Master of International Tourism and Hospitality Management -

International Small Business Journal 31(4) 357 –383

© The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0266242611418261

isb.sagepub.com

Small Firmsisbj

Corresponding author: William J. Wales, Department of Management, College of Business, MSC 0205, James Madison University, 800 S. Main Street, Harrisonburg, VA 22801, USA. Email: [email protected]

Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research

William J. Wales James Madison University, USA

Vishal K. Gupta Binghamton University (State University of New York), USA

Fariss-Terry Mousa James Madison University, USA

Abstract Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is one of the most widely accepted firm-level constructs in the literature. The present study provides a comprehensive qualitative review and evaluation of the empirical EO literature. It finds that EO research has made considerable strides in recent years and is accelerating and broadening, although notable biases and inconsistencies in variable choice and model specification remain. The article sheds light on the popularity of Miller’s unidimensional conceptualization of EO, as well as the rise in multidimensional explorations of the phenomenon. It concludes with a discussion of the implications of the study’s findings for EO-related research and practice.

Keywords corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial behavior, entrepreneurial orientation, firm-level entrepreneurship, systematic review

Introduction

The concept of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is widely considered to be a cornerstone of the literature on firm-level entrepreneurship. EO refers to a strategic organizational posture

Article

358 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

that captures the specific processes, practices and activities that enable firms to create value by engaging in entrepreneurial endeavors (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). It has emerged as a prominent theoretical construct in the organizational and management literature, attracting considerable attention in journals (Covin et al., 2006; Messersmith and Wales, in press), textbooks (Morris et al., 2010) and the popular press (Certo et al., 2009). The broad influence of EO also can be observed within neighboring scholarly areas: for example, entrepreneurial marketing (Jones and Rowley, 2011). Prior research has linked EO to several variables in an effort to understand better its role in organizations. This article conducts a systematic review of the published literature in this area in order to shed new light on the EO concept by identifying common themes, notable biases and fruitful directions for further research.

Reviews can play an important part in the development of a research field by summarizing published work in a specific area and offering new ideas (Bland et al., 1995). Previous attempts to appraise, summarize and communicate EO research has either narrowly focused on the strength of the EO–performance link (Rauch et al., 2009), with little consideration for other dependent vari- ables and relationships, or examined entrepreneurial ‘activities … within a firm’s boundaries and [those that] transcend the firm’s boundaries’, with only minor consideration of EO (Zahra et al., 1999). The prominence of EO as a core concept in the organizational literature suggests that the time is ripe to assess and reflect upon this growing body of research. Our intention is not to provide an exhaustive interpretation, but to identify the main research thrusts and directions of prior empir- ical research, using a rigorous and transparent methodology. We highlight theoretically grounded predictions, offer advice to practitioners and extend understanding of key EO questions to lend greater clarity and coherence to the literature.

We inspect a large sample of articles to obtain information about relationships that have been theorized and examined through empirical research using a robust, well-established procedure to shortlist relevant studies so that our work may be ‘replicated by others, create consensus among scholars and focus debate in a constructive fashion’ (Cooper, 1998: xi). Our review affords a unique perspective from which to infer EO-related research implications and managerial issues. In addi- tion, our study is not constrained by requirements for a minimum number of studies to compute effect size, as is the case with meta-analytic research. For example, Rauch et al. found that few moderators and mediators ‘have been used across a sufficient number of EO studies to facilitate a meta-analysis of contingency relationships’ (2009: 766). In contrast, our qualitative review allows us to identify and discuss a more comprehensive set of variables explored as antecedents, modera- tors and mediators.

The present research is motivated additionally by three factors. First, it provides insight into the prevalence and breadth of empirical research investigating the EO concept. We assess prevalence by exploring the number of publications over time. We assess breadth by segmenting prior research along several lines, including the aims and scope of the publishing journal and the focal country of the research.

Second, over the past three decades individual studies have investigated several antecedents and consequences of EO. Each study typically examines only a small subset of the antecedents and con- sequences. As Davies noted, empirical studies ‘are limited in the generalizability of the knowledge they produce about concepts, populations, settings and times’ and ‘frequently illuminate only one part of a larger explanatory puzzle’ (2000: 366). Taken together, these studies reveal many ‘pieces of the puzzle’, leaving researchers with ‘the big task and the big problem’ of making sense of disparate investigations (Sarasvathy, 1999). Systematically reviewing these prior studies allows us to map rel- evant research and identify the most frequently examined antecedents and consequences (Hammersley, 2001). Specifically, we map the variables explored in 158 empirical articles on EO research.

Wales et al. 359

Third, the growing literature has provided different perspectives on the EO construct (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Miller, 1983). These distinct conceptualizations foster scholarly debate, but also produce fragmentation that can hinder scientific advancement (Basso et al., 2009). An examination and assessment of the extent to which these conceptualizations have been explored in the literature lends insight into common themes and notable biases. In so doing, we shed light on the popularity of Miller’s (1983) unidimensional conceptualization of EO, as well as the growing popularity of multidimensional explorations of the phenomenon.

In summary, the present study aims to provide an overview and map of the depth and breadth of empirical literature on the EO concept. It focuses specifically on the empirical literature, given that extant EO research has been primarily empirical in nature (Rauch et al., 2009). These studies, pur- suing statistical analyses of formal models, have helped evaluate and test meaningful theoretical tenets of EO (Covin and Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Thus, by focusing on studies testing hypothesized relationships, we provide insights into theoretically important areas which have received empirical research attention in the literature.

The remainder of the article is structured as follows. In the next section, it provides a brief theo- retical overview of the EO literature. Then, using an established protocol (David and Han, 2004; Newbert, 2007), it assesses how EO has been empirically examined in the literature. Based on the findings, it discusses and highlights promising avenues of research. The article concludes with an acknowledgement of the limitations of this work and a discussion of its practical implications.

Theoretical background

Henry Mintzberg (1973) was one of the first scholars to recognize the utility of an entrepreneurial organizational strategy-making mode. However, it was not until the publication of Miller (1983) that the notion of entrepreneurial firms gained scholarly attention. In his seminal article, Danny Miller argued that ‘an entrepreneurial firm is one that engages in product–market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures and is first to come up with “proactive” innovations, beating competitors to the punch’ (1983: 771). These three characteristics – innovation, proactiveness and risk-taking – were positioned by Miller (1983) as the heart of EO and are often combined to create a higher-order indicator of firm-level entrepreneurship (Covin and Wales, forthcoming, 2012; Rauch et al., 2009). The significance of Miller’s (1983) contribution is evident in the more than 11 citations per annum that his article has averaged since publication, earning it the status of a ‘classic’ article (Durden and Ellis, 1993).

Despite Miller’s theoretical contributions, it was not until the publication of Covin and Slevin (1989) that empirical research on firm-level entrepreneurship began in earnest. Covin and Slevin developed a nine-item self-response scale which has subsequently become popular in entrepre- neurship research, with a large number of studies utilizing this instrument (Rauch et al., 2009). Perhaps it is not surprising that the Covin and Slevin article also has attained ‘classic’ status, with an average of more than 15 citations per annum according to the SSCI Index.

Building upon prior research, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) suggested that EO can be conceived as a multidimensional phenomenon in which the dimensions represent independent predictors. By arguing that the various dimensions of EO need not co-vary for a firm to be considered entrepre- neurial, Lumpkin and Dess made a ‘real break from the previous use and definition of the concept’ (Basso et al., 2009: 318). This ‘radical’ redefinition of EO marked the beginning of a significant theoretical division. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) also suggested two additional dimensions – competitive aggressiveness and autonomy – which go beyond the original three, and further describe the domain of EO. They defined competitive aggressiveness as an organization’s efforts

360 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

to overcome its market adversaries by maintaining a confrontational posture, and autonomy as organizational members’ ability to independently pursue and champion promising entrepreneurial ideas and agendas. Measurement instruments for capturing competitive aggressiveness (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001) and autonomy (Lumpkin et al., 2009) have been relatively recent additions to the EO literature. Notably, Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996) work is on track to achieve rare ‘super classic’ status in the entrepreneurship literature, with an average of more than 27 SSCI citations per annum since its publication (Durden and Ellis, 1993).

