Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 375–391 | Cite as

Learning Orientation and Performance Satisfaction as Predictors of Small Firm Innovation: The Moderating Role of Gender

  • Raj V. Mahto
  • William C. McDowell
  • Jerry Kudlats
  • Timothy C. Dunne
Article
  • 271 Downloads

Abstract

Research on innovation in the context of small entrepreneurial firms is limited. Limited available studies on innovation in small firms are devoted mostly to firms operating in knowledge-intensive or technology industries and ignore the vast majority of small firms operating in traditional and less knowledge-intensive sectors of the economy. The rapid pace of technological change and the intensifying environmental turbulence in our economy influence all firms, including the majority of small firms that are perishing at a faster rate. Innovation is a key competitive tool for survival in a turbulent environment. Thus, it is important to understand factors influencing innovation in small firms. In this paper, we explore how learning orientation, a small-firm owner’s satisfaction with firm performance, and the firm owner’s gender influence innovation in small firms. We test the proposed model on a sample of small firms located in the United States of America.

Keywords

Innovation Learning orientation Satisfaction with performance Gender and small firms 

References

  1. Açıkgöz A, Günsel A, Bayyurt N, Kuzey C (2014) Team climate, team cognition, team intuition, and software quality. Group Decis Negot 23(5):1145–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Açıkgöz A, Günsel A, Kuzey C (2016) Team foresight in new product development projects. Group Decis Negot 25(2):289–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahl H, Marlow S (2012) Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization 19(5):543–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andries P, Czarnitzki D (2014) Small firm innovation performance and employee involvement. Small Bus Econ 43(1):21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker WE, Sinkula JM (1999) The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. J Acad Market Sci 27(4):411–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bass BM, Avolio BJ (1994) Shatter the glass ceiling: women may make better managers. Hum Resour Manag 33(4):549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bass BM, Avolio BJ, Atwater L (1996) The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Appl Psychol 45(1):5–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Batchelor JH (2015) Exposing the role of gender in the performance of founding entrepreneurs. J Small Bus Strategy 25(2):21–39Google Scholar
  9. Bowman C, Ambrosini V (1997) Using single respondents in strategy research. Br J Manag 8(2):119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breton Miller L, Miller D (2009) Agency versus stewardship in public family firms: a social embeddedness reconciliation. Entrep Theory Pract 33(6):1169–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bromily P (1991) Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Acad Manag J 34(1):37–59Google Scholar
  12. Brush C (1992) Research on women business owners: past trends, a new perspective and future directions. Entrep Theory Pract 16(4):5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brush C, Hisrich RD (1999)Women-owned businesses: why do they matter? In: Acs ZJ (ed) Are small firms important? Their role and impact. Springer, Boston, MA, p 111–127Google Scholar
  14. Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM (2003) Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. J Appl Psychol 88(3):552–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buttner EH, Rosen B (1992) Rejection in the loan application process: male and female entrepreneurs’ perceptions and subsequent intentions. J Small Bus Manag 30(1):58–65Google Scholar
  16. Carmelo-Ordaz C, Garcia-Cruz J, Sousa-Genel E (2014) The influence of top management team conflict on firm innovativeness. Group Decis Negot 24(6):957–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carnevale PJ (2008) Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation. Group Decis Negot 17(1):51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carter NM, Williams ML (2003) The case of new firm growth. N Perspect Women Entrep 3:25–50Google Scholar
  19. Carter S, Anderson S, Shaw E (2000) Women’s business ownership: a review of the academic, popular, and internet literature with a UK policy focus. Ann Rev Progr Entrep 1:66–157Google Scholar
  20. Chandy RK, Tellis GJ (2000) The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. J Mark 64(3):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Christensen CM, Raynor ME (2003) The innovation’s solution. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cooper AC, Artz KW (1995) Determinants of satisfaction for entrepreneurs. J Bus Ventur 10(6):439–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crossan MM, Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J Manag Stud 47(6):1154–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Currah A, Wrigley N (2004) Networks of organizational learning and adaptation in retail TNCs. Glob Netw 4(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  27. Daft RL (1978) A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Acad Manag J 21(2):193–210Google Scholar
