Entrepreneurial Orientation
Information Management,
Performance in SMEs
There is abundant literature demonstrating that entrepre-
resources information management (HRIM) is a critical
component of market orientation. We tested a structural
(EO), HRIM, and firm performance using a sample of small
Il y a plusieurs travaux qui démontrent que l’orientation
performance. La gestion des informations sur les ressources
Friesen, 1982, 1986), proactive (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, 2001; Wiklund & Shepherd,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration
28: 143–153 (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/C2005). Wang noted that the influence of EO on performance
is influenced by firm size, national culture (Rauch, Wiklund,
Frese, & Lumpkin, 2004), access to financial resources
(Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005), network capability (Walter,
Auer, & Ritter, 2005), strategic processes (Covin, Green, &
Slevin, 2006), and learning orientation. In each of these
areas the quality of information available for decision
The authors would like to thank the NECE Research Unit of the
University of Beira Interior for the financial support.
*Please address correspondence to: Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues, Ph.D.,
Abrideias, Department of Business and Economics, University of
Beira Interior, Estrada do Sineiro, 6200 ‐209 Covilhã, Portugal.with increased market share, higher new product success,
and better economic results (Rodrigues, 2005). An entre-
preneurial firm is one that is more innovative (Miller &Email: rgrodrigues@ubi.pt. Skype: ricardogrodrigues
Copyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 143However, Wang (2008) warned that simply examining the
direct relationship between EO (innovativeness, proactive-
ness, and risk taking) and firm performance is incompleteentrepreneurial orientation (EO) show higher performance (Miller & Friesen, 1978; Norton & Moore, 2002, 2006).and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) from the manufac-
turing sector of Portugal. EO had a positive direct effect on
both performance (β= .313) and HRIM (β= .291). HRIM
also had a positive effect on firm performance (β= .236),
and EO indirectly impacted firm performance (.069)
through HRIM. Copyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
JEL Classifications: M12, M13, M31
Keywords: entrepreneurial orientation, SMEs, HRIM, market
orientation, performance
There is considerable evidence that firms with a highmodel of relationships among entrepreneurial orientationindicators including economic results and relative market
share. Moreover, entrepreneurial orientation interacts with
market orientation to improve performance. Humanhumaines (HRIM) est une composante importante de l’or-
ientation du marché. Dans cet article, nous utilisons un
échantillon de petites et moyennes entreprises (PME) du
secteur manufacturier au Portugal pour tester le modèle
structurel de la relation entre l’orientation entrepreneuriale
(EO), HRIM et la performance de l’entreprise. L’étude montre
que l’orientation entrepreneuriale a un impact direct sur les
deux performances (β= .313) et sur le HRIM (β= .291). Le
HRIM influence aussi positivement la performance de
l’entreprise (β= .236) tandis que l’orientation entrepreneur-
iale influence indirectement la performance de l’entreprise
(.069) via le HRIM. Copyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Mots-clés : orientation entrepreneuriale, PME, HRIM,
orientation du marché, performance
Venkatraman, 1989), and prone to take calculated risksmance, y compris les résultats économiques et la part relative
du marché. Par ailleurs, l’orientation entrepreneuriale
interagit avec l’orientation du marché pour améliorer laneurial orientation has an impact on performance entrepreneuriale a un impact sur les indicateurs de perfor-Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues*
NECE, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
Abstract, Human Resources
and Firm
Mário Raposo
NECE, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
Résumé
JAS.205making is critical because it conditions the ability of the
Can J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)

firm to address the dynamic interplay of the entrepreneurial EO and HRIM
ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE RODRIGUES & RAPOSOAccording to Pelham (1999, 2000), the performance
of small and medium‐sized firms depends both on internal
factors (i.e., coordinating systems, formalization) as well
as on external factors (i.e., competitiveness, industry
growth, market concentration, etc.). Given that the ability
to recognize opportunities and act upon them is funda-
mental to performance (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001), EO is
one internal factor likely to have a particularly positive
impact on firm performance. Moreover, several mediators
of the relationship between EO and firm performance
have been identified (Covin et al., 2006), including MO
(Rodrigues, 2005).
Grinstein (2007) argued that the literature is inconclu-
sive regarding the independent and interrelated effects of the
central pillars of MO. His meta‐analysis of the impact of
MO on innovation evaluates the independent effects of MO
components on innovation. Henard and Szymanski (2001)
found that the interfunctional coordination pillar of MO
(Narver & Slater, 1990), taken independently, did not
correlate with new product performance, which is inconsist-
ent with MO theory (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver &
Slater, 1990). When considering HRIM as an independent
dimension of MO, as discussed below, there is reason to
expect it to mediate the relationship between EO and firm
performance.context, which itself determines important entrepreneurial
outcomes such as opportunity recognition and action
(Haynie, Shepherd, Mosakowski, & Earley, 2010).