EO can be compared to similar concepts within the entrepreneurship literature, such as corpo- rate entrepreneurship (Zahra et al., 1999) and small business orientation (Runyan et al., 2008). In contrast with corporate entrepreneurship, which involves engaging in intrapreneurial activities such as corporate venturing and self-renewal (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001), and small business orientation, which ‘encompasses the emotional relationship or attachment of the owner to the business’ (Runyan et al., 2008), EO pertains to the strategic posture of the firm as a whole (Basso et al., 2009). Thus, EO allows for distancing the intentions and attitudes of key individuals within the firm from the firm’s overall proclivity towards entrepreneurship (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). By providing for a separate understanding of key entrepreneurial actors and how they influence behavioral proclivity of the entire firm (see Sadler-Smith et al., 2003; Scott and Rosa, 1996), EO provides an important conceptual framework for exploring organizationally relevant phenomenon.

Having provided a brief overview of EO’s conceptual origins, we now turn to the empirical literature embedding EO within a complex and growing nomological network (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955). In the next section, we describe our methodological approach to the collection and synthesis of relevant research.

Method

A distinctive feature of systematic review is that it involves a specific and exhaustive ‘selection of studies for inclusion in the review, which can be contrasted with “haphazard study selection proce- dures” or even arbitrary study selection procedures’ (Hammersley, 2001: 544). In order to system- atically review the empirical literature, we sampled articles that test EO hypotheses using an approach described by Newbert (2007). This multi-step approach is an extension of the procedure developed by David and Han (2004), which has served as a robust and replicable literature review method in two important areas of enquiry: the resource-based view (Newbert, 2007) and transac- tion-cost economics (David and Han, 2004). Following Hammersley, who recommended ‘minimal reliance on judgment or discretion’ (2001: 544) in selecting review articles, the present research employed the following criteria (according to Newbert, 2007).

Research criteria and procedure

We restricted our search to ‘scholarly’ journal publications. Because articles in these publications undergo a rigorous peer review process (Miller and Serzan, 1984), they are generally believed to be of a higher quality than non-journal articles such as book chapters or unpublished works, for example (David and Han, 2004). We searched for articles in the ABI/Inform and EconLit data- bases, as suggested by David and Han (2004) and Newbert (2007). In addition, to be as compre- hensive as possible, we also searched journals indexed in the EBSCO Business Source Complete database.

In order to ensure ‘substantive relevance’, we selected only articles that contained at least one of eight primary key phrases in the title or abstract (Newbert, 2007: 125). The phrases were:

Wales et al. 361

‘entrepreneurial orientation’, ‘entrepreneurial proclivity’, ‘entrepreneurial posture’, ‘entrepre- neurial disposition’, ‘entrepreneurial intensity’, ‘firm-level entrepreneur*’, ‘intrapreneurship’ and ‘corporate entrepreneurship’. This list is based on the varied taxonomy associated with firm-level entrepreneurship in the literature (see Zahra et al., 1999 for a more complete review).

In order to eliminate ‘substantively irrelevant’ articles (Newbert, 2007: 125), we used a second filter to sift through the remaining abstracts. We required that articles contain at least one of 11 additional keywords in the title or abstract: ‘orientation’, ‘posture’, ‘proclivity’, ‘disposition’, ‘firm-level’, ‘firm behavior’, ‘innovativeness’, ‘risk-taking’, ‘proactiveness’, ‘aggressiveness’ and ‘autonomy’. Many of these keywords were also used in the previous step. This allows articles containing these highly relevant keywords to pass through the secondary filter while more general, primary keywords such as ‘intrapreneurship’ or ‘corporate entrepreneurship’ must contain a sec- ondary keyword to move to the next stage.

To ensure that the selected articles were empirical, we required the presence of one of seven methodological keywords (‘data’, ‘empirical’, ‘test*’,2 ‘statistical’, ‘finding*’, ‘result*’ and ‘evi- dence’) in the title or abstract. We considered all of the various journal outlets in which scholarly peer-reviewed research has been reviewed. In other words, we did not eliminate ‘single article’ journals from our list (David and Han, 2004). This enhanced the comprehensiveness of our review (Evans and Benefield, 2001). To capture the breadth of EO research, it would be useful to consider all the various journals that publish scholarly peer-reviewed research.

We read all remaining abstracts for substantive context (i.e. discussion of EO) and empirical content (i.e. mention of statistical analysis). Next, we read all of the remaining articles in their entirety to ensure theoretical and empirical relevance. Articles were retained only if hypotheses were tested using either regression or structural equation modeling. Studies were eliminated if they solely examined relationships using correlation analysis, cluster analysis or factor analysis. We rejected all articles in which EO was used simply as one of many variables upon which sampled firms were clustered, only the psychometric properties of the EO construct were investigated, or where measurement of EO was conceptually different from prior theorizing on the concept (as an individual difference variable, for example). For reasons of practicality and the theoretical tenabil- ity of the construct, we also rejected studies in which only one dimension of EO was examined. We believe that studies that examine a single EO dimension and label it an examination of the EO construct would be inappropriate for our review: as such, we included only studies in which two or more dimensions of EO were investigated. In short, we followed a seven-step procedure to identify relevant empirical EO articles published in scholarly journals. Taken together, these studies embed a set of well-developed variables with EO in a nomological net. Thus, we believe that our method- ology is suitable for obtaining a comprehensive sample for an overview of the empirical EO literature.

Data analysis

For each article in our database, we recorded all variables within hypothesized EO-linkages in a relational database. Study variables were coded, whenever possible, using limited-choice data cap- ture techniques such as dropdown boxes and check boxes to minimize the opportunity for human error. Variable names were selected based upon the manner in which they were referred to within the methods, results or theory sections of each manuscript – with the methods section being given preference over labels offered in the results (i.e. regression tables), or theory sections which at times diverged from the label given to the specific measurement instrument employed and described in the measurement section. Effort was made to ensure that variable names were coded as specifi- cally as possible. For example, if a study investigated firm growth or firm profitability, it was

362 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

specifically coded as such. However, when a study simply mentioned a generalized firm perfor- mance variable or a mixture of various ‘indicators’ of firm performance, the variable was coded as ‘firm performance (mixed)’. Thus, in a limited number of instances variable names were intention- ally coded more generally to facilitate parsimony, presentation and interpretability of proceeding analyses. For example, ‘number of board directors’ was coded ‘board size’ and ‘personal network contact frequency’ was coded as an article investigating ‘top manager personal networking’. We consulted the theory and methods sections of each manuscript to ensure variable label appropriate- ness. Article, variable and relationship counts were performed using structured language queries (SQL) on the relational database to aggregate and report study findings.

Results

Using the above methodology, the final sample consisted of 158 empirical journal articles.3 This sample is considerably larger than Rauch et al’.s (2009) sample of 51 articles, and also larger than reviews in the broader management literature: 17 in Campbell-Hunt (2000), 63 in David and Han (2004), 31 in Dalton et al. (1998) and 55 in both Ketchen et al. (1997) and Newbert (2007). The large sample size is due in part to our comprehensive approach, which includes relevant research from journals outside the management and entrepreneurship mainstream, such as Journal of Marketing and Journal of Retailing.

Depth and breadth of entrepreneurial orientation research

Figure 1 shows EO research over time, from the first article that met the study criteria to the end of 2010. Additionally, we segment the graph with articles published in journals whose principal aims and scope are focused on entrepreneurship,4 as opposed to other foci such as broader managerial issues or differing specialty areas. Two graduate students independently reviewed and categorized all journals.

