• 沒有找到結果。

5. Conclusions and discussion

5.1 Results and discussion

In the constructed conceptual model of this study (Figure 1), firm performance is decomposed into growth performance and profitability performance constructs. The SEM analysis results (Figure 2) show that, driven by firm entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation and differentiation strategy are both important mediating factors raising firm performance. On the one hand, entrepreneurial orientation positively influences learning orientation, which, in turn, has a positive effect on profitability performance, but learning orientation does not have a positive effect on growth performance. On the other hand, entrepreneurial orientation positively affects differentiation strategy, which in turn positively affects growth performance, but differentiation strategy does not positively affect profitability performance. The analysis results reveal that, in terms of the mediating effect, learning orientation and differentiation strategy can complement each other in raising firm performance, learning orientation mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and the profitability performance of a firm, and differentiation strategy mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and the growth performance of a firm.

In prior SEM studies of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance nexus, firm performance is generally viewed as a unified construct that overall includes multiple firm dimensions (e.g., Keh, Nguyen, and Ng, 2007; Wang, 2008; Li, Huang, and Tsai, 2009). If the method that previous SEM studies generally adopt is followed, then both the growth performance construct and profitability performance construct in the original concept model shown in Figure 1 should be integrated into a unified firm performance construct. By adopting this unified

performance construct, the constructed conceptual model adapted from the original conceptual model can be designated as a “unified firm performance model.” The SEM analysis results for the EO→DS→PP path in this “unified firm performance model” show that there is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and learning orientation (EO→LO: γ11= 0.677, p<0.001), but learning orientation does not significantly impact unified firm performance (LO→FP: β31= 0.389, n.s). The analysis results for the EO→DS→FP path in this model show that there is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and differentiation strategy (EO→DS: γ21=

0.749, p<0.001), but the latter does not significantly impact unified firm performance (DS→FP: β32= 0.166, n.s). Thus, SEM analysis results for the

“unified firm performance model” cannot establish the mediating effect of learning orientation and differentiation strategy on the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. Comparing the SEM analysis results of the conceptual model (Figure 2) with those of the “unified firm performance model”

shows that the constructed conceptual model in this study (Figure 1 and Figure 2), which decomposes firm performance into two constructs, can generate a deeper understanding of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, mediating variables, and firm performance.

Since the total mediating effect of learning orientation on profitability performance is significant (Table 3), this study furthermore examines the relative indirect effect of three factors related to learning orientation - commitment to learning, open-mindedness, and shared vision - on profitability performance. The multiple mediating test results show that entrepreneurial orientation affects commitment to learning, open-mindedness, and shared vision; however, when comparing the specific indirect effects of these three factors related to learning orientation on profitability performance, the results show that the specific indirect effect of shared vision is strongest (indirect effect: 0.1736), followed by that of commitment to learning (indirect effect: 0.1236), while the specific indirect effect of open-mindedness is almost negligible (indirect effect: -0.0286).

These multiple mediating test results demonstrate that entrepreneurial orientation promotes a commitment to learning and an open-minded environment within firms, thereby broadening learning scope and enhancing learning intensity (Sinkula, Baker, and Noordewier, 1997). However, to improve profitability

Table 3

The indirect effect of entrepreneurial orientation on profitability through learning orientation and differentiation strategy

Product of coefficients Bootstrapping, 95% confidence interval

Percentile BC BCa

Estimate SE Z Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Learning orientation 0.237 0.096 2.469 0.462 0.054 0.475 0.058 0.463 0.054 Differentiation strategy 0.049 0.077 0.636 0.223 -0.089 0.224 -0.089 0.217 -0.094 Total 0.286 0.104 2.750 0.501 0.078 0.509 0.086 0.513 0.089

BC: bias corrected; BCa: bias corrected and accelerated; 1,000 bootstrap samples.

effectively, the organizational learning process must be directed toward the achievement of common organizational goals (Slater and Narver, 1995).

Therefore, a shared vision is essential to the link between entrepreneurial orientation and profitability performance.

Since the total mediating effect of differentiation strategy on growth performance is significant (Table 4), this study next examines the relative indirect effect of the two factors related to differentiation strategy (i.e., innovative differentiation and marketing differentiation) on growth performance.

The multiple mediating test results show that entrepreneurial orientation affects innovative differentiation and marketing differentiation. When comparing the specific indirect effects of innovative differentiation and marketing differentiation on profitability performance, however, the result shows that the specific indirect effect of innovative differentiation (indirect effect: 0.2979) is stronger than that of marketing differentiation (indirect effect: 0.1014). These multiple mediating test results demonstrate that entrepreneurial orientation affects a firm’s commitment to using the strategy variables related to innovative differentiation and marketing differentiation to establish a competitive advantage, ultimately affecting the firm’s long-term growth (e.g., Covin and Adler, 1989;

Covin, 1991; Dess, Lumpkin, and Covin, 1997; Zhou, Yim, and Tse, 2005).

However, in terms of the effectiveness of raising growth performance, innovative differentiation is the most important factor for the linkage between entrepreneurial orientation and growth performance, and marketing differentiation is the second most important.

Table 4

The indirect effect of entrepreneurial orientation on growth through learning orientation and differentiation strategy

Product of coefficients Bootstrapping, 95% confidence interval

Percentile BC BCa

Estimate SE Z Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Learning orientation -0.007 0.109 0.064 0.239 -0.199 0.230 -0.204 0.230 -0.205 Differentiation strategy 0.406 0.125 3.248 0.499 0.098 0.566 0.136 0.552 0.134 Total 0.399 0.153 2.608 0.686 0.101 0.718 0.127 0.715 0.127

相關文件