In this study, we consider another potential mediator of
the relationship between EO and firm performance – namely
the manner, extent, and timing with which market-related
information is shared among employees. This variable, which
we refer to as human resources information management
(HRIM) is an aspect of the market orientation (MO) (cf. Kohli
& Jaworski, 1990) of an enterprise. MO is a multidimensional
concept referring to the generation and dissemination of
market intelligence related to current and future needs of
customers, including the responsiveness of the firm to it
(Kohli, Jaworski, & Kumar 1993). We expect the contribu-
tion of HRIM aspects of MO to EO and ultimately to firm
performance to have particular relevance to SMEs. More
specifically, Pelham (1999, 2000), in his studies on the effect
ofMO on the business performance of small firms, concluded
that the impact of internal factors such as MO is far more
important than factors like competitive turbulence. We
propose that HRIM is a key dimension of MO (Jaworski &
Kohli, 1996, Sinkula, 1994) and that it acts in conjunction
with EO to improve performance. More specifically, we test a
structural equation model that maps relationships between
EO, HRIM, and firm performance.
Literature ReviewCopyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 144Entrepreneurial Orientation
Miller and Friesen (1982) noted that entrepreneurial
firms are prone to regular and bold innovation, assuming
risks in their product and market strategies. Along with
others (Khandwalla, 1977; Mintzberg, 1973), they argued
that entrepreneurial firms tend to take more risks than
nonentrepreneurial firms and proactively seek out new
business opportunities. Thus, entrepreneurially oriented
firms may be perceived as innovative, proactive, and
revealing a high tolerance for risk. According to Miller
(1983, p. 771), “an entrepreneurial firm is one that engages
in product‐market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky
ventures, and is first to come up with ‘proactive’ innova-
tions, beating competitors to the punch.”
Covin and Slevin (1991) conceptualized a model of
entrepreneurial behaviour that describes the organizational
system components relating to entrepreneurial behaviour
before proposing that an entrepreneurial posture has a
positive impact on business performance. These authors also
maintain that firms with an entrepreneurial posture are risk
taking, innovative, and proactive.
Several studies have found that firms with an
entrepreneurial orientation perform better (Covin et al.,
2006; Green, Covin, & Slevin, 2008; Miles, Covin, &
Heeley, 2000; Tang, Tang, Zhang, & Li, 2007; Wang, 2008;
Wiklund, 1999; Zahra, 1993; Zahra & Covin, 1995) than
firms without such an orientation. In a meta‐analysis of 37
studies, Rauch et al. (2004) demonstrated that the relation-
ship between EO and firm performance was positive
(corrected r = .282), which is moderately large (Cohen, 1977).
H1: EO positively predicts firm performance
Market Orientation and Human Resources
Information Management
According to Kohli and Jaworski (1990), MO is
translated into specific organizational behaviours such as
the generation of market information about customers,
competitors, and other relevant players (Narver & Slater,
1990). MO encompasses the dissemination of market
information throughout the firm. Research has also shown
a positive relationship between MO and firm performance
(Grinstein, 2007; Hsieh, Tsai, & Wang, 2008; Jimenez‐
Jimenez, Sanz Valle, & Hernandez‐Espallardo, 2008; Jones,
Knotts, & Udell, 2008; Kirca, Jayachandran, & Bearden,
2005; Paladino, 2008). Slater and Narver (1995) argued that
MO combined with entrepreneurial values focuses informa-
tion processing efforts within a firm. In a study of Saudi
firms, Bhuian and Habib (2004) concluded that EO and MO
together positively impact on firm performance. In their
study of Australian firms, Atuahene‐Gima and Ko (2001)Can J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)

found that when MO and EO are aligned—that is, when attaining a unique combination of difficult to duplicate
skills.
H3: HRIM positively predicts firm performance
As maintained by Morris and Jones (1993), entrepre-
neurial behaviours have different manifestations according to
Human Resources practices, and within different levels of the
firm. DeClercq and Rius (2007), on the other hand, found that
EO has a positive impact on organizational commitment.
According to Barroso Castro et al. (2005), organizational
commitment plays an important role in the relationship
between HRIM and firm performance. Wiklund and
Shepherd found a positive relationship between knowledge‐
based resources related to the discovery and exploitation of
opportunities and firm performance, and found that this
relationship was stronger for firms with higher EO. We
propose that EO has a positive indirect impact on firm
performance, through its positive impact on HRIM.
H4: HRIM positively mediates the relationship
competition, markets served, and technology used. None-
these
gues,
ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE RODRIGUES & RAPOSOfirms place a strong emphasis on and merge both market and
entrepreneurship orientations—firm performance benefits
(Atuahene‐Gima & Ko, 2001). Hernández (2002), using
Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster’s (1993) typology of
organizational cultures, found that firms with an entrepre-
neurial culture present higher MO levels. Li, Zhao, Tan, and
Liu (2008) concluded that MO alone and in combination
with certain EO dimensions positively predicts firm
performance. One facet of MO pertains to how information
is managed, how it circulates among firm members, how
people are motivated to disseminate this information, and
the mechanisms and routines used to enhance information
sharing. We refer to these aspects of MO as human
resources information management (HRIM) with more
entrepreneurial environments likely to boost the importance
attributed to market information.