There is a notable increase in the number of EO articles published over time (Figure 1). The first article to explore the concept of EO empirically appeared in 1983. A three-year lull followed and

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

19 83

19 86

19 87

19 88

19 89

19 91

19 94

19 95

19 96

19 97

19 98

19 99

20 00

20 01

20 02

20 03

20 04

20 05

20 06

20 07

20 08

20 09

20 10

Alterna�ve Scholarly Publica�on Outlets

Entrepreneurship Domain Journals

Figure 1. Increasing Scholarship on EO Over Time.

Wales et al. 363

then in 1986, a slow trickle of EO articles began to appear in journals. We observed a sharp increase in the number of EO articles beginning in 1999, which has rapidly accelerated over the last decade. There has been a particularly noticeable increase in EO research over the last six years, with the number of published studies jumping to an average of 18.1 studies from 2005 to 2010, compared to an average of 2.7 studies in preceding years.

This spike indicates two possible alternative scenarios. Business research is notorious for theoretical ‘fads and fashions’, where concepts and ideas are characterized by ‘short life cycles and rapid decline’ (Gibson et al., 2003: 12). Under this scenario, the current popularity of EO-related research may be short-lived, as present levels of research will be unsustainable. Perhaps the faster EO is investigated, the quicker intriguing research questions will be exhausted (i.e. contribute to bringing the fad to an end), and researchers eventually may turn their attention to other research topics within the domain of entrepreneurship. In contrast, contrary to the fad- dish nature of research in business studies where theories quickly ‘come and go’ (Gibson and Tesone, 2001), EO research has persisted for more than 30 years. It is possible that the philoso- phy and knowledge underlying EO may be relatively enduring and sustainable (Abrahamson, 1996). If this is the case, future EO scholarship may surpass, or at least maintain, its current levels –indicating that EO provides a unique and useful tool for investigating a wide range of phenomenon of interest across an expanding set of contextual conditions. Moreover, the simplic- ity of the Covin and Slevin (1989) instrument frequently used to capture EO may have enabled it to become a point of entry into entrepreneurship research for researchers from other disci- plines. The elegance of EO may help to sustain its diffusion within an ever-expanding nomologi- cal network and thereby, secure its future prominence as an influential and highly researched phenomenon.

Additionally, and perhaps more significantly, in only four of the twenty-six years since its inception has more EO research been published within entrepreneurship-focused (specialty) jour- nals than in other (general) scholarly outlets of business studies. As theoretical constructs are used in areas where they fulfill particular needs (Baskerville, 2003), the increase in articles empirically exploring EO in general business journals indicates broad acceptance and application within the scholarly community. To provide further insight, Table 1 organizes empirical research on the EO construct according to the principal topic areas of journals that have previously published in this area. To classify the journal’s topic areas, the aims and scope of each publication were examined for keywords suggestive of a dominant area of specialty or focus.

Table 1. Summary of EO Research by Journal Aims and Scope.

Journal domain focus Articles

Entrepreneurship 58 Management 43 Marketing 22 Innovation 12 International business 11 Human resources 6 Ethics 3 Economics 2 Research methods 1

364 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

The utilization of EO in entrepreneurship journals is somewhat expected.5 Notably, EO is also gaining acceptance in outlets with broad managerial scope, suggesting that it is emerging as a non- parochial construct of interest to a wide audience.6 These EO articles are being published in jour- nals outside core entrepreneurship and management scholarship, most notably in marketing, providing evidence of its diffusion to other disciplines.7 Notwithstanding critiques about its novelty and uniqueness (Cahill, 1996), EO appears to have been embraced by researchers working in entrepreneurship, management and other business-related disciplines.

National cultural contexts and entrepreneurial orientation

The increasing globalization of business and the growing popularity of entrepreneurship world- wide has motivated researchers to examine the applicability of models originally theorized in the USA within other national cultural contexts (Lumpkin et al., 2007). Indeed, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) emphasize the importance of external context in shaping the influence of EO, prompting examination of the concept in other countries. In order to organize the international variety in EO literature and isolate patterns in the relative frequency (or paucity) of research in various regions (Thomas et al., 1994), we adopted a segmentation approach that identifies a limited number of country clusters such that differences in culture, geo-demographic factors and history across clusters are substantially greater than variations between countries within the same clus- ter (Hofstede et al., 2002). Although Ronen and Shenkar’s (1985) grouping of countries based on work-related values is arguably the most well known, we chose to use the more contemporary GLOBE clustering scheme, as it is based on recently collected data and includes several coun- tries not covered elsewhere. Table 2 presents a list of societal contexts in which EO research has been conducted.

Tang et al. noted that ‘most studies have tested EO in the United States or other developed economies’ (2008: 233). Our research largely supports their claim. We found that more than half of all EO studies have been conducted in countries in the Anglo, Nordic Europe and Latin Europe clusters. Unlike the broader strategy literature, where the majority of empirical research has been conducted in the USA (Hitt et al., 2004), our findings indicate that a substantial body of research has examined the applicability of EO outside the US context. Nevertheless, EO remains rela- tively unexamined in developing and emerging market contexts: one notable exception is EO research in China. We found that, consistent with the growing importance of China in global business and economics (Peng et al., 2001), China has received the most attention in the EO literature after the USA.

We note several important omissions in international EO research. A particularly glaring finding is the lack of EO research in Brazil, India and Russia. Given that these three countries are considered to be among the world’s most rapidly emerging major economies, it is notable that research on EO is virtually non-existent. Nadkarni and Herrmann contend that more research is needed ‘in countries that are emerging as important global players and at the same time have sociocultural contexts very different from those of the US and other developed countries’ (2010: 1067). We also note that there is comparatively little understanding of EO in the Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East and Southern Asia country clusters. This is consistent with the broader man- agement literature, where few studies have been conducted in the context of countries in these clusters (Leung et al., 2005). Prior research has emphasized that rate and influence of EO may vary in different external contexts (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). By understanding the nature and impact of EO in different countries, researchers can guide managers in structuring strategies and operations in ways that better suit local conditions and avoid potential adverse consequences (Knight, 1997).

Wales et al. 365

Overall, our findings reveal that in terms of generalizing EO research internationally, prior research is mixed. On the positive side, EO research is not just limited to the USA, with many stud- ies conducted in other Anglo (e.g. Australia and the UK), Nordic Europe (e.g. Sweden) and Confucian Asia (e.g. China) countries. On the negative side, EO remains virtually unexamined in several strategically important countries such as Brazil, India and Russia, as well as in clusters such as the Middle East, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. This indicates that despite a substantial expansion in EO’s geographic reach, many countries and areas have received only minimal atten- tion. The lack of empirical EO research in these cultural clusters provides opportunity for further exploration into the applicability of, and ability to generalize, EO research internationally. For the future, EO research should be encouraged in locations previously overlooked. In order to

Table 2. Summary of EO Research by Countrya.

Cluster Nationality Articles

Anglo USA 48 UK 6 Canada 5 Australia 4 South Africa 3 Ireland 2 New Zealand 1 Malta 1 Confucian Asia China 22 Taiwan 7 South Korea 2 Singapore 1 Eastern Europe Greece 2 Bulgaria 1 Germanic Europe Germany 2 Belgium 2 Austria 1 The Netherlands 1 Latin America Mexico 1 Latin Europe Spain 9 Middle East Turkey 5 Jordan 1 Nordic Europe Sweden 10 Norway 2 Finland 2 Southern Asia Malaysia 2 Thailand 1 Sub-Saharan Africa Namibia 3   Nigeria 1 Multicultural Multinational 9 Not mentioned N/A 1

aCountries not included in the GLOBE study were Belgium, Bulgaria, Jordan, Malta and Vietnam, which were classified based upon current and historical societal demographics and influences using the CIA World Fact Book.

