|
...three-dimensional measure. results of confirmatory factor analysis in LISREL supported modeling entrepreneurial orientation with three sub-dimensions: innovation, proactiveness, and risk-taking. The second research question addressed the extent to which the three sub-dimensions of the entrepreneurial orientation measure co-varied with one another. Correlation analysis revealed that the three sub-dimensions of EQ are able to vary independently of one another in many situations. This study also provided strong support for the cross-cultural validity of the Covin and Slevin EQ scale.
**********
Over the last decade, there has been a dramatic increase in both the volume and sophistication of studies exploring issues related to entrepreneurship. While the majority of the research in this area has employed samples drawn from the United States, the importance of international entrepreneurship has been recognized recently, and a growing number of researchers are turning their attention to this arena (McDougall & Oviatt, 2000). However, many of these cross-cultural studies are simplistically employing entrepreneurial measures previously developed for studies in the United States without adequately examining the validity of these measures in international settings. This ethnocentrism is becoming increasingly problematic. Steensma, Marino, Weaver, and Dickson (2000) found that contemporary management theories may not be applicable in all international research contexts due to differences in national culture. In addition to questioning the applicability of contemporary theories, the universality of the measu res developed to operationalize the constructs underlying these theories should also be examined. In this paper, we employ a multi-country sample to explore the cross-cultural validity of a commonly used measure in the entrepreneurship literature: entrepreneurial orientation (EO).
The most widely utilized operationalization of EO in both the entrepreneurship and strategic management literature was developed by Covin and Slevin (1989), based on the earlier work of Khandwalla (1977) and Miller and Friesen (1982). In developing this measure. Covin and Slevin theorized that the three dimensions of EO--innovation, proactiveness, and risk taking--acted together to "comprise a basic, unidimensional strategic orientation" and should be aggregated together when conducting research in the field of entrepreneurship (Covin & Slevin, 1989, p. 79). While this operationalization has shown high levels of reliability and validity in numerous studies (e.g., Barringer & Bluedorn, 1999; Becherer & Maurer, 1997; Naman & Slevin, 1993), recent research has raised concerns pertaining to the psychometric properties of the measure. Specifically, the dimensionality of the measure (Knight, 1997; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Zahra, 1993a) and the interdependence of the sub-dimensions have been called into question (Dess, Lumpkin, & McGee, 1999; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
Issues regarding the dimensionality of the measure have centered on the use of aggregated, uni-dimensional measures (consistent with Colvin & Slevin, 1989) versus multi-dimensional measures reflecting each of the sub-dimensions of EO (e.g., Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Proponents of the multi-dimensional approach acknowledge the parsimony of the uni-dimensional measure, but are concerned that it may veil the unique contributions that each sub-dimension of EO offers to the entrepreneurial process. In addressing the interdependence of the sub-dimensions, proponents of multi-dimensional operationalizations of EO highlight the potential for each sub-dimension to have a differential impact with key outcome variables such as firm performance (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). If innovation, risk taking, and proactiveness make unique contributions to a firm's entrepreneurial orientation, then the use of aggregated measures of EO that has become so commonplace in the entrepreneurship literature may not be desirable in many research s ituations.
The potential dimensionality and covariance issues are compounded in international entrepreneurship research, because there is increasing empirical support for the proposition that cultural attributes can have a strong impact on the formation and incidence of entrepreneurial behaviors (McGrath, MacMillan, Yang, & Tsai, 1992; Mueller & Thomas, 2001; Shane, 1993). If research in the area of entrepreneurship is to fulfill its vast potential, it is vital that an unambiguous understanding of the fundamental constructs at the heart of the discipline emerges. Given the central role EO plays in the entrepreneurship literature, a clear and consistent operationalization of this construct is critical. While the Covin and Slevin EO scale has been employed extensively in previous research, only one study has tested the reliability and validity of the measure in a cross-cultural context (Knight, 1997). The paucity of cross-cultural research addressing the psychometric properties of the EO scale is especially problematic, g iven that "only those countries with specific cultural tendencies will engender a strong EO, hence experiencing more entrepreneurship and global competitiveness" (Lee & Peterson, 2000, p. 401).