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) claimed that more
innovative firms use more information channels. According
to Sinkula (1994), the degree to which a firm uses market
knowledge is a function of what it has already learned.
Slater and Narver (1995) maintained that generative learning
(Argyris, 1977) is inherently entrepreneurial and associated
with knowledge acquisition through exploration and the
rapid development of new behaviours to leverage learning.
These authors argued that a culture that values entrepre-
neurship provides an environment favouring learning from
exploration and experimentation, and that coupling an MO
with entrepreneurial values provides the needed focus for an
organization’s information processing efforts. In a study of
152 large Taiwanese firms, Lee and Sukoco (2007)
concluded that entrepreneurial orientation has a positive
influence on knowledge management capacities.
H2: EO positively predicts HRIM
Strong entrepreneurial and market orientations are
predicated on a firm’s ability to challenge existing views
of the market, thus leading to higher performances (Baker &
Sinkula, 1999, 2009). According to Slater and Narver
(1995), complex communication, coordination, and conflict
resolution processes lead organizations to reach a shared
interpretation of information, enabling them to act swiftly
and decisively to exploit opportunities and defuse problems,
thereby enhancing performance.
Research suggests a positive relationship between
HRIM and firm performance (Ericsson, 1990; Rodger,
Pendharkar, Paper, & Molnar, 1998). Other studies suggest
positive relationships among MO, HRIM, and firm
performance (Mavondo, Chimhanzi, & Stewart, 2005; Wei
& Lau, 2005), namely through the positive and direct effect
of MO on organizational commitment and corporate spirit
(Barroso Castro, Martín Armario, & Sánchez del Rio,
2005). Mavondo et al. (2005) have argued that human
resources provide a source of competitive advantage whenCopyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 145Figure 1.
Entrepreneurial orientation, human resources informa-
tion management, and firm performance
H2 H3
H1
EO
Firm
Performance
HRIM
H42005).
aspects when compared with service firms (Rodri
2003,theless, manufacturing firms are more similar inbetween EO and firm performance
Figure 1 depicts the above research hypotheses.
Method
We used manufacturing SMEs for our sample. The
manufacturing sector is highly diversified, with firms
differing in their strategies, distribution channels, levels ofCan J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)

Sampling Procedure and Data Collection
Each firm listed in the government database (from the
Portuguese Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarity,
detailing all Portuguese manufacturing SMEs) received a
random number, which was then used to form the sample of
1,530 firms. Our sample size corresponds to 10% of the total
Portuguese population of manufacturing firms.
Given the geographical dispersion of sample firms,
surveys were sent out by mail. Each firm received an envelope
and a covering letter with the university logo, which presented
the research and requested their participation. According to
Schneider and Johnson (1995), university endorsement tends
to lend more credibility to research requests, helping to
increase response rates. The confidentiality of responses, stated
in the covering letter, helps to increase response rates (Faria &
Dickinson, 1996). The envelope for mailing the survey
included a self‐administered questionnaire and a prepaid‐
response envelope. The questionnaire was designed to be filled
out by the firm CEO. Eight questionnaires were excluded as
they were answered by other firm employees (accountants and
secretaries). Two weeks later, a reminder letter was sent in
order to raise the rate of return (Brennan, 1992). A total of 212
completed, valid questionnaires were returned, providing a
response rate of 13.86%. Nonresponse bias was assessed with
the extrapolationmethod (Armstrong&Overton, 1977), which
assumes that respondents who take longer to respond are more
similar to nonrespondents (Ferber, 1948). The samplewas split
into two groups: responses received in the first wave (n= 167)
and those received afterwards (n= 45). The results set out in
Table 1 show no evidence of any bias.
Measures
Entrepreneurial orientation. EO was measured based
on Miller’s (1983) conceptualization of EO, using items
proposed by Covin and Slevin (1989). The scale, shown in
Table 2, consists of nine items (Covin & Slevin, 1989;
Messeghem, 2003; Miles & Arnold, 1991; Naman & Slevin,
1993; Zahra, 1991; Zahra & Covin, 1995), measuring
Innovativeness, Proactiveness, and Risk Taking (alpha = .72).
Human resources information management. For this
scale, we used items developed by Kohli et al. (1993) for the
MARKOR scale with new items added by Matsuno, Mentzer,
and Rentz (2005), resulting in a 10‐item scale. The scale
includes questions about interdepartmental meetings to
Table 1
Comparing Initial and Late Respondents
Manifest variable
t df
Sig.