366 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

discourage self-perpetuating cycles of parochialism, gatekeepers of the field – editors, editorial boards and reviewers – should encourage studies beyond presently popular countries (e.g. China, Sweden and the USA). Examining EO-related phenomena in a broader array of societies will advance EO’s geographic base.

We now turn to empirical literature on the two primary theoretical conceptualizations of the EO construct. We begin with an extensive examination of prior scholarly research on the concept of EO as a unified conceptual entity (Miller, 1983), followed by a brief overview of multidimensional EO research (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).

Unidimensional research on entrepreneurial orientation

As shown in Table 3, 123 of the 158 sampled empirical articles in 2010 adopted a unidimensional conceptualization of EO. Consistent with Miller (1983), the innovativeness, risk-taking and proac- tiveness dimensions were combined most frequently to form a unidimensional conceptualization of EO; about 80 percent of the total unidimensional articles used such a construction. The next most common approach, consistent with Miller and Friesen (1982), conceptualized EO as innova- tiveness and risk-taking; only approximately seven percent of the studies adopted this approach. Four studies used an aggregate measure comprising all five aspects of EO, as specified by Lumpkin and Dess (1996), and several additional studies used some combination of these five theoretical dimensions.

Prior studies indicate that innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness exhibit moderate to high correlations with one another in practice (Covin et al., 2006; Rauch et al., 2009). The high intercorrelation between the three dimensions is consistent with Miller’s (1983) conceptualization of firm-level entrepreneurship. The fact that empirical studies frequently examine the dimensions in aggregate, with roughly three out of every four adopting a unidimensional approach, suggests that there is strong convergence in the literature on the Miller (1983) conceptualization of EO. Although varying dimensional combinations of EO have been suggested, it appears that issues of

Table 3. Summary of EO Dimensional Combinationsa.

EO construct dimensions Article count

Innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness 98 Innovativeness and risk-taking 8 Risk-taking and proactiveness 5 Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness and autonomy

4

Risk-taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness 2 Innovativeness and proactiveness 2 Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness

1

Innovativeness, risk-taking, competitive aggressiveness and autonomy 1 Innovativeness, risk-taking and autonomy 1 Risk-taking, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness and autonomy 1 Total 123

aIncludes all articles in which EO is unidimensionally examined. Of the sample of 158 articles, 123 examined the construct unidimensionally, 41 examined it multidimensionally. As such, only 6 studies examined the construct both unidimensionally and multidimensionally within the same article.

Wales et al. 367

knowledge accumulation around a ‘dominant’ conceptualization are not as serious as some have expected (i.e. Basso et al., 2009).

Moderators and mediators

An important issue in entrepreneurship research concerns when and why EO matters (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Moderator variables speak to the issue of when specific events occur, while medi- ating constructs address why particular events take place (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Studying the role of moderators reveals the conditions under which EO is influential. According to James and Brett, ‘a variable z is a moderator if the relationship between two (or more) other variables, say x and y, is a function of the level of z’ (1984: 30). Statistically, there is no difference in analyzing the moderating effect of EO on another variable, or of the other variable on EO (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Figure 2 summarizes the moderating variables employed in prior research on EO as a uni- dimensional construct.

We find that the role of moderators in influencing the relationship between EO and its various organizational outcomes has been the subject of extensive research. Two factors explain the con- siderable attention given to moderating variables. First, EO may be a necessary, but insufficient, condition for superior outcomes (Stam and Elfring, 2008). Second, in the absence of an appropriate context, EO may be an incredibly wasteful strategic posture as it requires a substantial investment

Figure 2. Moderating Variables Explored in Prior Researcha. aThe numbers associated with each variable indicate article count.

368 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

of resources to develop and maintain (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Although many studies demon- strate that EO is beneficial (e.g. Rauch et al., 2009), some find otherwise (Matsuno et al., 2002). Arguments and empirical findings that EO is not universally applicable direct the research focus to contingent factors. Given the practical significance of understanding how to enhance EO’s perfor- mance potential, it is not surprising that researchers have adopted a contingency perspective to identify the conditions under which EO will be more useful.

In terms of categorizing moderator variables, we find that externally focused variables are commonly thought to affect EO’s influence. These include environmental variables (e.g. dyna- mism and hostility) as well as societal cultural variables (e.g. individualism and uncertainty avoidance). In addition, inter-firm networking variables that capture efforts to establish linkages with external actors have received considerable attention. As EO represents a strategic orienta- tion, it is not surprising that other strategic variables (e.g. market orientation) have been examined as moderators. However, contrary to the attention given to external and strategic variables, few studies have examined the moderating role of factors that reside within the organization. We found that apart from a few organizational factors such as structural organicity, knowledge-based resources, managerial charisma and team cohesiveness, internal constructs facilitating or imped- ing the application of EO remain largely unexplored. Yet, it has been observed that for firms to benefit from EO, managers must properly manage entrepreneurial decisions and acts within their organization (Covin et al., 2006). It would appear that researchers have only begun to scratch the surface regarding the understanding of interactive moderating effects in the EO literature, and most notably the role of internal factors. Additionally, important organizational characteristics such as firm age and size (Hamilton, 2011) appear to have received little attention as moderating influences within prior EO research. Further, the literature has been agnostic towards the possible effects of differences in the manifestation of EO across firm levels, business units and over time (Wales et al., 2011).

In contrast with moderator analysis, which speaks to the timing of a particular relationship’s statistical importance, mediation identifies why a specific relationship is possible (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Mediators help unravel the causal chain between two related variables. Figure 3 summarizes variables that have been explored as possible mediating mechanisms through which EO is translated into outcomes. It is immediately obvious from Figure 3 that mediating variables have received considerably less attention than moderator variables in the EO literature. This is despite the fact that entrepreneurship researchers, implicitly and explicitly, acknowledge the need to elucidate the causal process through which EO affects outcomes by decomposing the relationship into its constituent parts (Li et al., 2009). In this vein, entrepreneurship research has advocated the usefulness of mediation tests in unearthing the mechanisms through which EO influences specific outcomes (Edelman et al., 2005). We found that in attempting to explain the causal path through which EO is actualized into outcomes, researchers usually turn to knowl- edge-based variables (Eisenhardt and Santos, 2002) such as organizational learning (Wang, 2008). We also found that support for tests of mediations varied from non-supported (for infor- mation acquisition) to very high (for organizational learning). As a whole, our analysis of media- tors in the EO literature reveals little understanding of the causal mechanisms of how or why EO affects other variables in the nomological net.

The search for mediators is informed by classic models in which inputs lead to processes that in turn lead to outcomes (the input–processes–output or I–P–O model) (Ilgen et al., 2005). These classical models are well known to organizational researchers and the tools to explore mediation relationships are readily available (MacKinnon et al., 2007). Interestingly, mediation models have received considerably more attention in the broader strategic management discipline (Hitt et al.,

Wales et al. 369

2004). Given the pivotal role of mediators in theoretically elaborating the effects of EO, it is some- what surprising that few researchers have undertaken empirical tests to identify variables that intervene in EO–outcome relationships. As most research in entrepreneurship examines naturally occurring phenomena in non-experimental settings, mediation models are arguably the only way to establish causal relationships between EO and its outcomes, and thus deserving of a more central role in future research.

Antecedents and consequences

Over the past three decades, researchers have investigated several antecedents and consequences of EO in order to better understand its role in organizations. Examining antecedent variables illu- minates the genesis of the construct. Put simply, entrepreneurship researchers are often interested in studying EO as a dependent variable so that they can clarify why certain companies are entre- preneurial and others are not. Our study reveals that substantial research has focused on aspects of the CEO and top management team, as well as the influence of various alternative strategic orienta- tions, strategic processes and environmental considerations. In addition, leadership, governance, human resource management and organizational resources have received some – albeit limited – attention in the literature.

Just as it is necessary to examine ‘upstream’ variables that influence EO, it is important also to identify ‘downstream’ variables affected by EO. Figure 5 presents a list of dependent variables used to study the EO phenomenon.

