Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
429446
Risk-Taking
Customer
Orientation Performance
Innovativeness Opportunity
Focus
Performance
ables were not hypothesized, the next
1.00
step of moderated regression was to add
the main effects to the established rela-
tionship found in H1. Interestingly, as
indicated in Table 3 models B, C, and D,
Opportunity
the main effects of risk-taking, innovative-
ness, and opportunity focus were not
Focus
1.00
0.03
significant (p > .05).
The next step involved adding each
interaction term to the main effects
model. As indicated in Table 4 (models
Innovativeness
Correlations
0.14
0.44**
0.57**
0.06
increases.
0.24**
0.44**
0.35**
0.22*
1.00
2.80/5.00
1.67/5.00
2.00/5.00
1.67/5.00
1.00/5.00
4.41
3.89
4.02
3.96
3.47
Model A
Customer Orientation 0.218 2.98**
F = 8.87, p < .003, R2 = 0.047
Model B
Customer Orientation 0.215 2.84**
Risk-Taking 0.012 0.16
F = 4.42, p < .013, R2 = 0.048
Model C
Customer Orientation 0.194 2.38*
Innovativeness 0.054 0.67
F = 4.64, p < .011, R2 = 0.050
Model D
Customer Orientation 0.237 3.04**
Opportunity Focus -0.057 -0.73
F = 4.69, p < .01, R2 = 0.050
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Model A
Customer Orientation 0.256 3.43***
Risk-Taking -0.072 -0.92
Customer Orientation Risk-Taking 0.164 2.14*
F = 5.13, p < .002, R2 = 0.080
Model B
Customer Orientation 0.239 2.93**
Innovativeness 0.057 0.71
Customer Orientation Innovativeness 0.149 2.03*
F = 5.11, p < .002, R2 = 0.080
Model C
Customer Orientation 0.277 3.47***
Opportunity Focus 0.007 0.08
Customer Orientation Opportunity Focus 0.179 2.38*
F = 5.59, p < .001, R2 = 0.087
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
firms cannot actually make the move into performance relationship may be limited.
promising areas identified through CO Internally, when a firm is faced with
because of their aversion to risk. Firms resource limitations, it may be more
with lower levels of innovativeness will comfortable taking fewer risks, be more
not receive performance benefits from adverse to experimental approaches, and
CO either, possibly because they are not be as oriented toward pursuing new
unable to grasp new concepts and opportunities. Engaging in riskier deci-
approaches. Such firms are more likely sions, utilizing innovative approaches,
to operate under a market-driven rather and/or pursuing new opportunities gen-
than a market-driving approach; hence, erally requires access to more resources
the CO becomes myopic rather than and more capital, factors that are more
forward-focused. Finally, firms with likely to be present in large rather than
lower levels of opportunity focus do not small companies. Resource-rich firms are
receive performance benefits from CO. better positioned to gain performance
These firms are probably not able to rec- through CO as moderated by risk-
ognize the potential in customer identi- taking, innovativeness, and an opportu-
fied needs, especially those that involve nity focus.
new markets and approaches. Similarly, the firms organizational
A number of factors inside or outside structure may limit its ability to allocate
the firm may constrain it to lower resources toward emerging opportuni-
levels of risk-taking, innovativeness, and ties. A traditional corporate organization
opportunity focus. In these organi- tends to be rigid and hierarchical, a
zations, the benefit from the CO structure that may not easily incorporate
Risk-Taking
Lower risk-taking
Customer Orientation 0.065 0.57
F = 0.33, p = .570, R2 = 0.004
Higher Risk-Taking
Customer Orientation 0.340 3.59*
F = 12.90, p < .001, R2 = 0.115
Innovativeness
Lower Innovativeness
Customer Orientation 0.041 0.39
F = 0.15, p = .696, R2 = 0.002
Higher Innovativeness
Customer Orientation 0.351 3.48*
F = 12.09, p < .001, R2 = 0.123
Opportunity Focus
Lower Opportunity Focus
Customer Orientation 0.140 1.21
F = 1.47, p = .229, R2 = 0.019
Higher Opportunity Focus
Customer Orientation 0.318 3.38*
F = 11.44, p < .001, R2 = 0.101
*p < .001.
new projects or new approaches into the not have an entrepreneurial focus, then
organization. Organizations where the the small firm is much less likely to main-
COperformance relationship may be tain an entrepreneurial orientation.
enhanced via the moderating effect of Though this study uncovers relevant
risk-taking, innovativeness, and opportu- information about the roles of risk-
nity focus are more likely to use flat, taking, innovativeness, and opportunity
informal organizational structures that focus as moderating factors on the
are more fluid. Flat structures are more COperformance relationship, there is
likely to exist in small firms; however, in much that is left unknown. For example,
microfirms, the owner is often the sole it appears that a propensity for risk
decision-maker and the key determinant strengthens the positive influence of CO
of company culture (LeBrasseur, Blanco, on firm performance, but can it be
and Dodge 2006). Small firms that have assumed that all forms of risk-taking are
moved out of the micro stage are still positive? Successful entrepreneurs have
largely influenced in structure and been found to engage in educated rather
culture by the owner. If the owner does than blind risk-taking (Timmons and
Appendix
Scales Used to Measure the Constructs
Customer Orientation1 (Coefficient alpha = 0.82)
1 Return on investment
2 Return on equity
3 Net profit margin
4 Return on assets
5 Sales growth
6 Market share growth
1
Items were measured using a five-point scale anchored by Strongly Disagree and
Strongly Agree
2
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with each of the
performance dimensions using a five-point scale anchored by Very Dissatisfied and
Very Satisfied.