  28. Damanpour F, Evan WM (1984) Organizational innovation and performance: the problem of organizational lag. Adm Sci Q 29:392–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Darnall N, Henriques I, Sadorsky P (2010) Adopting proactive environmental strategy: the influence of stakeholders and firm size. J Manag Stud 47(6):1072–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. D’aveni RA (2010) Hypercompetition. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. De Bruin A, Brush CG, Welter F (2006) Introduction to the special issue: towards building cumulative knowledge on women’s entrepreneurship. Entrep Theory Pract 30(5):585–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. De Massis A, Frattini F, Lichtenthaler U (2013) Research on technological innovation in family firms: present debates and future directions. Fam Bus Rev 26(1):10–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. De Winne S, Sels L (2010) Interrelationships between human capital, HRM, and innovation in Belgian start-ups aiming at an innovation strategy. Int J Hum Resour Manag 21(11):1863–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. DeRue DS, Wellman N (2009) Developing leaders via experience: the role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. J Appl Psychol 94(4):859–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dess GG, Picken JC (2000) Changing roles: leadership in the twenty-first century. Org Dyn 28(3):18–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Giordano R, Brugnach M, Pluchinotta I (2017) Ambiguity in problem framing as a barrier to collective actions: some hints from groundwater protection policy in the Apulia region. Group Decis Negot 26(5):911–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gupta VK, Turban DB, Wasti SA, Sikdar A (2009) The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrep Theory Pract 33(2):397–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manag Rev 9(2):193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hamel G (2000) Leading the revolution. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Hillman AJ, Cannella AA, Paetzold RL (2000) The resource dependence role of corporate directors: strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. J Manag Stud 37(2):235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hisrich R, Brush C (1984) The woman entrepreneur: management skills and business problems. J Small Bus Manag 22(1):30–37Google Scholar
  42. Hmieleski KM, Ensley MD (2007) A contextual examination of new venture performance: entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. J Org Behav 28(7):865–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hult GTM, Hurley RF, Knight GA (2004) Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on business performance. Ind Mark Manag 33(5):429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hurley RF, Hult GTM (1998) Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. J Mark 62(3):42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ilgen DR (1971) Satisfaction with performance as a function of the initial level of expected performance and the deviation from expectations. Org Behav Hum Perform 6(3):345–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kalleberg AL, Leicht KT (1991) Gender and organizational performance: determinants of small business survival and success. Acad Manag J 34(1):136–161Google Scholar
  48. Keskin H (2006) Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs: an extended model. Eur J Innov Manag 9(4):396–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Klaas BS, Klimchak M, Semadeni M, Holmes JJ (2010) The adoption of human capital services by small and medium enterprises: a diffusion of innovation perspective. J Bus Ventur 25(4):349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kreiser PM, Davis J (2010) Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the unique impact of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. J Small Bus Entrep 23(1):39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lane DJ, Gibbons FX (2007) Am I the typical student? Perceived similarity to student prototypes predicts success. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 33(10):1380–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lant T, Shapira Z (2008) Managerial reasoning about aspirations and expectations. J Econ Behav Organ 66(1):60–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lu JW, Beamish PW (2001) The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strateg Manag J 22(6–7):565–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mahto RV, Khanin D (2015) Satisfaction with past financial performance, risk taking, and future performance expectations in the family business. J Small Bus Manag 53(3):801–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mahto RV, Davis PS, Pearce II, John A, Robinson RB Jr (2010) Satisfaction with firm performance in family businesses. Entrep Theory Pract 34(5):985–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mahto RV, Ahluwalia S, Walsh ST (2017) Innovation in small firms: Does family versus non-family matter? J Small Bus Strategy 27(3):39–49Google Scholar
  57. Markin E, Swab RG, Marshall DR (2017) Who is driving the bus? An analysis of author and institution contributions to entrepreneurship research. J Innov Knowl 2(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Murphy G, Tocher N (2017) Diversification in small firms: does parental influence matter? J Small Bus Strategy 27(3):26–38Google Scholar