Figure 3. Mediating Antecedent Variables Explored in Prior Research.

370 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

Following Rauch et al. (2009), we note that several studies examined performance measures as the dependent variable. Organizational researchers have argued for distinguishing between the effectiveness and efficiency measures of firm performance (Auh and Menguc, 2005). We found that both efficiency indicators (profitability and return on assets) and effectiveness indicators (firm growth and market share growth) have been frequently studied. However, the most popular depen- dent variable in past research combines elements of different performance indicators such as growth and profitability. As Figure 5 elucidates, other ‘downstream’ variables have been examined as well. Popular non-performance measures include marketing orientation, innovativeness, employee commitment, environmental uncertainty and various measures of organizational learn- ing. Although firms are often compared in terms of performance, they typically have multiple goals and objectives, many of which are not reflected in bottom-line performance measures (March and Sutton, 1997). For example, recent case-based research suggests that EO may reduce tendencies toward inertia within family firms (Chirico and Nordqvist, 2010). Attention to non-performance measures in the EO literature reflects the idea that EO is not simply an instrumental variable related to superior performance; instead, EO may be associated with numerous and varied aspects of a firm’s functioning, opening the door for a wide variety of future research directions.

Multidimensional research on entrepreneurial orientation

We searched for studies examining EO characteristics: namely, autonomy, competitive aggressive- ness, innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking, as separate behavioral dimensions (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). This approach evaluates EO using a predetermined set of attributes or character- istics common to firms (Hughes and Morgan, 2007). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) argue that these five characteristics vary independently of each other because firms can be high on some dimen- sions and low on others. Since in the business literature these characteristics are often examined separately and without reference to EO (Cahill, 1996), we focused on studies that involved more than one EO dimension and explored the dimensions separately. Table 4 shows the number of articles exploring each dimension of EO in a multidimensional context.

Interestingly, innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness are still the predominant dimen- sions investigated. Figure 6 shows the evolution in the number of studies per annum adopting a multidimensional view (relative to the more traditional unidimensional approach). Clearly, research adopting a multidimensional conceptualization of EO has been increasing in recent years, indicat- ing greater acceptance of the notion that EO dimensions may manifest unique contributions to firm outcomes. Further, it is notable that at least six studies simultaneously have explored both unidi- mensional and multidimensional conceptualizations, indicating the potential for differing perspec- tives and underlying latent constructs to co-exist in practice, which perhaps may serve ultimately to strengthen the findings of future studies by providing deeper insight into the nature of observed relationships.

Discussion

The purpose of the present research was to systematically conduct a qualitative review of the EO literature. We sought to document this substantial and growing literature stream and to provide a summary of prior research areas. Specifically, we examine how EO has been studied and elucidate specific foci of previous investigations into the phenomenon. We find that researchers often adopt a unidimensional view of EO, although use of the multidimensional perspective has increased in recent years. We found notable biases and inconsistencies among moderator, mediator, antecedent

Wales et al. 371

and dependent variable selection in the EO literature. In this section, we discuss the research impli- cations and practical usefulness of the study findings.

Research implications and directions

Overall, our assessment of the extant EO literature indicates significant progress towards under- standing the concept of EO and expanding knowledge of the nomological network in which the phenomenon is manifest (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955). Clearly, EO research is being published in a wide variety of journal outlets, indicating an increasing interest in the concept among a wide group of researchers. Although the use of EO in articles published in entrepreneurship-focused journals has steadied over the last few years, the number of EO articles published in non-entrepre- neurship journals has increased over the same time. Despite these developments, key knowledge gaps remain, suggesting pertinent avenues for future research.

Antecedents of EO.Our research suggests that although several variables have been examined as antecedents of EO, the origins of EO as an organizational phenomenon remain unclear: in other words, there is little understanding of the genesis of EO. Wiklund and Shepherd (2003) urged researchers to study EO as a dependent variable, in order to understand better its emergence and development. We found that their directive has been heeded, as our review revealed a great deal of investigation into the antecedents of EO, with organizational, environmental and top manager characteristics being the dominant areas of investigation (see Figure 4). Yet, entrepreneurship arises from social origins (Korsgaard, 2011; Thorton et al., 2011) and sociocultural antecedents remain underexplored. We encourage researchers to continue to advance theoretically grounded frameworks, particularly within relatively less explored areas such as leadership, networking and organizational learning, in order to link a small set of well-developed variables in explaining and predicting EO ex-ante.

Our literature review also revealed that despite having been examined in several countries, EO remains virtually unexamined in several strategically important countries such as Brazil, India and Russia, as well as in several other country clusters (e.g. Middle East, Latin America and Sub- Saharan Africa). Both cultural (Hofstede et al., 2002) and institutional (Scott, 1995) theories emphasize the influence of unique country-specific factors in shaping organizations’ strategic pos- ture and processes (Chiles et al., 2007). Thus, future researchers would do well not to only exam- ine, but also compare, EO relationships within various countries previously overlooked in order to broaden the research agenda. For example, how do the regulatory, cognitive and normative com- ponents of the institutional environment within or across specific countries influence EO? Expanding the scope of EO research to specific national contexts is important as perceptions and applications of EO may vary by country, and different countries have varying interpretations of what it means to be entrepreneurial.

Contextualizing the influence of EO. The notion that the relationship between EO and perfor- mance is complex has led researchers to examine contingent relationships, exploring the impact of moderating variables (Rauch et al., 2009). Contingency approaches look more deeply into organi- zational phenomena to derive situational-specific theories and prescriptions for management research and practice (Donaldson, 2001). Our review provides a comprehensive list of moderating factors examined in the EO literature, and notes a particularly limited amount of research into internal organizational moderators (although external and strategic variables have been investi- gated more deeply).

Although not directly captured in our analyses, we find one anecdotal observation worthy of discussion: as yet, research has not positioned contingency variables in terms of their comparative

372 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

intervening effect on EO (Hambrick and Lei, 1985). In other words, researchers have not explicitly weighed internal, external and strategic contingency variables against each other to determine their relative influence on EO. Prioritizing contingency variables according to the strength of their impact on EO would help to determine their relative practical significance as influential variables. Such studies may highlight further where research priorities should lie and steer theoretical enquiry to the most potentially productive areas.

In addition, to speculate further, EO scholarship may benefit from distinguishing between three types of interaction between the predictor and contextual variables – enhancing relationships, antagonistic relationships and buffering relationships (Frazier et al., 2004) – within future modera- tion research. Specifically, research on moderators that enhance the effect of EO (i.e. that influence outcomes in the same direction as the independent effect of EO) informs theories of organizational growth (Armstrong and Shimizu, 2007). Conversely, research on antagonistic and buffer

Figure 4. Antecedent Variables Explored in Prior Research.

Wales et al. 373

Table 4. Summary of Variables Employed within Multidimensional EO Research.

Variable Article count

Proactiveness 36 Risk-taking 36 Innovativeness 34 Competitive aggressiveness 11 Autonomy 6

Figure 5. Dependent Variables Explored in Prior Research.

374 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

moderators that weaken EO can contribute to theories of organizational decline. Such fine-grained research on interactive effects would help to identify EO’s boundary conditions (Armstrong and Shimizu, 2007) and better inform managers about specific factors that have beneficial or adverse effects in particular situations.

We also encourage future EO scholars to pay greater attention to issues of practitioner relevance when examining contingency relationships. Our analyses suggest that many of the contextual fac- tors investigated in the EO literature are not readily amenable to managerial influence. For exam- ple, managers of firms operating in the ‘wrong’ types of environments (such as benign industries), most likely will be unable to fundamentally alter their firms’ external contexts to create more pro- ductive EO–environmental alignments. Other contextual factors may be extremely time-consuming or difficult for managers to change. For example, managers who attempt to structure their firm more organically must contend with resistance based in organizational momentum. Taken together, our study suggests that EO researchers often investigate contextual factors that are of questionable or limited value to practitioners.

