Menu Expand
  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship
  4. Vol. 71, Issue 2
  5. pp. 123–146

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Kiani, A., Wang, D., Ali, A., He, K. Too Much, Too Good! Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organizational Learning, and the Moderating Role of Technolo­gical Competence. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 71(2), 123-146. https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2023.1434502
Kiani, Ataullah; Wang, Dan; Ali, Ahmed and He, Kai "Too Much, Too Good! Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organizational Learning, and the Moderating Role of Technolo­gical Competence" ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 71.2, 2023, 123-146. https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2023.1434502
Kiani, Ataullah/Wang, Dan/Ali, Ahmed/He, Kai (2023): Too Much, Too Good! Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organizational Learning, and the Moderating Role of Technolo­gical Competence, in: ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, vol. 71, iss. 2, 123-146, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2023.1434502
Format
Download

Too Much, Too Good! Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organizational Learning, and the Moderating Role of Technolo­gical Competence

Kiani, Ataullah | Wang, Dan | Ali, Ahmed | He, Kai

ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, Vol. 71 (2023), Iss. 2 : pp. 123–146

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/ZfKE.2023.1434502
Language
German
Pages
24

Pricing

Individual
€ 24.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ataullah Kiani, Wenzhou-Kean University, Department of Management, College of Business and Public Management, 88 Daxue Rd, Ouhai, Wenzhou 325060, China

  • Dr. Ataullah Kiani is an Assistant Professor at the School of Business and Public Management, Wenzhou-Kean University, Wenzhou, China. His research interests include entrepreneurial orientation, digital innovation, and the process of digitalization.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

Dr. Dan Wang, Xihua University, School of Management, 999 Jin Zhou Rd. Jin niu, Chengdu 610039, China

  • Dr. Dan Wang is a Lecturer at the School of Management, Xihua University, Chengdu, China. Her research explores entrepreneurship, and ethics.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ahmed Ali, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, IRC for ­Finance and Digital Economy & School of Management and Marketing, KFUPM Business School, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabien

  • Dr. Ahmed Ali is an Assistant Professor at the School of Management and Marketing, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. His research focuses on entrepreneurship, and innovation.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

Kai He, Universität Bayreuth, Chair of Strategic Management and Organization, Faculty of Law, Business, and Economics, Universitätsstraße 30, 95447 Bayreuth, Deutschland

  • Kai He is a PhD candidate at the Chair of Strategic Management and Organization, Universität Bayreuth, Germany. His research is centered on digital transformation, sustainable innovation, and digital innovation.
  • Email
  • Search in Google Scholar