(2‐tailed)
Mean
difference
95% Confidence interval of the difference
Lower Upper
Performance1 −.614 210 .540 −.160 −.673 .353
Performance2 .019 208 .985 .004 −.433 .441
ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE RODRIGUES & RAPOSOPerformance3 .468 210 .640
Performance4 −.335 209 .738
Performance5 −.065 210 .948
Performance6 .121 59 .904
HRIM1 −1.318 210 .189
HRIM2 −1.361 210 .175
HRIM3 −1.558 209 .121
HRIM4 −1.090 209 .277
HRIM5 −1.149 210 .252
HRIM6 .239 210 .811
HRIM7 −1.249 210 .213
HRIM8 −1.295 63 .200
HRIM9 −.727 209 .468
HRIM10 −1.399 210 .163
EO1 .137 209 .891
EO2 −.967 210 .335
EO3 −1.877 210 .062
EO4 −.202 210 .840
EO5 1.647 210 .101
EO6 1.771 210 .078
EO7 −.509 210 .611
EO8 −.534 210 .594
EO9 .376 210 .708Copyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 146.133 −.426 .691
−.074 −.511 .363
−.015 −.486 .455
.036 −.554 .626
−.424 −1.057 .210
−.386 −.946 .173
−.514 −1.163 .136
−.330 −.927 .267
−.356 −.966 .255
.065 −.473 .603
−.363 −.936 .210
−.423 −1.076 .230
−.211 −.781 .360
−.406 −.978 .166
.034 −.456 .524
−.280 −.850 .291
−.459 −.941 .023
−.048 −.513 .417
.384 −.076 .843
.441 −.050 .932
−.119 −.581 .343
−.139 −.652 .374
.095 −.402 .591Can J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)

Table 2
pond to v
w produ
ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE RODRIGUES & RAPOSOMeasures of Variables and Constructs
Constructs Statements
Entrepreneurial
orientation
• Typically initiating actions that competitors res
competitors initiate.
• Is very often the first business to introduce nediscuss market trends and developments, interdepartmental
meetings to discuss customer needs, market information
dissemination policies, company handling of customer satis-
faction data,mechanisms in effect for circulating information on
competitors among departments, employee involvement
in the discussion of new market trends, regulatory
operating technologies, etc. vs. Is very seldom the firs
services, administrative techniques, operating technolo
• Typically adopts a very competitive “undo‐the‐compet
avoid competitive clashes, preferring a “live‐and‐let‐li
• A strong proclivity for high‐risk projects (with chance
proclivity for low‐risk projects (with normal and certa
• Owing to the nature of the environment, bold, wide‐ra
firm’s objectives vs. Owing to the nature of the enviro
via timid, incremental behaviour.
• Typically adopts a bold, aggressive posture in order to
potential opportunities vs. Typically adopts a cautious
minimize the probability of making costly decisions.
• A strong emphasis on R&D, technological leadership,
on the marketing of tried and true products or service
• Many lines of products or services vs. No new lines o
• Changes in product or services lines have usually been
or service lines have been of minor nature.
Human
resource
information
management
• We have interdepartmental meetings at least once a qu
developments.
• Marketing personnel in our business unit spend time d
other functional departments.
• When something important happens to a major custom
knows about it in a short period.
• Data on customer satisfaction are disseminated at all l
basis.
• There is minimal communication between marketing a
concerning market developments. (R)
• When one department finds out something important a
other departments. (R)
• We have cross‐functional meetings very often to dis
(e.g., customers, competition, suppliers).
• We regularly have interdepartmental meetings to upda
requirements.
• Technical people in this business unit spend a lot of ti
technology for new products with other departments.
• Market information spreads quickly through all levels
Performance • Over the past 3 years, our financial performance has b
• Over the past 3 years, our financial performance has e
• Over the past 3 years, our revenue (sales) growth has
• Over the past 3 years, we have been more profitable th
• Over the past 3 years, our revenue growth rate has exc
• Last year, market share was much higher than our com
Copyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 147Theoretical references
ersus typically responds to actions that Covin & Slevin (1989)
cts/services, administrative techniques,changes, technological developments, and the utilization of
market research information by allfirm employees (alpha= .90).