Explicating EO’s causal mechanisms. Our study reveals that EO researchers have begun to heed the advice that advancing EO scholarship depends on elucidating the causal process through which EO is able to influence specific outcomes (Edelman et al., 2005). In this vein, researchers have argued that EO affects outcomes through organizational learning, knowledge-based resources and innovation. While these studies begin to address how or why EO contributes to particular outcomes, they do not go far enough in unearthing the underlying generative mecha- nisms. Notably, there has been little attention to the mediating role of various forms of new entry in the EO literature (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). More broadly, although past EO research has investigated the mediating role of both internal processes (e.g. organizational learning) and emergent states (e.g. possession of knowledge based resources), isolating conceptually pure process or state variables will help us to understand better the transformation of EO into specific outcomes. To speculate, future research is likely to benefit from explicit consideration of the differences between processes and emergent states when empirically examining mediating rela- tionships in the EO literature.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

19 83

19 86

19 87

19 88

19 89

19 91

19 94

19 95

19 96

19 97

19 98

19 99

20 00

20 01

20 02

20 03

20 04

20 05

20 06

20 07

20 08

20 09

20 10

Mul�dimensional Conceptualiza�on

Unidimensional Conceptualiza�on

Figure 6. Summary of Research on EO as a Multidimensional Predictor.

Wales et al. 375

Dimensionality of EO. Covin et al. (2006) assert that one of the most important choices that EO researchers must make is that of EO dimensionality. Our review showed that most studies have conceptualized EO as a latent construct comprised of interrelated facets (unidimensionally), as opposed to an idiosyncratic configuration of multiple dimensions that describe the phenomenon (multidimensionally). Although we did not find evidence to support the claim that ‘studies have ignored an analysis of EO dimensions’ (Hughes and Morgan, 2007: 652), we note that substantial opportunities exist for considerable advancement in understanding the individual influence of dimensions of EO. We suggest two avenues for future research in this regard. First, researchers could examine the relative impact and interactive influence to examine which dimensions benefit, suppress or have no effect on specific outcomes (Short et al., 2009). Second, researchers could examine the relationships between the EO dimensions to explore whether some dimensions influ- ence others when investigating EO as a multidimensional phenomenon. Ultimately, we agree that the choice between unidimensional versus multidimensional conceptualizations should be driven by the research question being investigated (Covin and Wales, 2012; Covin et al., 2006).

Conclusion

In our overview of the EO literature, we answer the call for periodic enquiries into the status of ideas – as in the question of the state of EO research – to facilitate scientific progress (Priem and Butler, 2001). Using a well-defined, multi-stage methodology, we analyzed prior empirical EO studies published in a broad set of journals. It is our hope that the review and synthesis of the EO literature reported in this study engenders something new by bringing together many independent studies (Chow, 1987). The present research highlights numerous and varied fertile areas for further research. We do not expect our study to be considered as a final word on empirical EO research; rather, the present research seeks to highlight the cumulative achievements of the extant EO litera- ture and to encourage future empirical studies in this area.

Limitations of the study

Notwithstanding the conceptual insights revealed, as with all systematic reviews, our findings must be interpreted in light of certain limitations. First, our review focused on studies using EO. Consequently, our research excluded other constructs that may be relevant to firm-level entrepre- neurial activity such as corporate entrepreneurship (Sadler-Smith et al., 2003) and small business orientation (Runyan et al., 2008). Second, while we made every effort to be comprehensive in com- piling the sample of EO articles for this study, we may have inadvertently overlooked relevant arti- cles. This is especially possible when articles were not properly indexed or published in journals that do not participate in the databases we searched. Third, we limited the selection to peer-reviewed journal articles and thus may have introduced a degree of ‘publication bias’, given that the journals tend to receive and accept only articles reporting significant results (Begg and Berlin, 1988).

However, these limitations should not detract from our overarching conclusion that several knowledge gaps remain regarding the development and implementation of EO and its relationships with other variables, suggesting avenues for future research. Scholars are reminded that ‘the ques- tions we ask often prevent us from asking other questions’ (Sarasvathy, 1999: 707). We believe that cognizance of areas already investigated will help future EO studies formulate new questions that advance scholarly understanding of firm-level entrepreneurship. Moreover, for future EO research to continue to produce significant strides, researchers will need to grapple more deeply with ques- tions of why, when and how EO is useful to the firm. Reformulating key questions and seeking

376 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

answers requires meaningful interaction between theoretical refinement and future empirical examination. We hope that the research opportunities unearthed in the present study will stimulate further productive discussion on the EO concept.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor Robert Blackburn and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments during the review process. We would also like to thank graduate students- Natalie Elder, Alka Gupta, Sajna Ibrahim, and Emily Oliver- for their assistance in data collection and coding.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this insight. 2. The * symbol denotes that any derivation of the root word is acceptable such as ‘test’, ‘testing’ or ‘tested’. 3. See the Appendix for a comprehensive list of all the articles reviewed. 4. Entrepreneurship-specific journals included in the present study were: Entrepreneurship & Regional

Development, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Family Business Review, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, International Small Business Journal, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, Small Business Economics and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal.

5. Specialty journals in entrepreneurship with the highest number of articles on EO were: Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing and Journal of Small Business Management.

6. General managerial journals publishing among the highest number of EO articles were: Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Management Studies and Academy of Management Journal.

7. Marketing journals included Industrial Marketing Management and Journal of Marketing.

References

Abrahamson E (1996) Management fashion: academic fashion and enduring truth. Academy of Management Review 21(1): 616–618.

Armstrong C and Shimizu K (2007) A review of empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management 33(6): 959–986.

Antoncic B and Hisrich RD (2001) Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing 16(5): 405–527.

Auh S and Menguc B (2005) The influence of top management team functional diversity on strategic orienta- tions: The moderating role of environmental turbulence and inter-functional coordination. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22(3): 333–350.

Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy 51(6): 1173–1182.

Wales et al. 377

Baskerville RF (2003) Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting Organizations and Society 28(1): 1–14. Basso O, Fayolle A and Bouchard V (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation: The making of a concept. Interna-

tional Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 10(4): 313–321. Begg CB and Berlin JA (1988) Publication bias: A problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of the Royal

Statistical Society 151(3): 419–463. Bland CJ, Meurer LN and Maldonado G (1995) A systematic approach to conducting a non-statistical meta-

analysis of research literature. Academic Medicine 70(7): 642–653. Cahill D (1996) Entrepreneurial orientation or pioneer advantage? Academy of Management Review 21(3):

603–605. Campbell-Hunt C (2000) What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? A meta-analysis. Strate-

gic Management Journal 21(2): 127–154. Certo ST, Moss TW and Short JC (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation: An applied perspective. Business Hori-

zons 52(4): 319–324. Chiles TH, Bluedorn AC and Gupta VK (2007) Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: A

radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organization Studies 28(4): 467–493. Chirico F and Nordqvist M (2010) Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational value creation in family firms:

The role of organizational culture. International Small Business Journal 28(5): 487–504. Chow SL (1987) Meta-analysis of pragmatic and theoretical research: A critique. Journal of Psychology

121(3): 259–71. Cronbach L and Meehl P (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 52(4):

281–302. Cooper HM (1998) Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Covin JG and Slevin DP (1989) Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.

Strategic Management Journal 10(1): 75–87. Covin JG and Slevin DP (1991) A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship:

Theory & Practice 16(1): 7–25. Covin JG and Wales WJ (forthcoming, 2012) The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation Entrepreneur-

ship: Theory & Practice 36. Covin JG, Green KM and Slevin DP (2006) Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation–sales

growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 30(1): 57–81. Dalton DR, Daily CM, Ellstrand AE and Johnson JL (1998) Meta-analytic reviews of board composition,

leadership structure and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 19(3): 269–290. David RJ and Han SK (2004) A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost

economics. Strategic Management Journal 25(1): 39–58. Davies P (2000) The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of

Education 26(3–4): 365–378. Donaldson L (2001) The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Durden GC and Ellis LV (1993) The effects of attendance on student learning in principles of economics.

