Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 5336–5341
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Does size matter? Entrepreneurial orientation and performance in Spanish sports firms☆ Juan Núñez-Pomar a, Vicente Prado-Gascó b, Vicente Añó Sanz a, Josep Crespo Hervás a, Ferran Calabuig Moreno a,⁎ a b
Department of Physical Education and Sports, University of Valencia, Gascó Oliag St., 3, Valencia 46010, Spain European University of Valencia, General Elio St., 8, Valencia 46010, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 November 2015 Received in revised form 1 March 2016 Accepted 1 April 2016 Available online 17 May 2016 Keywords: Entrepreneurial orientation Business performance Sports firms Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis Firm size
a b s t r a c t The entrepreneurial orientation (EO) of firms is the subject of current research in the fields of management and business. However, analyses on this subject in sport companies are lacking. This study analyzes the relationship among EO, firm size, and business performance of Spanish sports service firms. The study analyzes EO as a multidimensional construct (with proactiveness, innovation, and risk-taking dimensions), and business performance considering self-perception (perceived customer satisfaction, perceived market effectiveness, and perceived financial performance) and financial indicators (ROI). The firm size follows the EU's directive for the classification of micro, small, medium, and large firms. The results from a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis show that EO is a sufficient condition for performance in small Spanish sports service companies but not in large firms. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Entrepreneurship plays an important role as a driver of economic growth, has great strategic importance, and is a key link in the chain of the economy (Canina, Palacios, & Devece, 2012). Despite being a recent research area (Chen, Ho, Wang, & Wu, 2011), entrepreneurship's development has been intense in recent years (Cornelius, Landström, & Persson, 2006; Teixeira, 2011; Welter & Lasch, 2008). Among other topics, research focuses on entrepreneurial characteristics of organizations (Gartner, 1985; Van de Ven, Hudson, & Schoroeder, 1984). In this context, entrepreneurial orientation is a feature of a firm that the literature often associates with the growth, performance, and organizational learning of the firm, among others (Wales, Gupta, & Mousa, 2011). On the other hand, research usually uses firm size as a control variable, rarely considering firm size to be a mediating or causal variable in this relationship. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of EO and firm size on the business performance of Spanish firms in the sports service sector by means of both objective and self-perceived (subjective) measures of performance indicators.
☆ The authors thank Jerónimo García-Fernández, Universidad de Sevilla, for his suggestions on revising this manuscript. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses:
[email protected] (J. Núñez-Pomar),
[email protected] (V. Prado-Gascó),
[email protected] (V. Añó Sanz),
[email protected] (J. Crespo Hervás),
[email protected] (F. Calabuig Moreno).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.134 0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Spanish sports sector companies have experienced significant growth in the period 2010–2014. According to data from the National Sports Council of Spain (CSD, 2015), a number of firms engaged in the provision of sporting activities (gyms, fitness centers, outdoor activities, etc.) have experienced an increase of 32% (from 16,291 in 2010 to 21,506 in 2014) in a context of economic crisis and job losses. These circumstances lead to identify the entrepreneurial nature of this type of organization, because its entrepreneurial nature could be the supporting factor of this unusual growth in this economic cycle. Section 2 presents a theoretical framework of the entrepreneurial orientation construct and its relation to business performance and firm size. Section 2.3 explains the questionnaire and method: fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Finally, Section 3 presents the results obtained and their relationship with the literature.