Firm performance. We adopted the five items from
Powell (1995) for the measurement of firm performance,
covering financial performance, sales growth, profitabil-
ity, and revenue growth. We also used an item for relative
t business to introduce new products/
gies, etc.
itors” posture vs. Typically seeks to
ve” posture.
s of very high returns) vs. A strong
in rates of return).
nging acts are necessary to achieve the
nment, it is best to explore it gradually
maximize the probability of exploiting
, “wait‐and‐see” posture in order to
and innovations vs. A strong emphasis
s.
f products or services.
quite dramatic. vs. Changes in product
arter to discuss market trends and Kohli, Jaworski, &
Kumar (1993)
iscussing customers’ future needs with
er or market, the whole business unit
evels in this business unit on a regular
nd manufacturing departments
bout competitors, it is slow to alert
cuss market trends and developments Matsuno, Mentzer, &
Rentz (2005)
te our knowledge of regulatory
me sharing information about
in this business unit.
een outstanding. Powell (1995)
xceeded our competitors.
been outstanding.
an our competitors.
eeded our competitors.
petitors. Baker & Sinkula (1999)
Can J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)

market share proposed by Baker and Sinkula (1999)
measurement model, we examined the reliability of the
as well as their validity (Barclay, Thompson, & Higgins,
995; Keil, Tan, Wi, Saarinen, Tuunainen, & Wassenaar,
000). Individual indicator reliability was assessed by the
adings or the correlations between the indicator and the
onstruct. We expected the loadings to be significant
p < .05). In addition, the cross‐loadings of each indicator
correlations between indicators and other constructs) were
xpected to be much smaller than the loading of that
dicator (Gefen & Straub, 2005). Table 3 presents the
adings and cross‐loadings, showing that all loadings were
ignificant (p < .01) and all cross‐loadings smaller than the
adings on the items’ own factor. The indicators related to
isk propensity showed the highest loadings on EO,
ointing to risk being a particularly important feature of
O that likely plays a predominant role in EO’s influence
n firm performance.
To assess construct reliability, many studies use
ronbach’s (1951) alpha (Barclay et al., 1995). However,
hin (1998) argued that Cronbach’s alpha represents an
stimation of the lower limit of reliability given it assumes
ll indicators carry the same weighting in the construct.
ornell and Larcker (1981) proposed using a composite
eliability coefficient, which is interpreted in much the same
able 3
oadings and Cross‐loadings
anifest variable EO HRIM P
erformance1 .222 .281 .812*
erformance2 .341 .279 .879*
erformance3 .196 .246 .790*
ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE RODRIGUES & RAPOSOindicators (manifest variables) and latent variables (constructs)(alpha = .92).
Analysis and Results
Structural equation modelling (SEM) consists of two
stages: testing the measurement model and testing the
structural model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The
measurement model refers to the indicators and/or sub-
constructs that reflect the relevant constructs, while the
structural model addresses the relationships among the
constructs.
Data were analyzed and interpreted using the statistical
software SPSS 14.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences)
package. The partial least squares (PLS) technique was used
to test the proposed model with the application of the
SmartPLS 2.0.M3 software (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005).
The PLS method is a statistical modelling‐based technique
with structural equations allowing the simultaneous estima-
tion of a group of equations by measuring the concepts in
the measurement model, and the relationships between them
in the structural model (Rodrigues, Raposo, Ferreira, &
Do Paco, 2010).
Firstly, the model was estimated by computing the
latent variables through an iterative procedure that
requires the regression of the outer and inner model
variables fixing the parameters for one part of the model
while estimating the other parameters. Then, ordinal least
squares (OLS) noniterative regression provided the
estimation of the relationships of the outer and inner
models (Raposo, Ferreira, Paço, & Rodrigues, 2008).
Model quality was assessed by the R2 measures or by the
Stone‐Geisser test (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974), and
structural relationship significance was measured by
deploying the jackknife and bootstrap techniques (Chin,
1998). According to Duarte (2005), this technique has the
capacity to address constructs that are not directly
observable variables. In the estimation process, PLS aims
to maximize explained variance for the indicators and
latent variables, rendering possible examination of the
relationships and the R‐Squared (R2) facets. A series of
iterative factorial analyses was performed through the
OLS estimation technique, combining linear and multiple
regression for path analyses. The estimation of parameters
focuses on minimization of the residual variance of all the
latent model variables. Items comprising EO, HRIM, and
firm performance are detailed in Table 2.
Measure Validity and Reliability
Most of the measures deployed are well‐established and
widely used in the broader literature. In the testing of theCopyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 148Performance4 .328 .253 .902*
Performance5 .304 .303 .893*
Performance6 .447 .277 .755*
HRIM1 .223 .783* .248
HRIM2 .230 .773* .278
HRIM3 .202 .717* .227
HRIM4 .292 .671* .194
HRIM5 .206 .672* .236
HRIM6 .028 .520* .203
HRIM7 .263 .835* .269
HRIM8 .155 .761* .194
HRIM9 .223 .745* .289
HRIM10 .203 .766* .227
EO1 .601* .208 .337
EO2 .641* .110 .334
EO3 .358* .084 .031
EO4 .743* .216 .260
EO5 .728* .180 .196
EO6 .741* .241 .259
EO7 .577* .185 .163
EO8 .500* .098 .196
EO9 .558* .235 .167
*p < .01.1
2
lo
c
(
(
e
in
lo
s
lo
r
p
E
o
C
C
e
a
F
r
T
L
M
P
P
PCan J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)

way as Cronbach’s alpha. The composite reliabilities of the
three constructs (EO, HRIM, and firm performance) were
each greater than .70 (Table 4).