American Economic Review 85(2): 343–346. Edelman LF, Brush CG and Manolova T (2005) Co-alignment in the resource–performance relationship:

Strategy as mediator. Journal of Business Venturing 20(3): 359–383. Eisenhardt KM and Santos FM (2002) Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy? In: Pettigrew A,

Thomas H and Whittington R (eds) Handbook of Strategy and Management Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 139–164.

Evans J and Benefield P (2001) Systematic reviews of educational research: Does the medical model fit? British Education Research Journal 27(5): 527–541.

378 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

Frazier PA, Tix AP and Barron KE (2004) Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 51(1): 115–134.

Gibson JW and Tesone DV (2001) Management fads: Emergence evolution and implications for managers. Academy of Management Executive 15(4): 122–133.

Gibson JW, Tesone DV and Blackwell CW (2003) Management fads: Here yesterday, gone tomorrow. SAM Advanced Management Journal 68(4): 12–17.

Hambrick DC and Lei D (1985) Toward an empirical prioritization of contingency variables for business strategy. Academy of Management Journal 28(4): 763–788.

Hamilton RT (2011) How firms grow and the influence of size and age. International Small Business Journal 00: http://isb.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/21/0266242610383446.abstract (accessed 16 June 2011).

Hammersley M (2001) On systematic reviews of research literature: A narrative response to Evans and But- terfield. British Education Research Journal 27(5): 543–554.

Hitt MA, Boyd B and Li D (2004) The state of strategic management research and a vision of the future. In: Ketchen D and Bergh D (eds) Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. New York: Elsevier; 1–31.

Hofstede FT, Wedel M and Steenkamp EM (2002) Identifying spatial segments in international markets. Marketing Science 21(2): 160–177.

Hughes M and Morgan RE (2007) Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and busi- ness performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial Marketing Management 36(5): 651–661.

Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M and Jundt D (2005) Teams in organizations: From input–process–output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology 56: 527–543.

James LR and Brett JM (1984) Mediators, moderators and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology 69(2): 307–321.

Jones R and Rowley J (2011) Entrepreneurial marketing in small businesses: A conceptual exploration. Inter- national Small Business Journal 29(1): 25–36.

Ketchen D, Combs JG, Russell CJ, Shook C, Dean MA, Runge J, Lohrke FT, Naumann SE, Haptonstahl DE, Baker R, Beckstein BA, Handler C, Honig H and Lamoureux S (1997) Organizational configurations and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal 40(1): 223–240.

Knight GA (1997) Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing 12(3): 213–225.

Korsgaard S and Anderson AR (2011) Enacting entrepreneurship as social value creation. International Small Business Journal 29(2): 135–151.

Leung K, Bhagat R, Buchan N, Erez M and Gibson C (2005) Culture and international business. Journal of International Business Studies 36(4): 357–378.

Li Y, Huang J and Tsai M (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of knowledge creation process. Industrial Marketing Management 38(4): 440–449.

Lumpkin GT and Dess GG (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to perfor- mance. Academy of Management Review 21(1): 135–172.

Lumpkin GT and Dess GG (2001) Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing 16(5): 429–451.

Lumpkin GT, Wales WJ and Ensley MD (2007) Assessing the context for entrepreneurship: The role of entre- preneurial orientation. In: Rice MP and Habbershon TG (eds) Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Growth, Vol. 3. Westport, CT: Praeger, 49–77.

Lumpkin GT, Cogliser CC and Schneider DR (2009) Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepre- neurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 33(1): 47–69.

MacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ and Fritz MS (2007) Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 593–614.

Wales et al. 379

March JG and Sutton RI (1997) Organizational performance as a dependent variable. Organization Science 8(6): 698–706.

Matsuno K, Mentzer JT and Özsomer A (2002) The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orienta- tion on business performance. Journal of Marketing 66(3): 18–32.

Messersmith JG and Wales WJ (in press) Entrepreneurial orientation and performance in young firms: The role of human resource management. International Small Business Journal.

Miller D (1983) The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science 29(7): 770–791. Miller D and Friesen PH (1982) Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic

momentum. Strategic Management Journal 3(1): 1–25. Miller D and Serzan SL (1984) Criteria for identifying a refereed journal. Journal of Higher Education 55(6):

673–699. Mintzberg H (1973) Strategy-making in three modes. California Management Review 16(2): 44–53. Morris MH, Kuratko DF and Covin JG (2010) Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Mason, OH:

Thomson South-Western. Nadkarni S and Herrmann P (2010) CEO personality strategic flexibility and firm performance: The case of

the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal 53(5): 1050–1073. Newbert SL (2007) Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions

for future research. Strategic Management Journal 28(2): 121–146. Peng MW, Luo Y, Shenkar O and Wang DY (2001) Treasures in the China house: A review of management

and organizational research on Greater China. Journal of Business Research 52(2): 95–11. Priem RL and Butler JE (2001) Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management

research? Academy of Management Review 26(1): 22–40. Rauch A, Wiklund J, Lumpkin GT and Frese M (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance:

An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 33(3): 761–787.

Ronen S and Shenkar O (1985) Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Acad- emy of Management Review 10(3): 435–454.

Runyan R, Droge C and Swinney J (2008) Entrepreneurial orientation versus small business orientation: What are their relationships to firm performance? Journal of Small Business Management 46(4): 567–588.

Sadler-Smith E, Hampson Y, Chaston I and Badger B (2003) Managerial behavior, entrepreneurial style and small firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management 41(1): 47–67.

Sarasvathy SD (1999) Decision Making in the Absence of Markets: An Empirically Grounded Model of Entre- preneurial Expertise. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Scott WR (1995) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scott M and Rosa P (1996) Opinion: Has firm level analysis reached its limits? Time for a rethink? Interna-

tional Small Business Journal 14(4): 81–89. Short JC, McKelvie A, Ketchen DJ and Chandler GN (2009) Firm and industry effects on firm performance:

A generalization and extension for new ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 3(1): 47–65. Stam W and Elfring T (2008) Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role

of intra- and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal 51(1): 97–111. Tang J, Tang Z, Marino LD, Zhang Y and Li Q (2008) Exploring an inverted u-shape relationship between

entrepreneurial orientation and performance in Chinese ventures. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 32(1): 219–239.

Thomas AS, Shenkar O and Clarke L (1994) The globalization of our mental maps: Evaluating the geographic scope of JIBS coverage. Journal of International Business Studies 4(4): 675–686.

Thornton PH, Ribeiro-Soriano D and Urbano D (2011) Socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial activity: An overview. International Small Business Journal 29(2): 105–118.

380 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

Wales WJ, Monsen E and McKelvie A (2011) The organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial orien- tation. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 00: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540- 6520.2011.00451.x/abstract (accessed 16 June 2011).

Wang CL (2008) Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation and firm performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 32(4): 635–657.

Wiklund J and Shepherd D (2003) Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation and the perfor- mance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal 24(13): 1307–1314.

Zahra SA, Jennings DF and Kuratko DF (1999) The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepre- neurship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 24(2): 45–65.