2. Theoretical background 2.1. Entrepreneurial orientation Lumpkin & Dess (1996) define EO as the policies and practices that enable the firm to adopt an entrepreneurial position when facing new business opportunities. EO is the process of creating strategy that provides the basis for entrepreneurial decisions and actions for the organization (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009) and shows a strong relationship with various attributes and achievements of firms (Covin, Green, & Slevin, 2006). For Lumpkin and Dess, “the entrepreneurial
J. Núñez-Pomar et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 5336–5341
orientation construct (…) represents the process aspect of entrepreneurship” (1996, p.162). EO roots in the literature of strategy-making processes (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009) and, together with strategic orientation, is an inseparable and complementary contribution when studying the positioning of companies seeking new business opportunities and behaviors designed to obtain a competitive advantage (Escribá-Esteve, Sánchez-Peinado, & Sánchez-Peinado, 2008). The literature states that two different positions consider EO a unidimensional or multidimensional construct. Wales, Gupta, & Mousa (2011) find that in a review of 158 articles on EO, 98 showed EO as a construct composed of the dimensions of innovation, risk-taking, and proactivity. The same authors note that, despite the differences in the number of studies, research should not omit the one-dimensional consideration of the EO. Conversely, studies should analyze which dimensions benefit, detract from, or have no effect on specific outcomes (Wales, Gupta, & Mousa, 2011). In a similar vein, Lisboa et al. (2016) reinforce the thesis of the multidimensional nature of the construct and note that different combinations of dimensions may lead to the same result. This perspective understands innovation as the tendency of the firm to participate in and support new ideas, experimentation, and creative processes that may result in new products, services, or technological processes. Proactivity is firms' ability to take the initiative in an effort to conveniently shape the environment of the firm. Finally, risk-taking involves bold actions, borrowing heavily and/or committing significant resources from the organization (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009). 2.2. Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance Many studies point out the positive relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance (BP) (e.g., Poon, Ainuddin, & Junit, 2006; Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). The relationship between EO and BP is moderately large; however, entrepreneurial orientation does not always lead to business performance. The extent of the relationship varies with the studies, and other factors such as firm size, may affect this relationship (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009). This idea seems to justify the growing need to identify the contingencies affecting this relationship (Engelen, Gupta, Strenger, & Brettel, 2015). The literature discusses a number of factors affecting the EO– BP relationship, noting that sometimes the effects of these variables are even stronger than the effect of EO on performance (Covin, Green, & Slevin, 2006), but more studies are necessary to demonstrate this effect (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009). Studies use many variables as moderators of the EO–BP relationship: the role of firm leaders (Engelen, Gupta, Strenger, & Brettel, 2015; Gupta, MacMillan, & Surie, 2004); the characteristics of the management team, the competitive initiatives, and diversification of the company (Escribá-Esteve, Sánchez-Peinado, & Sánchez-Peinado, 2008); new entry (Wales, Wiklund, & McKelvie, 2015); the organizational learning capability in EO-innovation performance as precursors of BP (Fernández-Mesa, Alegre-Vidal, & Chiva-Gómez, 2012); and strategic processes (Covin, Green, & Slevin, 2006). Wales, Gupta, & Mousa (2011) report CEO, culture, environment, networking, and strategy as examples of moderating and mediating variables. The literature shows different assessments of firm performance. Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese (2009) use all possible combinations of financial, perceived (subjective) financial, and perceived nonfinancial measures; however, “self-perceived performance measures clearly dominate EO research” (p. 774). Lumpkin & Dess (1996) note that “entrepreneurial activity or processes may, at times, lead to favorable outcomes on one performance dimension and unfavorable outcomes on a different performance dimension” (p. 153). The literature suggests that the use of objective and self-perceived indicators of performance
5337
can lead to a better explanation of the phenomena: “performance is multidimensional in nature, and it is therefore advantageous to integrate different dimensions of performance in empirical studies” (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005, p. 80). Finally, several studies suggest firm size is an important factor. 