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATIONAL CULTURE AND ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION
Numerous studies have linked national culture to the strategic decision-making process that occurs within entrepreneurial organizations. Geletkanycz (1997) argued that the "differing views and assumptions embedded in national culture are reflected not only in managerial attitudes and beliefs, but also in the behaviors and actions by which organizational members discharge their roles" (Geletkanycz, 1997, p. 617). Mueller and Thomas (2001) also theorized that national culture was responsible for causing individuals to engage in behaviors that were not as prevalent as in other cultures. The argument that national culture affects individual behavior is especially pertinent to the field of entrepreneurship, because individual behavior has often been linked to the formation of firm-level entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Miller, 1983). If national culture affects the way that individuals behave within organizations and individual behavior affects the strategic orientation displayed by these organiz ations, then it stands to reason that national culture may play a significant role in determining the overall level of a firm's entrepreneurial orientation.
In a guest editorial on international entrepreneurship, Zahra, Jennings, and Kuratko (1999a, p.6) claimed that "it is now time for important comparative studies that use data from multiple countries and cultures" when studying corporate entrepreneurship. Zahra and George (in press) noted that past research on the topic of international entrepreneurship has been hindered by two significant problems: an over-reliance on samples consisting primarily of U.S. firms, and the utilization of small sample sizes in these studies. The authors argued that "past research in this area underscores an urgent need to develop a stronger theoretical rationale and empirical testing with larger and more representative samples."
The cultural diversity of the firms analyzed in this study (Australian, Finnish, Mexican, Dutch, Norwegian, and Swedish), as well as the extensive sample size, will provide much needed empirical research assessing whether the dimensionality of the EO scale holds across countries, cultures, and environments. This is a topic of great importance for future entrepreneurship research, given McDougall and Oviatt's (2000, p. 903) definition of international entrepreneurship as a "combination of innovative, proactive, and risk-seeking behavior that crosses national borders and is intended to create value in organizations." Thus, the three primary research objectives of this study are: (1) To determine the overall number of unique sub-dimensions that constitute the EO construct; (2) to assess the extent to which the sub-dimensions of the EO scale co-vary with one another; and (3) to determine whether the psychometric properties of the EO scale exhibit adequate levels of reliability and validity in a cross-cultural set ting.
REVIEW OF THE EO CONSTRUCT
The Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct
The fundamental theoretical basis of the entrepreneurial orientation scale lies in the assumption that entrepreneurial firms differ from other types of firms. Early research on entrepreneurial orientation posited that entrepreneurial firms tended to take more risks than other types of firms and that these firms would proactively search for new business opportunities (Khandwalla, 1977; Mintzberg, 1973). Miller and Friesen (1982) argued that entrepreneurial firms were distinguished by a strong emphasis on new product innovation. Such organizations were characterized by their willingness to "innovate boldly and regularly while taking considerable risks in their product-market strategies" (Miller & Friesen, 1982, p. 5).
Integrating these earlier views, several researchers operationalized the behavior of entrepreneurial firms as consisting of product-market innovation, proactiveness of decision making, and risk taking (Miller, 1983; Miller & Friesen, 1983). These scholars maintained that the level of entrepreneurship exhibited by a firm was the aggregate total of these three sub-dimensions. A firm that was truly "entrepreneurial" would exhibit high levels of each dimension. Covin and Slevin (1988, p. 218) argued that entrepreneurial orientation could best be measured by summing together "the extent to which top managers are inclined to take business-related risks (the risk-taking dimension), to favor change and innovation in order to obtain a competitive advantage for their firm (the innovation dimension), and to compete aggressively with other firms (the proactiveness dimension)."
In a study of small manufacturing firms, Covin and Slevin (1989) developed an entrepreneurial orientation scale to measure these three sub-dimensions. This scale consisted of nine items: three items measuring innovativeness, three items measuring proactiveness, and three items measuring risk taking. Five items in this scale were adapted from the previous measures of EO developed by Khandwalla (1977) and Miller and Friesen (1982), and the remaining four items were created as part of the Covin and Slevin study. Consistent with previous research, Covin and Slevin measured EO as the composite total of the innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking dimensions. Table 1 examines the main studies that have been conducted on the EO construct. Information displayed in the table includes the dimensions of EO...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice
Culture, nation, and entrepreneurial strategic orientations: implicati..., June 22, 2002
The influence of national culture and family involvement on entreprene..., June 22, 2002
Gender, microenterprise success and cultural context: the case of Sout..., June 22, 2002
The moderating effect of national culture on the relationship between ..., June 22, 2002
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
(statistical%20data%20included)%20%20&position=1)