Andersen (2010) International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research Anderson et al. (2009) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal Arbaugh et al. (2009) Journal of Business Inquiry Auger et al. (2003) Information Technology and Management Auh and Menguc (2005) International Journal of Research in Marketing Avlonitis and Salavou (2007) Journal of Business Research Awang et al. (2010) International Business Research Baker and Sinkula (2009) Journal of Small Business Management Balabanis and Katsikea (2003) International Business Review Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) Strategic Management Journal Becherer and Maurer (1997) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Bhuian et al. (2005) Journal of Business Research Bhuian et al. (2010) Competition Forum Bierly et al. (2009) Journal of Management Studies Caruana et al. (1998) Journal of Small Business Management Caruana et al. (2002) The Service Industries Journal Casillas and Moreno (2010) Entrepreneurship & Regional Development Casillas et al. (2010) Family Business Review Chang et al. (2007) Industrial Management & Data Systems Chinedu and Wilson (2010) International Research Journal of Finance and Economics Chow (2006) Advanced Management Journal Colombelli et al. (2010) Journal of Industry, Competition & Trade Colton et al. (2010) Journal of International Marketing Covin and Slevin (1988) Journal of Management Studies Covin and Slevin (1989) Strategic Management Journal Covin et al. (1994) Journal of Management Studies Covin et al. (2006) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Davis et al. (1991) Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Davis et al. (2006) International Journal of Organizational Analysis Davis et al. (2010) American Journal of Business De Clercq et al. (2005) Small Business Economics De Clerq et al. (2010) Journal of Business Venturing DeClerq and Rius (2007) Journal of Small Business Management Dess et al. (1997) Strategic Management Journal Dickson and Weaver (1997) Academy of Management Journal

Appendix. Summary of articles reviewed by author/year/journal

Wales et al. 381

Dickson and Weaver (2008) International Entrepreneurship & Management Journal Elliot and Boshoff (2005) Management Dynamics Elliot and Boshoff (2007) South African Journal of Business Management Engelen (2010) Journal of International Management Entrialgo et al. (2000) Enterprise and Innovation Management Entrialgo et al. (2001) International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management Frank et al. (2010) Schmalenbach Business Review Frese et al. (2002) Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship Frishammar and Ake Horte (2007) Technology Analysis & Strategic Management Frishammar and Andersson (2009) Journal of International Entrepreneurship Gabrielson (2007) International Small Business Journal George et al. (2001) Entrepreneurship & Regional Development Gibbons and O’Connor (2005) Journal of Small Business Management Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2009) European Journal of Marketing Green et al. (2008) Journal of Business Venturing Griffith et al. (2006) Journal of Retailing Gurbuz and Aykol (2009) Management Research News Holt et al. (2007) Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Hughes and Morgan (2007) Industrial Marketing Management Hughes et al. (2007) British Journal of Management Hult et al. (2004) Industrial Marketing Management Hung and Chiang (2010) International Journal of Technology Management Jantunen et al. (2005) Journal of International Entrepreneurship Jogaratnam and Tse (2006) International Journal of Hospitality Management Kaya and Agca (2009) Iktisat Isletme ve Finans Kaya and Syrek (2005) Journal of American Academy of Business Keh et al. (2007) Journal of Business Venturing Knight (1997) International Journal of Management Knight and Cavusgil (2004) Journal of International Business Studies Kollmann (2010) International Journal of Technology Management Kreiser et al. (2010) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Kropp et al. (2006) International Business Review Kuivalainen et al. (2007) Journal of World Business Lee (2007) Industrial Management & Data Systems Lee and Sukoco (2007) International Journal of Management Lee et al. (2001) Strategic Management Journal Li et al. (2006) Industrial Marketing Management Li et al. (2006) The Chinese Economy Li et al. (2008) International Journal of Technology Management Li et al. (2008) Journal of Product Innovation Management Li et al. (2008) Journal of Small Business Management Li et al. (2009) Industrial Marketing Management Li et al. (2009) Systems Research and Behavioral Science Li et al. (2010) Journal of Management Studies Lin et al. (2008) International Journal of Manpower

Appendix. (Continued)

(Continued)

382 International Small Business Journal 31(4)

Liu et al. (2002) International Journal of Research in Marketing Lumpkin and Dess (2001) Journal of Business Venturing Luo (1999) Journal of Small Business Management Luo et al. (2005) Journal of Academy of Marketing Science Luo et al. (2005) Journal of Business Research Madsen (2007) Entrepreneurship & Regional Development Manev et al. (2005) International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management Marino et al. (2002) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Matsuno et al. (2002) Journal of Marketing Menguc et al. (2010) Journal of Business Ethics Merlo et al. (2009) Marketing Letters Miller (1983) Management Science Miller and Toulouse (1986) Management Science Monsen and Boss (2009) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Moreno and Casillas (2008) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Morris and Paul (1987) Journal of Business Venturing Morris and Sexton (1996) Journal of Business Research Morris et al. (1994) Journal of International Business Studies Morris et al. (2006) Journal of Managerial Issues Morris et al. (2007) Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Naldi et al. (2007) Family Business Review Neubaum et al. (2004) Journal of Business Ethics Okhomina (2010) Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business Okhomina (2010) Journal of Management and Marketing Research Pearce et al. (2010) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Poon et al. (2006) International Small Business Journal Racela (2010) Business Review Real et al. (2006) International Journal of Technology Management Renko et al. (2009) Journal of Small Business Management Rhee et al. (2010) Technovation Richard et al. (2004) Academy of Management Journal Richard et al. (2009) International Journal of Human Resource Management Ripolles and Blesa (2005) Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ripolles-Melia et al. (2007) Journal of International Entrepreneurship Runyan et al. (2006) Entrepreneurship Management Runyan et al. (2008) Journal of Small Business Management Sadler-Smith et al. (2003) Journal of Small Business Management Salavou and Lioukas (2003) Creativity and Innovation Management Sapienza et al. (2005) Journal of Business Venturing Schlosser and Todorovic (2006) Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Schmelter et al. (2010) Human Resource Management Sciascia et al. (2006) Entrepreneurship Management Sharma et al. (2007) Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences Short et al. (2010) Organizational Research Methods Simsek et al. (2010) Strategic Management Journal Slater and Narver (2000) Journal of Business Research Smart and Conant (1994) Journal of Applied Business Research

Appendix. (Continued)

Wales et al. 383

Stam and Elfring (2008) Academy of Management Journal Tan (1996) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Tan (2008) Journal of Business Ethics Tan et al. (2005) International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management Tang and Rothenberg (2009) Journal of Enterprising Culture Tang et al. (2007) Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship Tang et al. (2008) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Voss et al. (2005) European Journal of Marketing Walter et al. (2006) Journal of Business Venturing Wang (2008) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Weaver et al. (2002) Journal of Enterprising Culture Weerawardena (2003) Journal of Strategic Marketing Wiklund (1999) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Wiklund and Shepherd (2003) Strategic Management Journal Wiklund and Shepherd (2005) Journal of Business Venturing Wiklund et al. (2009) Small Business Economics Williams and Lee (2009) Research Policy Wood et al. (2008) Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Wu and Chang (2008) R&D Management Yang et al. (2007) Journal of Technology Management in China Yener et al. (2008) Business Review Yusuf (2002) International Journal of Commerce & Management Zahra (2008) Journal of Strategy and Management Zahra and Covin (1995) Journal of Business Venturing Zahra and Garvis (2000) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Zahra and Neubaum (1998) Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship Zahra et al. (2004) Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Zehir and Eren (2007) Journal of American Academy of Business Zhou (2007) Journal of World Business Zhou et al. (2005) Journal of Marketing Zhou et al. (2010) Journal of International Business Studies

Appendix. (Continued)

Author biographies

William J. Wales is an assistant professor of management at James Madison University. His research interests include entrepreneurial orientation, as well as firm-level entrepreneurial processes and behavior.

Vishal K. Gupta is an assistant professor at Binghamton University (State University of New York). His research interests include corporate entrepreneurship, business strategy and Austrian economics. His work has been published in journals such as Journal of Applied Psychology, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Organization Studies, Journal of Management Inquiry, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies and International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, among others.

Fariss-Terry Mousa is an assistant professor of management at James Madison University. His research focuses on entrepreneurship, top management teams, firm strategy, innovation and pre- and post-IPO firms.