References

  1. Alerasoul, S. A., Tiberius, V., Bouncken, R. B. (2022): Entrepreneurship and Innovation: The Coevolution of Two Fields. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 32(2), 128–151.  Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. S., Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P. (2009): Understanding the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic learning capability: an empirical investigation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(3), 218–240.  Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B., Eshima, Y. (2013): The influence of firm age and intangible resources on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm growth among Japanese SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 413–429.  Google Scholar
  4. Arzubiaga, U., Kotlar, J., De Massis, A., Maseda, A., Iturralde, T. (2018): Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in family SMEs: Unveiling the (actual) impact of the Board of Directors. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 455–469.  Google Scholar
  5. Barney, J. B. (1991): Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.  Google Scholar
  6. Bouncken, R. B., Plüschke, B. D., Pesch, R., Kraus, S. (2016): Entrepreneurial orientation in vertical alliances: joint product innovation and learning from allies. Review of Managerial Science, 10(2), 381–409.  Google Scholar
  7. Bouncken, R. B., Ratzmann, M., Pesch, R., Laudien, S. M. (2018): Alliances of service firms and manufacturers: Relations and configurations of entrepreneurial orientation and hybrid innovation. Journal of Business Research, 89, 190–197.  Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. (1990): Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128–152.  Google Scholar
  9. 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.  Google Scholar
  10. Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P. (1989): Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.  Google Scholar
  11. Covin, J. G., Wales, W. J. (2019): Crafting high-impact entrepreneurial orientation research: Some suggested guidelines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 3–18.  Google Scholar
  12. Danneels, E. (2007): The process of technological competence leveraging. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 511–533.  Google Scholar
  13. Deligianni, I., Voudouris, I., Spanos, Y., Lioukas, S. (2019): Non-linear effects of technological competence on product innovation in new technology-based firms: Resource orchestration and the role of the entrepreneur’s political competence and prior start-up experience. Technovation, 88, 102076. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2019.05.002.  Google Scholar
  14. Edmondson, A. (1999): Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.  Google Scholar
  15. Eisenhardt, K. M., Martin, J. A. (2000): Dynamic capabilities: what are they?, Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121.  Google Scholar
  16. Galbreath, J., Lucianetti, L., Thomas, B., Tisch, D. (2020): Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in Italian firms: The moderating role of competitive strategy. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-07–2019–0457.  Google Scholar
  17. Gali, N., Niemand, T., Shaw, E., Hughes, M., Kraus, S., Brem, A. (2020): Social entrepreneurship orientation and company success: The mediating role of social performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120230. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120230.  Google Scholar
  18. Grant, R. M. (1996): Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.  Google Scholar
  19. Green, K. M., Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P. (2008): Exploring the relationship between strategic reactiveness and entrepreneurial orientation: The role of structure-style fit. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(3), 356–383  Google Scholar
  20. Hambrick, D. C. (2007): Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.  Google Scholar
  21. Hambrick, D. C., Mason, P. A. (1984): Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.  Google Scholar
  22. Hansen, M. T., Løvås, B. (2004): How do multinational companies leverage technological competencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 801–822.  Google Scholar
  23. Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., Wright, M. (2000): Strategy in Emerging Economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249–267.  Google Scholar
  24. Huber, G. P. (1991): Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.  Google Scholar
  25. Hughes, M., Hughes, P., Hodgkinson, I., Chang, Y. Y., Chang, C. Y. (2022): Knowledge‐based theory, entrepreneurial orientation, stakeholder engagement, and firm performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 16(3), 633–665.  Google Scholar
  26. Hughes, P., Hodgkinson, I. R., Hughes, M., Arshad, D. (2018): Explaining the entrepreneurial orientation – performance relationship in emerging economies: The intermediate roles of absorptive capacity and improvisation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(4), 1025–1053.  Google Scholar
  27. Hunt, R. A. (2021): Entrepreneurial orientation and the fate of corporate acquisitions. Journal of Business Research, 122, 241–255.  Google Scholar
  28. Hurley, R. F., Hult, G. T. M. (1998): Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42–54.  Google Scholar
  29. Kale, P., Singh, H., Perlmutter, H. (2000): Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 217–317.  Google Scholar
  30. Khurana, I., Dutta, D. K. (2021): From latent to emergent entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: The role of entrepreneurial learning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, 120694. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120694.  Google Scholar
  31. Kiani, A., Ali, A., Biraglia, A., Wang, D. (2023): Why I persist while others leave? Investigating the path from passion to persistence in entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(6), 2818–2848.  Google Scholar
  32. Kiani, A., Yang, D., Ghani, U., Hughes, M. (2022): Entrepreneurial passion and technological innovation: the mediating effect of entrepreneurial orientation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(10), 1139–1152.  Google Scholar
  33. Kim, J., Lee, C. Y., Cho, Y. (2016): Technological diversification, core-technology competence, and firm growth. Research Policy, 45(1), 113–124.  Google Scholar
