The inter-correlations between the EO and MO dimensions

It should be noted that innovativeness (INNO) was initially measured as a component of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and not as a stand-alone construct since a business which manifests INNO in its entrepreneurship process would also be assumed to pursue its MO activities on same (INNO) basis (Slater & Narver, 2000:70;

Verhees & Meulenberg, 2004:135; Hill et al. 2008:107). In addition, EO is conceptualised in this study as a multi-dimensional phenomenon whose dimensions could vary independently with performance (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Kreiser et al.

2002; Covin et al. 2006).

In order to determine the inter-correlations of the four EO and three MO dimensions, a total score was calculated for each dimension by summing the scores of the individual items. However, before totalling any scores, the individual scores were first recoded to range from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree), and not from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) as originally measured. The logic behind the recoding was to have total scores that start at zero. Thus, after recoding and summation, the scores for the first dimension of the EO measure, innovativeness, could range in theory from 0 to 15 as this dimension comprises 5 items and the minimum and maximum scores for any individual item were 0 and 3 respectively.

Similarly, the scores for the other dimensions of the EO measure (proactiveness, risk taking and autonomy seeking), could range between 0 and 9, as each dimension involved only three items. The same procedure was applied to the total scores of the MO dimensions.

The newly created dimensions scores were standardised for ease of comparison by converting each to a score out of 9.

The inter-correlations between the four EO and three MO dimensions based on a series of Spearman rho correlations are presented below. Spearman rho is applied in order to examine correlations between pairs of ordinal scale variables where data has 179

been transformed and recoded as explained above (Field, 2009: 179; Bryman & Bell, 2011; Cooper & Schindler, 2011). Correlations between pairs of ordinal variables in relation to the dimensions of EO and MO were analysed and presented in Table 6.21

Table 6.21: Inter-correlations between dimensions of EO and MO measures

Dimensions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) EO: Innovativeness --

(2) EO: Proactiveness 0.677* --

(3) EO: Risk taking 0.540* 0.578* --

(4) EO: Autonomy seeking 0.409* 0.409* 0.525* --

(5) MO: Intelligence generation 0.558* 0.558* 0.437* 0.565* --

(6) MO: Intelligence dissemination 0.544* 0.536* 0.432* 0.523* 0.785* --

(7) MO: Responsiveness 0.572* 0.533* 0.419* 0.478* 0.753* 0.829* --

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

6.9.2.1 Correlations between EO dimensions

The correlations between EO items appear to be strongly correlated. For instance, proactiveness strongly correlates with innovativeness (1 & 2) (0.677) while autonomy seeking also strongly correlates with risk taking (4 & 3) (0.525) (Table 6.21).

Practically, this means that as scores on proactiveness increase, those on innovativeness also increase by the coefficient of 0.677; or as autonomy-seeking increases, risk-taking also increases by the coefficient of 0.525.

6.9.2.2 Correlations between MO dimensions

Similarly, MO items strongly correlate with each other. Responsiveness strongly correlates with intelligence generation (7 & 5) (0.753) and intelligence dissemination correlates very strongly with responsiveness (6 & 7) (0.829) (Table 6.21). Again this means that an increase in intelligence dissemination will result in an increase in responsiveness by the coefficient of 0.829.

6.9.2.3 Inter-correlations between EO and MO dimensions

There are strong inter-correlations between EO and MO items as well. Intelligence generation strongly correlates with autonomy seeking (5 & 4) (0.565) and responsiveness strongly correlates with proactiveness (7 & 2) (0.533) (Table 6.21).

180

The strong inter-correlations between the EO and MO variables mean that pairs of correlated items positively co-vary because all the correlation values are positive. For instance, a high performance score on intelligence generation would correlate with a high performance score on proactiveness (5 & 2) (0.558) (Table 6.21). In the same vein, an increase in autonomy seeking would result in an increase in intelligence dissemination (4 & 6) by coefficient of 0.523.

6.9.2.4 Inter-correlations between EO and MO dimensions and business performance

This analysis demonstrates the co-variation in performance of business activities from EO and MO perspectives. This illustrates absence of internal conflicts in a business considering EO and MO practices. On the contrary, the inter-correlations between EO and MO items lend support to the argument that EO and MO interact to positively and significantly influence business performance. This finding is consistent with existing knowledge in the emerging field of what Hill et al. (2008:107) describe as entrepreneurial marketing (Slater & Narver, 2000:70; Matsuno et al. 2002:18; Knight

& Cavusgil, 2004:135; Verhees & Meulenberg, 2004:135;Morris et al. 2007:21; Keh et al. 2007:2; Schindebutte et al. 2008:4).

6.9.2.5 Inter-correlations between INNO and other dimensions of EO

The Figures in Table 6.21 show that innovativeness correlate with other dimensions of EO. It should again be noted that EO in this study is conceptualised as multi-dimensional phenomenon whose dimensions could vary independently with other variables (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, 2000; Kreiser et al. 2002). For instance, INNO strongly correlated with proactiveness (1 & 2) (0.677). INNO also positively correlated with risk-taking (1 & 3) by 0.540 and moderately and positively correlated with autonomy seeking (1 & 4) (0.409) (Table 6.21). INNO therefore positively co-varies with performance measures of the other dimensions of EO (proactiveness, risk-taking and autonomy-seeking). The finding in relation to INNO-EO interactive positive influence on performance is confirmed in the literature (Miller & Friesen, 1982; Ireland et al., 2003; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005:75; Venter et al. 2010: 9). So, an empirical

181

finding in this study is that significantly positive correlations exist between EO and INNO items which exert positive influence on performance of SSAEs.

6.9.2.6 Inter-correlations between INNO and MO dimensions

Figures in Table 6.21 indicate that there is a significantly positive correlation between INNO and MO items. For instance, INNO positively correlates respectively with intelligence generation (1 & 5) by a coefficient of 0.558; intelligence dissemination (0.544) and responsiveness (0.572) (Table 6.21). This means that as INNO of SSAEs improves, MO activities also simultaneously improve. Therefore, the desire to (innovatively) introduce new products and services to customers would also prompt SSAEs to simultaneously gather market information share the information among business members and respond to market needs accordingly. This finding is sufficiently corroborated in the literature (Han et al.1998; Hurley & Hult,1998; North &

Smallbone, 2000; Salavou & Lioukas, 2003; Gudmundson et al. 2003; Roskos, 2004;

Verhees et al. 2004; Lin & Chen, 2006; UK. DTI, 2006; Wolff & Pett, 2006; Cillo et al.

2010; Wang & Lin, 2012).

The next section employs non-parametric statistics, specifically the Kruskal Wallis test, to examine the relationship between the EO and MO dimensions, on the one hand, and each of the measures of financial and non-financial performance, on the other.

6.9.3 Relationship between EO and MO on the one hand and firm