2.3. Firm size, EO, and business performance The literature suggests that firm size affects the firm's processes and performance (Covin, Green, & Slevin, 2006; Poon, Ainuddin, & Junit, 2006; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005) and its innovation capacity (Herrera & Sánchez-González, 2012). Studies of EO–performance relationship frequently use firm size as a control variable (Fernández-Mesa, Alegre-Vidal, & Chiva-Gómez, 2012; Wales, Wiklund, & McKelvie, 2015). Research shows evidence of a clear relationship between EO–BP in small businesses (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005); however, many studies call for a more detailed study of firm size as a variable affecting the EO-performance relationship (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009; Wales, Wiklund, & McKelvie, 2015). Engelen, Gupta, Strenger, & Brettel (2015) suggest that leaders play an important role in strengthening the EO–BP relationship because “firms need a top-down impetus from management to facilitate the EO–performance relationship” (p. 1089). Their suggestion to study the role of mid-level managers in large firms seemingly demonstrates that firm size may exert an influence on this positive relationship. In other words, as Baum et al. point out, “size may systematically influence other concepts of interest” (2001, p. 295). On this point, evaluating the combination of EO and firm size in attaining a positive business performance seems more important than the individual contribution of each of the variables. Proposal 1: The EO in Spanish sports firms is a necessary causal condition for achieving a positive business performance, considering both the financial and self-perceived performance measures. Proposal 2: The absence of EO on Spanish sports firms is a necessary causal condition for achieving a negative business performance, considering both the financial and self-perceived performance measures. Proposal 3: Firm size in combination with EO is a sufficient condition for achieving positive firm performance, considering both financial and self-perceived performance measures. This research analyzes the effect of EO and firm size, and their combination on firm performance. Considering both, the study ascertains a financial indicator of business performance (ROI) and self-perceived measures. 3. Methods 3.1. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) Qualitative comparative analysis is a technique that allows the analysis of combinations of causal conditions leading to an outcome. Unlike linear models, QCA focuses on the contribution of a combination rather than on single variables in the emergence of a particular outcome. This method is very frequent in business and organizational studies (Mas-Verdú, Ribeiro-Soriano, & Roig-Tierno, 2015; Skarmeas, Leonidou, & Saridakis, 2014). 3.2. Participants and sampling The sample for this study are 18 sports firms from a stratified random sampling according to size (large firm, medium-sized firm, small firm, and microenterprise) with a fixed affixation of five for each category of the 1895 sports firms from the SABI (Iberian Balance Sheet Analysis System) database registered with the primary code 9311 (management of sports facilities). The database contains general information and
5338
J. Núñez-Pomar et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 5336–5341
annual accounts for over 940,000 Spanish firms and 100,000 Portuguese. The study uses five organizations from each category, because only five large sports firms appear. Although five organizations from each size category received invitations to participate, only four large organizations agreed to participate. The final sample comprises five microenterprises, five small businesses, five medium-sized businesses, and four large firms. The number of workers of the organizations ranges from 3 to 671, depending on the type of organization, with an average of 119.33 and a standard deviation of 166.14. 3.3. Measurement For the entrepreneurial orientation scale, following Engelen, Gupta, Strenger, & Brettel (2015), this study uses an EO scale composed of eight items from the scales of Dess & Lumpkin (2005) and Lee & Sukoco (2007). This scale comprises eight items grouped in three dimensions (risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness) on a sevenpoint Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Higher scores indicate higher levels of entrepreneurial orientation. This scale presents adequate psychometric characteristics in previous studies (Engelen, 2010; Engelen, Gupta, Strenger, & Brettel, 2015). The study assesses firm performance perception using 12 items grouped according to three factors (customer satisfaction, market effectiveness, and financial performance) with a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) (Engelen, Gupta, Strenger, & Brettel, 2015). Additionally, ROI is the objective indicator that complements measures of perception. According to Wiklund and Shepherd, “performance is multidimensional in nature, and it is therefore advantageous to integrate different dimensions of performance in empirical studies” (2005, p. 80). Previous studies use ROI as an objective measure of performance (Calantone, Tamer Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002). The study obtains ROI information from 2013 from the SABI database. Firm size concerns the number of employees. According to the recommendation of the European Commission (2003) concerning the definition of micro, small, and medium enterprises, the study classifies firms into four categories: large firms (more than 249 employees), medium-sized firms (between 50 and 249 employees), small firms (between 10 and 49 employees) and microenterprises (less than 10 employees). Information on the number of employees comes from the SABI database with data from 2013 (the last available data). 3.4. Procedure To obtain the sample, after searching the database, the study uses a random selection of firms classified according to size. The database reports only five large sports firms; therefore, to control the effect of size, the study uses a fixed affixation of five of each size of organization. To obtain the data, emails and telephone conversations communicate the research objectives and the requirement of the cooperation of the CEO, senior manager, or any member of the management team with a recent overview of the whole organization and results for at least the last three years. The message contained a link to an online form where the firm representative could complete the survey. A segment of the sample is complete when the responses reach the target number of correctly completed questionnaires. Despite the efforts to obtain answers from all five large firms, only four of them provided the information. Other similar studies show low response rates (e.g., Engelen, Gupta, Strenger, & Brettel, 2015; Escribá-Esteve, Sánchez-Peinado, & Sánchez-Peinado, 2008; Poon, Ainuddin, & Junit, 2006). 3.5. Data analysis First, the study calculates the descriptive analysis and calibration values. Then, a fsQCA analyzes the effect of risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness, and size on firm performance and return on investments,
which allows for the conjunctions of all logically possible combinations of conditions (Eng & Woodside, 2012). A fsQCA requires transforming raw data responses into fuzzy-set responses. The study calculates risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness, customer satisfaction, market effectiveness, and financial performance by multiplying their item scores. The study then calculates the firm performance scale by the mean of its dimensions (customer satisfaction, market effectiveness, and financial performance). The next step consists of recalibrating the values of each variable (except organization size) considering three thresholds (Woodside, 2013): 10% (low agreement or fully outside the set), 50% (intermediate level of agreement, neither inside nor outside the set) and 90% (high agreement or fully in the set). The study calibrates organization size considering the different types of organizations: microenterprises (0), small business (0.33), medium-sized business organizations (0.66), and large companies (1). Finally, necessary and sufficient condition tests evaluate the effect of entrepreneurial orientation and organization size on firm performance and ROI. The guideline to selecting a threshold corresponds to a break observed in the distribution of consistency scores (Schneider, SchulzeBentrop, & Paunescu, 2010). The fsQCA generates three possible solutions: complex, parsimonious, and intermediate. This study uses the intermediate solution because all the assumptions comply with theoretical and substantive knowledge and because the literature supports this choice (Ragin, 2008). The fsQCA 2.0 software provides the tool for the performance of the fsQCA. 4. Results Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and calibration values for the variables under study. The first step involves testing whether any of the causal conditions (risk taking, innovativeness, proactiveness, and size) is a necessary condition for the positive and negative perception of firm performance (FP). The second step is the analysis of sufficient conditions for these variables. Later, the study replicates both analyses using ROI as an outcome condition. The study analyzes sufficient and necessary conditions separately because they represent different sections on QCA analysis. A sufficient condition could explain an outcome condition but the result could also result from other causal conditions, whereas a condition is necessary if that condition is always present when the outcome is present. (Ragin, 2008). 4.1. Entrepreneurial orientation and size as causal conditions of firm performance perception 4.1.1. Necessary conditions According to the result (Table 2), none of the conditions are necessary because all consistency values are under 0.90 (Ragin, 2008). Nevertheless, in observing the different conditions, from the positive Table 1 Descriptive statistics and calibration values proactiveness ∗ innovativeness ∗ risk taking ∗ ~size. IN
PR
RT
FP
ROI
Mean SD Minimum Maximum
98.72 64.16 12 245
27.11 11.06 8 49
138.83 73.62 30 294
887.26 506.42 232 2401
−13.64 75.60 −310.76 56.68
Calibration values Percentile 10 Median Percentile 90
22.8 92 213.5
8.9 27.5 42.7
30 148.5 223.8
326.8 834.5 1471.3
−42.15 .41 19.17
Notes: IN — innovativeness; PR — proactiveness; RT — risk taking; FP — financial performance; ROI — return on investment.
J. Núñez-Pomar et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 5336–5341 Table 2 Necessary conditions for innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking and size for the occurrence (and no occurrence) of financial performance perception.
Size ~Size Risk taking ~Risk taking Innovativeness ~Innovativeness Proactiveness ~Proactiveness
5339
Table 4 Necessary conditions for innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking and size for the occurrence (and no occurrence) of return on investment (ROI).
Financial performance
~Financial performance
Financial performance
~Financial performance
Consistency
Coverage
Consistency
Coverage
Consistency
Coverage
Consistency
Coverage
0.518648 0.696970 0.691142 0.489511 0.638695 0.609557 0.709790⁎ 0.571096
0.559748 0.595025 0.658889 0.466667 0.653158 0.544225 0.664847⁎ 0.554299
0.567941 0.628450 0.490446 0.674098 0.535032 0.691083* 0.581741 0.674098
0.672956 0.589055 0.513333 0.705556 0.600715 0.677419* 0.598253 0.718326
0.588174 0.721556* 0.644384 0.661174 0.616227 0.736260⁎
0.709434 0.688458* 0.686556 0.704444 0.704291 0.734651* 0.706332 0.703507
0.627749 0.725360* 0.683747 0.664606 0.696826 0.705029* 0.688384 0.680181
0.664151 0.607065* 0.639000 0.621111 0.698570 0.617066* 0.632096 0.647172
⁎ In bold are highest conditions but not necessary (lower than 0.90).