  59. Nasution HN, Mavondo FT, Matanda MJ, Ndubisi NO (2011) Entrepreneurship: its relationship with market orientation and learning orientation and as antecedents to innovation and customer value. Ind Mark Manag 40(3):336–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Olugbola SA (2017) Exploring entrepreneurial readiness of youth and startup success components: entrepreneurship training as a moderator. J Innov Knowl 2(3):155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pett T, Wolff J (2016) Entrepreneurial orientation and learning in high- and low-performing SMEs. J Small Bus Strategy 26(2):71–86Google Scholar
  62. Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manag 12(4):531–544Google Scholar
  63. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Qian G, Li L (2003) Profitability of small- and medium-sized enterprises in high-tech industries: the case of the biotechnology industry. Strateg Manag J 24(9):881–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reynolds PD, Bygrave W, Autio E (2004). GEM 2003 Executive Report. Babson Park, MA: Babson College; London, U.K.: London Business School; and Kansas City, MO: Kauffman FoundationGoogle Scholar
  66. Schenkel MT, D’Souza RR, Cornwall JR, Matthews CH (2015) Early influences and entrepreneurial intent: examining the roles of education, experience, and advice networks. J Small Bus Strategy 25(2):1–20Google Scholar
  67. Senge PM (2006) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Broadway Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Sexton DL, Bowman-Upton N (1990) Female and male entrepreneurs: psychological characteristics and their role in gender-related discrimination. J Bus Ventur 5(1):29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shinkle GA (2012) Organizational aspirations, reference points, and goals: building on the past and aiming for the future. J Manag 38(1):415–455Google Scholar
  70. Sinkula JM, Baker WE, Noordewier T (1997) A framework for market-based organizational learning: linking values, knowledge, and behavior. J Acad Mark Sci 25(4):305–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Slevin DP, Terjesen SA (2011) Entrepreneurial orientation: reviewing three papers and implications for further theoretical and methodological development. Entrep Theory Pract 35(5):973–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stanley LJ, McDowell W (2014) The role of interorganizational trust and organizational efficacy in family and nonfamily firms. J Fam Bus Strategy 5(3):264–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Terziovski M (2010) Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector: a resource-based view. Strateg Manag J 31(8):892–902Google Scholar
  74. Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, Poldrack RA (2007) The neutral basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science 31(5811):515–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. US Small Business Administration (2010) The small business economy: a report to the President. Retrieved from https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sb_econ2010.pdf
  76. Van Uxem FW, Bais J (1996) Het starten van een bedrijf: ervaringen van 2000 starters. EIM/Algemeen Economisch BeleidGoogle Scholar
  77. Verheul I, Thurik R (2001) Start-up capital: Does gender matter? Small Bus Econ 16(4):329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang CL (2008) Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrep Theory Pract 32(4):635–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Welbourne TM, Pardo-del-Val M (2009) Relational capital: strategic advantage for small and medium-size enterprises. Group Decis Negot 18(5):483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Welsh DHB, Kaciak E, Trimi S, Mainardes EW (2017) Women entrepreneurs and family-firm heterogeneity: evidence from an emerging economy. Group Decis Negot.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-017-9544-8 Google Scholar
  81. Wheelen TL, Hunger JD (1999) Strategic management; year 2000. In: Global The (ed) Millennium, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  82. Wiggins RR, Ruefli TW (2005) Schumpeter’s ghost: Is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strateg Manag J 26(10):887–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wilkens J (1987) Her own business. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Yap CM, Souder WE (1994) Factors influencing new product success and failure in small entrepreneurial high-technology electronics firms. J Prod Innov Manag 11(5):418–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zacharakis AL, Meyer GD, DeCastro J (1999) Differing perceptions of new venture failure: a matched exploratory study of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. J Small Bus Manag 37(3):1–14Google Scholar
  86. Zahra SA, Covin JG (1995) Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis. J Bus Ventur 10(1):43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raj V. Mahto
    • 1
  • William C. McDowell
    • 2
  • Jerry Kudlats
    • 3
  • Timothy C. Dunne
    • 4
  1. 1.University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Bradley UniversityPeoriaUSA
  3. 3.Jacksonville UniversityJacksonvilleUSA
  4. 4.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations