association of collective entrepreneurship and innovation may be studied in the future research. The present study Diffusion of sheds new light on the existing entrepreneurship literature that either advocates the innovation individual entrepreneur’s role in innovation (Miller, 1983) or only supports the collective entrepreneurship (Reich, 1987; Stewart, 1989; Yan and Sorenson, 2003). This study overcomes this weakness by exploring the complexity in relationships between the two major sources of innovation in SMEs. Further, the model in our study investigates the simultaneous impact of individual and team-based entrepreneurship on innovation and suggests that these two sources have important, but not complementary, contributions to innovation in SMEs. Findings of this study also confirm that the combined effect of individual and collective entrepreneurship on innovation is neither additive nor subtractive. References Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, p. 411. Anderson, B.S., Kreiser, P.M., Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. and Eshima, Y. (2015), “Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1579-1596. Antoncic, B. (2007), “Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation modeling study”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 309-325. Arunachalam, S., Ramaswami, S.N., Herrmann, P. and Walker, D. (2018), “Innovation pathway to profitability: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing capabilities”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 744-766. Audretsch, D.B., Kuratko, D.F. and Link, A.N. (2016), “Dynamic entrepreneurship and technology- based innovation”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 603-620. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34. Bello, S.M. (2017), “Personality trait and innovation performance of micro and small enterprises”, Leadership, Innovation and Entrepreneurship as Driving Forces of the Global Economy, Springer, Berlin, 663-669. Ben-Hafaïedh, C. (2017), Entrepreneurial Teams Research in Movement. Research Handbook on Entrepreneurial Teams: Theory and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Bennis, W. and Biederman, P.W. (2007), Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration, Basic Book, New York, NY. Brandstätter, H. (2011), “Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: a look at five Meta-analyses”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 222-230. Brechet, J.P. and Desreumaux, A. (1999), “Theories of the firm to the dynamics of collective action, for a socio-economy of productive projects”, Research Papers of the Research Center in Management Sciences of the University of Nantes. Brettel, M., Chomik, C. and Flatten, T.C. (2015), “How organizational culture influences innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking: fostering entrepreneurial orientation in SMEs”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 868-885. Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D. and Obloj, K. (2008), “Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: where are we today and where should the research go in the future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Bulut, C. and Yilmaz, C. (2008), “Innovative performance impacts of corporate entrepreneurship: an empirical research in Turkey”, Proceedings of Academy of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Conference, Beijing, pp. 414-417. Busenitz, L.W., West, G.P., III, Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G.N. and Zacharakis, A. (2003), “Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future directions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 285-308. Bygrave, W.D. and Hofer, C.W. (1992), “Theorizing about entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory APJIE and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 13-22. 13,1 Cardinal, L.B. (2001), “Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use of organizational control in managing research and development”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 19-36. Cho, Y.H. and Lee, J.-H. (2018), “Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial education and performance”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 124-134. Conant, J.S., Mokwa, M.P. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1990), “Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance: a multiple measures-based study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 365-383. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-26. Cuervo, A. (2005), “Individual and environmental determinants of entrepreneurship”, The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 293-311. Day, G.S. (2011), “Closing the marketing capabilities gap”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 183-195. De Jong, J.P. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-64. Déry, R. and Toulouse, J.M. (1996), “Social structuration of the field of entrepreneurship: a case study”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de L’administration, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 285-305. Drucker, P.F. (2006), Classic Drucker: essential Wisdom of Peter Drucker from the Pages of Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business Press, Brighton, Boston. Eggers, F., Kraus, S., Hughes, M., Laraway, S. and Snycerski, S. (2013), “Implications of customer and entrepreneurial orientations for SME growth”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 524-546. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550. Gartner, W.B. (1990), “What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-28. Greve, A. and Salaff, J.W. (2003), “Social networks and entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000a), “Knowledge flows within multinational corporations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-496. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, vV. (2000b), “Knowledge management’s social dimension: lessons from nucor steel”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, p. 71. Hage, J. and Aiken, M. (1967), “Relationship of centralization to other structural properties”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 72-92. Hindle, K. and Moroz, P. (2010), “Indigenous entrepreneurship as a research field: developing a definitional framework from the emerging canon”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 357-385. House, R.J. and Rizzo, J.R. (1972), “Toward the measurement of organizational practices: scale development and validation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 5, p. 388. Hull, D.L., Bosley, J.J. and Udell, G.G. (1980), “Renewing the hunt for the heffalump: identifying potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics”, Journal of Small Business Management (Pre-1986), Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 11. Hussain, S. (2018), “Towards nurturing the entrepreneurial intentions of neglected female business students of Pakistan through proactive personality, self-efficacy and university support factors”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 363-378. Jan Khan, W.M. and Khalique, M. (2014), “An overview of small and medium enterprises in Malaysia and Diffusion of Pakistan: past, present and future scenario”, Business and Management Horizons,Vol.2 No.2,p.38. innovation Jansen, J.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2006), “Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1661-1674. Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 287-302. Johannisson, B. (2017), “Networking and entrepreneurial growth”, The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Blackwell Publisher Ltd, Oxford, pp. 368-386. Khan, S. (2015), “Impact of sources of finance on the growth of SMEs: evidence from Pakistan”, DECISION, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 3-10. Kickul, J. and Gundry, L. (2002), “Prospecting for strategic advantage: the proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 85-97. Kihlstrom, R.E. and Laffont, J.-J. (1979), “A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 719-748. Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R. and Chamorro-premuzic, T. (2014), “The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the big five personality traits”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 63, pp. 58-63. Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2003), “A project-based view of entrepreneurship: towards action- orientation, seriality and collectivity”, Entrepreneurship: New Movements, pp. 86-102. Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-172. Mcclelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, D. Van Norstrand Company, Princeton, NJ. Mcclelland, D.C. and Winter, D.G. (1969), “Motivating economic achievement”. Man, T.W., Lau, T. and Chan, K. (2002), “The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises: a conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 123-142. Miles, A., Matthews, B., Wilson, M. and Brickley, D. (2005), “SKOS core: simple knowledge organisation for the web”, Paper presented at the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications. Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 770-791. Miller, D. (2011), “Miller (1983) revisited: a reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 873-894. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (2005), “Census of manufacturing industries district-wise report”, available at: www.pbs.gov.pk/content/census-manufacturing-industries-2005-district-wise-report Pakistan Economic Survey (2016/2017), available at: www.finance.gov.pk/survey_1617.html Pakistan SMEs Policy (2007), available at: https://smeda.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload& view=category&id=46&Itemid=566 Raghuvanshi, J. and Garg, C.P. (2018), “Time to get into the action: unveiling the unknown of innovation capability in Indian MSMEs”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 279-299. Rahim, M.A. (1983), “A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 368-376. Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2007), “Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: a meta- analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 353-385. Reich, R.B. (1987), “Reconsidered: the team as hero”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 77-83. APJIE Rubera, G. and Kirca, A.H. (2017), “You gotta serve somebody: the effects of firm innovation on customer 13,1 satisfaction and firm value”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 741-761. Schildt, H.A. and Sillanpää, A. (2004), “The field of entrepreneurship: a bibliometric assessment”, Conference Paper, Babson Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference Glasgow. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. SME Base Line Survey, SMEDA Pakistan (2019), “Small and medium enterprise development authority”, available at: https://smeda.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view= category&id=46:smeda&publications&Itemid=566# Stewart, A. (1989), “Team entrepreneurship”. Tajeddini, K. (2010), “Effect of customer orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on innovativeness: evidence from the hotel industry in Switzerland”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 221-231. Thorgren, S., Wincent, J. and Örtqvist, D. (2012), “Unleashing synergies in strategic networks of SMEs: the influence of partner fit on corporate entrepreneurship”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 453-471. Turkina, E. and Thai, M.T.T. (2015), “Socio-psychological determinants of opportunity entrepreneurship”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 213-238. Wales, W.J. (2016), “Entrepreneurial orientation: a review and synthesis of promising research directions”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 3-15. Welter, F. and Lasch, F. (2008), “Entrepreneurship research in Europe: taking stock and looking forward”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 241-248. Wu, P., Yao, X. and Muhammad, S. (2017), “The effect of female participation in top management teams on the growth performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) evidence from a panel-data analysis in Chinese-listed SMEs”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 108-119. Yan, J. and Sorenson, R.L. (2003), “Collective entrepreneurship in family firms: the influence of leader attitudes and behaviors”, New England Journal of Entrepreneurship,Vol.6No.2, pp. 37-51. Yan, J. and Yan, L. (2016), “Individual entrepreneurship, collective entrepreneurship and innovation in small business: an empirical study”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1053-1077. Yeoh, K.K. and Mahmood, R. (2013), “The relationship between pro-innovation organizational climate, leader-member exchange and innovative work behavior: a study among the knowledge workers of the knowledge intensive business services in Malaysia”, Business Management Dynamics, Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 15-30. Zali, M.R. and Chaychian, A.S. (2017), “Business startup in Iran: entrepreneurial skills, personality, and motivation of Iranian nascent entrepreneurs”, Iranian Entrepreneurship, Springer, Berlin, pp. 55-71. Further reading Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2004), “The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 303-313. Appendix Diffusion of innovation Entrepreneurial orientation scale: Tajeddini (2010) EO1 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher propensity to take risks. EO2 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher tendency to engage in strategic planning activities. EO3 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher ability to identify customer needs and wants. EO4 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher level of innovation. EO5 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher ability to persevere in making our vision of the business a reality. EO6 – Relative to our competitors, our company has a higher ability to identify new opportunities. Entrepreneurial personality traits scale (Eggers et al., 2013) Innovativeness We highly value new product lines. We consider ourselves as an innovative company. Competitors in this market recognize us as leaders in innovation. Proactiveness We work to find new businesses or markets to target. We consistently look for new business opportunities. Our marketing efforts try to lead customers, rather than respond to them. Risk-taking We encourage people in our company to take risks with new ideas. We value new strategies/plans even if we are not certain that they will always work. To make effective changes to our offering, we are willing to accept at least a moderate level of risk of significant losses. Corresponding author Cai Li can be contacted at: gscaili@ujs.edu.cn For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship – Emerald Publishing
Published: Apr 30, 2019
Keywords: Innovation; Small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.