0.674731 0.648556
⁎ In bold are highest conditions but not necessary (lower than 0.90).
firm performance perception the causal condition that shows the highest levels is proactiveness (0.709790), whereas from negative firm performance perception that condition is ~ innovativeness (0.691083). 4.1.2. Sufficient conditions Regarding the sufficient conditions, all variables are present for the positive firm performance perception (FP); the frequency cutoff in the true table is 1 and the consistency cutoff is 0.850523; Ragin (2008) recommends a minimum consistency threshold of 0.75. The intermediate solution (Table 3) indicates a single combination of causal conditions that can produce the outcome condition (FP). According to Eng & Woodside (2012), the fsQCA a model is informative when the consistency is above 0.74. The coverage (0.445221) and consistency (0.811040) of the condition are adequate. The sufficient conditions explain 45% of the empirical evidence (Woodside, 2014). The sufficient condition combination is risk-taking ∗ innovativeness ∗ ~size (small size) (raw coverage: 0.445221; consistency: 0.811040). This condition is adequate as raw coverage is 0.45, between 0.25 and 0.65 (Eng & Woodside, 2012). 4.2. Entrepreneurial orientation and size as causal conditions of return on investment 4.2.1. Necessary conditions Considering the necessary conditions test (Table 4), none of the causal conditions is a necessary condition for success or non-success of ROI (outcome condition): all consistency values are under 0.90 (Ragin, 2008). Considering the consistency values, the most important conditions (although they are not necessary) for the outcome conditions ROI and ~ROI are ~ innovativeness (0.736260; 0.705029) and ~ size (0.721556; 0.725360). 4.2.2. Sufficient conditions Regarding sufficient conditions, all variables are present for the occurrence of ROI. The frequency cutoff in the truth table is set on 1 and the consistency cutoff is set on 0.881423. The intermediate solution (Table 5) indicates two combinations of causal conditions that can promote ROI.
Table 3 Findings from fsQCA intermediate solution of sufficient conditions for innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking and size for the occurrence (and no occurrence) of financial performance perception. Frequency cutoff: 1; consistency cutoff: 0.869942; All variables are present
Raw coverage
Unique coverage
Consistency
Innovativeness ∗ risk taking ∗ ~size
0.445221
0.445221
0.811040
Solution coverage: 0.445221; Solution consistency: 0.811040.
Size ~Size Risk taking ~Risk taking Innovativeness ~Innovativeness Proactiveness ~Proactiveness
According to Eng & Woodside (2012), in fsQCA, a model is informative when the consistency is above 0.74. The coverage (0.575660) and consistency (0.897561) of the two conditions are adequate. The sufficient conditions explain 58% of the empirical evidence (Woodside, 2014). The two sufficiency condition combinations are ~innovativeness ∗ ~ risk-taking ∗ size (large size) (raw coverage: 0.342059; consistency: 0.854167) and proactiveness ∗ innovativeness ∗ risk-taking ∗ ~ size (small size) (raw coverage: 0.330587; consistency: 0.916185). All these conditions are adequate because raw coverage is between 0.25 and 0.65 (Eng & Woodside, 2012). 5. Discussion and conclusions This study analyzes entrepreneurial orientation and firm size as causal conditions of the outcome of business performance of Spanish companies in the sports sector. Of the three initial proposals, the results fail to support the first and second one, whereas the fsQCA confirms the third proposal. Research uses fsQCA in the analysis of variables that affect the performance of organizations in general (e.g., Mas-Verdú, RibeiroSoriano, & Roig-Tierno, 2015) and in the sports sector in particular (Calabuig, Prado-Gascó, Crespo, Núñez-Pomar, & Añó, 2015). The fsQCA allows a clear analysis of the interactions and/or combinations of the variables and provides a useful tool for researchers and managers to understand the conditions that facilitate business performance, even with small samples. The results of this study show that neither the EO nor the firm size are necessary conditions for the success or non-success of the financial performance, considering both the ROI and the firm performance perception. Nevertheless, several sufficient conditions depend on the outcome condition. When used as an outcome of self-perceived measures for the occurrence or success of firm performance, the combination of innovativeness, risk-taking, and small size is a sufficient condition that explains 45% of the outcome. On the other hand, when considering a financial indicator (ROI) as an outcome condition, two sufficient conditions account for 58% of the data emerge. First, in larger companies, the lack of innovation and risk-taking is a method of performance (34% of empirical evidence). Second, for small companies, the combination of proactiveness, innovation, and risk-taking is the most appropriate way to perform (33% of empirical evidence). These differences depending on the outcome could owe to the fact that they represent completely different approaches to measure performance (subjective vs. financial or objective). The results are in line with Lisboa, Skarmeas, & Saridakis (2016). These authors claim that different combinations of dimensions may relate to the same result. Swierczek & Ha (2003) find that the dimensions of EO have different implication performance in Thai and Vietnamese SMEs (in particular, the relationship between proactivity and innovation with performance). These results, however, conflict with the statement made by George
5340
J. Núñez-Pomar et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 5336–5341
Table 5 Findings from fsQCA intermediate solution of sufficient conditions for innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking and size for the occurrence (and no occurrence) of return on investment (ROI). Frequency cutoff: 1; consistency cutoff: 0.881423; All variables are present
Raw coverage
Unique coverage
Consistency
~Innovativeness ∗ ~risk taking ∗ size Proactiveness ∗ innovativeness ∗ risk taking ~ size
0.342059 0.330587
0.245073 0.233601
0.854167 0.916185
Solution coverage: 0.575660; Solution consistency: 0.897561.
(2011), who claims that the three dimensions co-vary and that the variations in EO involve changes in all three dimensions. Regarding size, this study shows that the model ‘innovation + proactiveness + risk-taking’ works well in small businesses in the sports service sector as a sufficient condition for performance, but this result does not apply to larger firms. Covin & Slevin (1989) note in their study that small businesses with entrepreneurial spirit could operate better in hostile environments than non-entrepreneurial businesses (organic structures vs. mechanistic structures). Wiklund & Shepherd (2005) confirm the positive influence of EO on performance in small enterprises, while Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese (2009) find that firm size affects the EO–performance relationship. These findings are consistent with the logic that in small businesses, the proximity of the leader is positive, because they are more flexible and can adapt quickly to the changing environment. Specifically, the EO–performance relationship works better in microenterprises than in small businesses, but Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese (2009) cannot find differences between microenterprises and medium-sized enterprises, or medium-sized enterprises and large enterprises. Regarding large companies, research identifies size as a difficulty for entrepreneurial initiatives (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009). The results in this study suggest that these types of organizations can be successful with financial performance without EO (innovation, proactiveness, risk-taking). These results empirically support Proposal three but fail to support proposals one and two. Finally, objective performance indicators provide a greater explanation of the model. In this case, and following Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese (2009), the relationship between EO and financial business performance is stronger than the one between EO and non-financial business performance. Some of the limitations of this research refer to the small size of the sample; nevertheless, this type of research usually uses small samples (Ragin, 2008), and the fsQCA analysis is a technique that works well with small samples. In conclusion, this study shows the differences in EO–performance relationships between Spanish sports service firms based on size, clarifying the behavior of these organizations in a hostile economic environment. Considering the academic field, the results contribute to the discussion of the necessity to consider not only perception measures but also economic or external criteria. This study proposes an approximation of the study of the phenomena that considers the individual contribution of each element or condition and the combination of these using fsQCA. Although this method is suitable for small samples, the small sample size may be a limitation that future studies should overcome. Finally, this study demonstrates the necessity of considering not only the EO but also other elements such as firm size to obtain success with financial performance. In the field of management, and thanks to the advantages of fsQCA, the results show in a clear and simple way the combinations of the conditions that, depending on the size of the firm, offer a better chance for performance of the organization and are relevant information for managers who are attempting to define their strategy. Far from being a closed topic, both this research and the literature show that more research is necessary.
References Calabuig, F., Prado-Gascó, V., Crespo, J., Núñez-Pomar, J., & Añó, V. (2015). Spectator emotions: effects on quality, satisfaction, value and future intentions. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1445–1449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.031. Calantone, S., Tamer Cavusgil, T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6. Canina, L., Palacios, D., & Devece, C. (2012). Management theories linking individual and organizational level analysis in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(3), 271–284. Chen, J. K. C., Ho, Y. -S., Wang, M. -H., & Wu, Y. -R. (2011). Perspective research entrepreneurship output performance in 1992–2009. Technology management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), 2011 proceedings of PICMET '11. Portland (OR). (Retrived from) http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6008221 Cornelius, B., Landström, H., & Persson, O. (2006). Entrepreneurial studies: the dynamic research front of a developing social science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 375–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00125.x. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87. Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation-sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 57–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00110.x. CSD — Consejo Superior de Deportes (2015). Yearbook of sports statistics 2015. Madrid: Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports. Dess, G. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 147–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.2005.15841975. Eng, S., & Woodside, A. (2012). Configural analysis of the drinking man: Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analyses. Addictive Behaviors, 37(4), 541–543. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.034. Engelen, A. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation as a function of national cultural variations in two countries. Journal of International Management, 16(4), 354–368. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2010.09.006. Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L., & Brettel, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1069–1097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312455244. Escribá-Esteve, A., Sánchez-Peinado, L., & Sánchez-Peinado, E. (2008). Moderating influences on the firm's strategic orientation–performance relationship. International Small Business Journal, 26(4), 463–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242608091174. European Comission (2003). Commission recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/361/CE). Official Journal. Fernández-Mesa, A., Alegre-Vidal, J., & Chiva-Gómez, R. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation, organizational learning capability and innovative performance. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 7(2), 157–170. Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696–706. George, B. A. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation: A theoretical and empirical examination of the consequences of differing construct representations. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1291–1313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486. 2010.01004.x. Gupta, V., MacMillan, I. C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 241–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00040-5. Herrera, L., & Sánchez-González, G. (2012). Firm size and innovation policy. International Small Business Journal, 31(2), 137–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242611405553. Lee, L., & Sukoco, B. (2007). The effects of entrepreneurial orientation and knowledge management capability on organizational effectiveness in Taiwan: The moderating role of social capital. International Journal of Management, 24, 549–571. Lisboa, A., Skarmeas, D., & Saridakis, C. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation pathways to performance: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Bussiness Research, 69(4), 1319–1324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.099. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. Mas-Verdú, F., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2015). Firm survival: The role of incubators and business characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 793–796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.030. Poon, J. M. L., Ainuddin, R. A., & Junit, S. H. (2006). Effects of self-concept traits and entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance. International Small Business Journal, 24(1), 61–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242606059779.
J. Núñez-Pomar et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 5336–5341 Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 33(3), 761–787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1540-6520.2009.00308.x. Schneider, M. R., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. (2010). Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 246–266. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1057/jibs.2009.36. Skarmeas, D., Leonidou, C. N., & Saridakis, C. (2014). Examining the role of CSR skepticism using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1796–1805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.12.010. Swierczek, F. W., & Ha, T. T. (2003). Entrepreneurial orientation, uncertainty avoidance and firm performance. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 4(1), 46–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.5367/000000003101299393. Teixeira, A. A. C. (2011). Mapping the (in)visible college(s) in the field of entrepreneurship. Scientometrics, 89, 1–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0445-3. Van de Ven, A. H., Hudson, R., & Schoroeder, D. M. (1984). Designing business startups: entrepreneurial, organizational, and ecological considerations. Journal of Management, 10(1), 87–107.
5341
Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., & Mousa, F. T. (2011). Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 357–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0266242611418261. Wales, W. J., Wiklund, J., & McKelvie, A. (2015). What about new entry? Examining the theorized role of new entry in the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. International Small Business Journal, 33(4), 351–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0266242613506023. Welter, F., & Lasch, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship research in Europe: Taking stock and looking forward. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 32(2), 241–248. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00224.x10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00125.x. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 71–91. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001. Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463–472. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021. Woodside, A. G. (2014). Embrace·perform·model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495–2503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.07.006.