Discriminant validity assessment was the last stage of
evaluating the measurement model. Fornell and Larcker
(1981) suggested applying the average variance extracted
(AVE), which measures the shared variance between a
construct and its indicators. Through AVE analysis, we
tested whether the square root of each AVE coefficient was
larger than any correlation among any pair of latent
constructs (Naor‐Elaiza & Geri, 2008). Table 4 shows the
AVE for each construct and, as seen in Table 5, the AVE
was always much larger than the construct correlations,
which thus supports discriminant validity.
The two criteria used to evaluate the structural model
are the explanatory power of the model (R2) and the value
and significance of the path coefficients (Duarte, 2005).
Table 6 demonstrates that explained variances were low
for the two endogenous constructs. Although consistent with
the results of similar models (Raposo et al., 2008), the
variance explained by construct predictors was rather low.
This means EO and HRIM are not the sole firm performance
predictors (.197), and neither is EO the only predictor for
HRIM (.085). According to Liñán and Chen (2009), this result
converges with most previous research using linear models.
To test the significance of the path coefficients, we used
the bootstrapping technique, with 1,000 samples of 200 cases
stated that EO positively predicts HRIM, was supported.
The last hypothesis (H4) relates EO to firm performance
through HRIM as a mediator. Slater and Narver (1995) noted
that entrepreneurial values improve information dissemina-
tion routines and motivation among the firm’s human
resources, which can increase firm performance. Our results,
as presented in Figure 2 and Table 8, provide support for H4.
Table 6
ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE RODRIGUES & RAPOSOapiece. The results presented in Table 7 show that the three
relationships are significant. Besides the significance of all
Table 5
Latent Variables Correlations
Correlations EO HRIM P
Entrepreneurial orientation 1.00
Human resources information
management
.29 1.00
Performance .38 .33 1.00
Table 4
Reliability Measures
Construct AVE AVE
square root
Composite
reliability (ρ)
Entrepreneurial
orientation
.38 .62 .84
Human resources
information
management
.53 .73 .92
Performance .71 .84 .93Copyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 149coefficients, their value was also above .20, which is the
threshold value for being considered robust (Chin, 1998).
The path coefficients set out in Table 7 are the estimated
total effects, which are composed of direct effects) and indirect
effects. Table 8 shows direct, indirect, and total effects.
Our first hypothesis postulates that EO positively
predicts firm performance. Our analysis supported this
hypothesis, thus corroborating the results of other studies
(Covin et al., 2006; Green et al., 2008; Miles et al., 2000;
Tang et al., 2007; Wang, 2008; Wiklund, 1999; Zahra,
1993; Zahra & Covin, 1995). This suggests that a firm can
improve its performance by adopting a strategic posture of
innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk taking.
The second hypothesis proposes that HRIM positively
predicts firm performance. Several studies have shown HRM
systems to relate positively to firm performance (Becker &
Gerhart, 1996; Dyer & Reeves, 1995; Panayotopoulou,
Bourantas, & Papalexandris, 2003). Arthur (1994) found
that different human resources systems—commitment‐ or
control‐oriented—led to differences in firm performance, with
control-based systems generating higher manufacturing per-
formance and lower employee turnover.More recently, Chow,
Huang, and Liu (2008) showed that some human resource
configurations positively related to overall firm performance
and turnover rates. Commitment HR showed a positive
significant effect on overall outcome, while Compliance
showed a negative significant effect on overall outcome, a
marginal positive effect on turnover, and a marginal negative
effect on profit growth. They also showed interaction effects
between human resource configurations and business strategy
in predicting firm profit and sales growth. Specifically, when
using a Commitment Configuration, overall outcome was
higher when Low Cost Strategy was used, but both profit and
sales growth improved in the presence of High Cost Strategy.
On the other hand, when using Market Configuration, profit
growth was higher in the presence of Low Cost Strategy.
Results support hypothesis 2 (H2).
However, the influence of HRIM on firm performance
had not previously been studied. Hypothesis 3, which
Explained Variance
Construct R Square
Human resources information management .085
Performance .197Can J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)

Table 7
agement
ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE RODRIGUES & RAPOSOBootstrapping Results
Path/Hypothesis
H1: EO has a positive impact on firm performance
H2: HRIM has a positive impact on firm performance
H3: EO has a positive impact on human resource information man
Table 8
Effects
Path Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
EO → HRIM .291 .000 .291
EO → P .313 .069 .382
HRIM → P .236 .000 .236Discussion
Summary
We set out to test whether HRIM, a dimension of MO,
acts in conjunction with EO to improve business perfor-
mance. Using data collected from a mailed survey, we tested
a structural equations model representing the effects of EO
on HRIM to determine the effect of both on firm
performance. Both EO and HRIM positively (singularly
and together) predicted firm performance. Furthermore, EO
positively predicted HRIM.