  34. Klein, K., Palmer, S., Conn, A. (2001): Interorganizational relationships: a multilevel perspective. In: Klein, K., Kozlowski, S. (eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA; 267–308.  Google Scholar
  35. Kraus, S., Rigtering, J. P., Hughes, M., Hosman, V. (2012): Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands. Review of Managerial Science, 6(2), 161–182.  Google Scholar
  36. Li, H., Zhang, Y. (2007): The Role of Managers’ Political Networking and Functional Experience in new Venture Performance: Evidence from China’s Transition Economy. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8), 791–804.  Google Scholar
  37. Li, J., Poppo, L., Zhou, K. Z. (2008): Do Managerial Ties in China Always Produce Value? Competition, Uncertainty, and Domestic vs. Foreign Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 29(4), 383–400.  Google Scholar
  38. Liu, Y., Xi, M. (2022): Linking CEO entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The perspective of middle managers’ cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(6), 1756–1781.  Google Scholar
  39. Martin-Rojas, R., Garcia-Morales, V. J., Bolivar-Ramos, M. T. (2013): Influence of technological support, skills and competencies, and learning on corporate entrepreneurship in European technology firms. Technovation, 33(12), 417–430.  Google Scholar
  40. McEvily, S. K., Eisenhardt, K. M., Prescott, J. E. (2004): The global acquisition, leverage, and protection of technological competencies. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 713–722.  Google Scholar
  41. Muth’en, L. K., Muth’en, B. O. (1998–2019): Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muth’en & Muth’en.  Google Scholar
  42. Newbert, S. L., Kirchhoff, B. A., Walsh, S. T. (2007): Defining the relationship among founding resources, strategies and performance in technology intensive new ventures: evidence from the semiconductor silicon industry. Journal of Small Business Management, 45(4),438–466.  Google Scholar
  43. Prahalad, C. K., Hamel, G. (1990): The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 63(3), 79–91.  Google Scholar
  44. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., Frese, M. (2009): Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.  Google Scholar
  45. Real, J. C., Roldán, J. L., Leal, A. (2014): From entrepreneurial orientation and learning orientation to business performance: analysing the mediating role of organizational learning and the moderating effects of organizational size. British Journal of Management, 25(2), 186–208.  Google Scholar
  46. Seo, R., Park, J. H. (2022): When is interorganizational learning beneficial for inbound open innovation of ventures? A contingent role of entrepreneurial orientation. Technovation, 116, 102514. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102514.  Google Scholar
  47. Sirén, C., Hakala, H., Wincent, J., Grichnik, D. (2017): Breaking the routines: Entrepreneurial orientation, strategic learning, firm size, and age. Long Range Planning, 50(2), 145–167.  Google Scholar
  48. Stam, W., Elfring, T. (2008): Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intra-and extra industry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 97–111.  Google Scholar
  49. Vaznyte, E., Andries, P. (2019): Entrepreneurial orientation and start-ups’ external financing. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(3), 439–458.  Google Scholar
  50. Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., Mousa, F. T. (2013): Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 357–383.  Google Scholar
  51. Wales, W. J., Kraus, S., Filser, M., Stöckmann, C., Covin, J. G. (2021): The status quo of research on entrepreneurial orientation: Conversational landmarks and theoretical scaffolding. Journal of Business Research, 128, 564–577.  Google Scholar
  52. Wang, C. L. (2008): Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 635–657.  Google Scholar
  53. Wang, D., Weng, Q., Kiani, A., Ali, A. (2022): Job insecurity and unethical pro-organizational behavior: The joint moderating effects of moral identity and proactive personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 195, 111685. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111685.  Google Scholar
  54. Wernerfelt, B. (1984): A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.  Google Scholar
  55. Yu, W., Wiklund, J., Pérez-Luño, A. (2021): ADHD symptoms, entrepreneurial orientation (EO), and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(1), 92–117.  Google Scholar
  56. Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., Larraneta, B. (2007): Knowledge sharing and technological capabilities: the moderating role of family involvement. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1070–1079.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Die Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) bezieht sich auf die strategische Ausrichtung eines Unternehmens und umfasst unternehmerische Prozesse und Verhaltensweisen. Die Forschung hat die Möglichkeit von Einschränkungen des organisatorischen Lernens im Rahmen dieses wichtigen strategischen Konstrukts noch nicht anerkannt. Diese Studie integriert die Upper Echelon Theorie und die ressourcenbasierte Sichtweise, um die kontingente Wirkung der technologischen Kompetenz auf die Beziehung zwischen EO und organisatorischem Lernen darzustellen. Basierend auf den Daten von 217 technologiebasierten kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen kann gezeigt werden, dass das Zusammenspiel von EO und technologischer Kompetenz ein höheres Maß an organisatorischem Lernen vorhersagt.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Ataullah Kiani et al.: Too Much, Too Good! Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organizational Learning, and the Moderating Role of Technolo­gical Competence 123
Abstract 123
Zusammenfassung 124
I. Introduction 124
II. Literatur Review and Hypotheses 126
1. EO and Organizational Learning 126
2. The Moderating Role of Technological Competence between \nEO and Organizational Learning 127
III. Method 129
1. Data Collection and Sample 129
2. Measures 131
3. Control Variables 131
IV. Results 132
1. Validity and Reliability Tests 132
2. Assessment of Common Method Bias 135
3. Hypotheses Testing 136
V. Discussion 140
1. Theoretical Contributions 140
2. Managerial Implications 142
3. Limitations and Further Research 142
VI. Conclusion 143
References 143

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.