Contributions to Scholarship
We set out to evaluate HRIM as a mediator of the
relationship between EO and firm performance. Mediators
Figure 2.
Path coefficients
.291 .236
.313EO
(.000)
P
(.197)
HRIM
(.085)
Copyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 150of this relationship have been studied previously (Covin
et al., 2006). Our results suggest that HRIM should be
incorporated among the established mediators. While the
positive effect of EO on firm performance corroborates
previous findings (Covin et al., 2006; Green et al., 2008;
Miles et al., 2000; Rauch et al., 2004; Tang, Tang, Zhang, &
Li, 2007; Wang, 2008; Wiklund, 1999; Zahra, 1993; Zahra
& Covin, 1995), the primary contribution of our study lies in
having found HRIM to positively predict firm performance
and in demonstrating HRIM as a mediator of EO’s
relationship with firm performance. Entrepreneurial values
like proactiveness, risk taking, and innovativeness are likely
to enhance business performance. This enhancement is
catalyzed by how market information is distributed among
firm members, and the incentives, processes, and routines
established for encouraging information sharing.
Applied Implications
Our findings are of potential practical and applied
significance to business firms. Specifically, our results
suggest that an entrepreneurial culture that promotes values
of proactiveness, risk taking, and innovation is likely to
positively impact firm performance. If all staff members
share this culture, then information important to business
success is likely to be more efficiently and effectively
managed. Accordingly, our results suggest that resources
should be expended by firms to set up sound management
information systems, structures, processes, and incentives
for knowledge sharing.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Our study was conducted on a sample of manufacturing
firms and the results may be difficult to generalize to other
Original
sample mean
Standard
deviation
T
Statistic Sig. Conclusion
.382 .065 5.906 .000 H1 Supported
.291 .067 4.360 .000 H2 Supported
.236 .066 3.600 .000 H3 Supportedsectors. Moreover, the national context (the sample included
only Portuguese firms) may have influenced our results. The
scale that we used to measure EO also displays some
validity limitations given past studies that show problems in
dimensionality and the relationships between its dimensions
(Chadwick, Barnett, & Dwyer, 2008), cross‐cultural valid-
ity, and reliability loss (Knight, 1997), and the need to
further assess the dimensionality and psychometric proper-
ties of the scale (Zahra, Jennings, & Kuratko, 1999). Further
Can J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)

improvements to the EO scale are needed and future
Bhuian, S.N., & Habib, M. (2004). The Relationship Between
Chin, W.W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares approach to
ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE RODRIGUES & RAPOSOEntrepreneurship, Market Orientation and Performance: A
Test in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Transnational Management,
10(1), 79–98.
Brennan, M. (1992). Techniques for Improving Mail Survey
Response Rates. Marketing Bulletin, 3, 24–37.
Chadwick, K., Barnett, T., & Dwyer, S. (2008). An Empirical
Analysis of the Entrepreneurial Orientation Scale. Journal of
Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 13(4), 64–85.research on scale development should focus on strengthen-
ing consensus as to how the EO construct is both
conceptualized and operationalized (Chadwick et al.,
2008). Another limitation of our study is the explanatory
capacity of our model. Explained variances of endogenous
constructs (HRIM and firm performance) were very low,
suggesting that refinements are in order.
References
Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C.M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the
large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established
firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management
Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.
Anderson, J.E., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural Equation
Modelling in Practice: a Review and Recommended Two‐
Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard
Business Review, 55(Sept–Oct), 115–125.
Armstrong, J.S., & Overton, T.S. (1977). Estimating non‐response
bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14
(August), 396–403.
Arthur, J.B. (1994). Effects of human resource management
systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 37, 670–687.
Atuahene‐Gima, K., & Ko, A. (2001). An empirical investigation
of the effects of market orientation and entrepreneurship
orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization
Science, 12(1), 54–74.
Baker, W.E., & Sinkula, J.M. (1999). Learning Orientation, Market
Orientation, and Innovation: Integrating and Extending
Models of Organizational Performance. Journal of Market
Focused Management, 4(4, October), 295–308.
Baker, W.E., & Sinkula, J.M. (2009). The Complementary Effects
of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurial Orientation on
Profitability in Small Businesses. Journal of Small Business
Management, 47(4), 443–464.
Barclay, D., Thompson, R., & Higgins, C. (1995). The Partial
Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal
Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration. Technology
Studies, 2(2), 285–309.
Barroso Castro, C., Martín Armario, E., & Sánchez del Rio, M.E.
(2005). Consequences of market orientation for customers
and employees. European Journal of Marketing, 39(5–6),
646–675.
Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource
management on organizational performance: Progress and
prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 779–801.Copyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 151structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.)
Modern Methods for business research. USA: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 295–336.
Chow, I.H., Huang, J.‐C., & Liu, S. (2008). Strategic HRM in
China: Configurations and competitive advantage. Human
Resource Management, 47(4), 687–706.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
science. New York: Academic Press.
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.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1989). Strategic Management of Small
Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments. Strategic
Management Journal, 10(January), 75–87.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of
entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure
of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
De Clercq, D., & Rius, I.B. (2007). Organizational Commitment in
Mexican Small and Medium‐Sized Firms: The Role of Work
Status, Organizational Climate, and Entrepreneurial Orienta-
tion. Journal of Small Business Management, 45(4), 467–490.
Deshpandé, R., Farley, J.U., & Webster, F.E. Jr. (1993). Corporate
culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese
firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1, Jan),
23–37.
Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. (1995). Human resource strategies and firm
performance: What do we know and where do we need to go?
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6,
656–670.
Duarte, P. (2005). Brand Preference – A Study of the Factors
Contributing to the Formation of Preference [in Portuguese: A
Preferência pela Marca – Estudo dos Factores que Contribuem
para a Formação da Preferência], Unpublished doctoral thesis,
University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
Ericsson, D. (1990). Management by Holistics ‐ A Business
Resource Management Approach. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 20(3), 25–34.
Faria, A.J., & Dickinson, J.R. (1996). The Effect of Reassured
Anonymity and Sponsor on Mail Survey Response Rate and
Speed with a Business Population. Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, 11(1), 66–76.
Ferber, R. (1948). The problem of Bias in Mail Returns: A
Solution. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(Winter), 669–676.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39–50.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A Practical Guide to Factorial
Validity Using PLS‐Graph: Tutorial and Annotated Example.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
16, 91–109.
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect
model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107.
Green, K.M., Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (2008). Exploring the
relationship between strategic reactiveness and entrepreneurial
orientation: The role of structure‐style fit. Journal of Business
Venturing, 23(3), 356–383.Can J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)

Grinstein, A. (2007). The effect of market orientation and its Intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3),
ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE RODRIGUES & RAPOSOcomponents on innovation consequences: a meta‐analysis”.
Journal Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 166–173.
Haynie, J.M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P.C. (2010).
A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset.
Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 217–229. Elsevier Inc.
Henard, D.H., & Szymanski, D.M. (2001). Why some new
products are more successful than others. Journal of
Marketing Research, 38(3), 362–375.
Hernández, J.M. (2002). Market Orientation, Culture and
Organizational Learning: An exploratory and Causal Anal-
ysis of their Relationships [in Spanish: Orientación al
mercado, cultura y aprendizaje organizativo: Un análisis
exploratorio y causal de sus relaciones], Unpublished doctoral
thesis, University of Extremadura: Caceres, Spain.
Hsieh, M.‐H., Tsai, K.H., & Wang, J.‐R. (2008). The moderating
effects of market orientation and launch proficiency on
the product advantage‐performance relationship. Industrial
Marketing Management, 37(5), 580–592.
Jaworski, B.J., & Kohli, A.K. (1996). Market orientation: review,
refinement, and roadmap. Journal of Market‐Focused Manage-
ment, 1(2), 119–135.
Jimenez‐Jimenez, D., Sanz Valle, R., & Hernandez‐Espallardo, M.
(2008). Fostering innovation: the role of market orientation
and organizational learning. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 11(3), 389–412.
Jones, S.C., Knotts, T.L., & Udell, G.G. (2008). Market orientation
for small manufacturing suppliers: the importance of product‐
related factors. The Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 23(7), 443–453.
Keil, M., Tan, B.C.Y., Wi, K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., &
Wassenaar, A. (2000). A cross‐cultural study on escalation of
commitment behavior in software projects. MIS Quarterly,
24(2), 229–325.
Khandwalla, P. (1977). The Design of Organizations. New York,
NY, US: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.
Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W.O. (2005). Market
orientation: a meta-analytic review and assessment of
its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of
Marketing, 69(2), 24–41.
Knight, G. (1997). Cross‐cultural reliability and validity of a scale
to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of
Business Venturing, 12(3), 213–225.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J. (1990). Market Orientation: The
Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implica-
tions. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A
measure of Market Orientation. Journal of Marketing
Research, 30(4, Nov), 467–477.
Lee, L.T., & Sukoco, B.M. (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(3), 549–672.
Li, Y., Zhao, Y., Tan, J., Liu, Y. (2008). Moderating Effects
of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Market Orientation‐
Performance Linkage: Evidence from Chinese Small Firms.
Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 113–133.
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. (2009). Development and Cross‐Cultural
Application of a Specific Instrument to Measure EntrepreneurialCopyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 152593–617.
Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (1996). Enriching the entrepreneur-
ial orientation construct ‐ a reply to “Entrepreneurial
Orientation or Pioneer Advantage. Academy of Management
Review, 21(3, July), 605–607.
Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of
entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moder-
ating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16, 429–451.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T., Rentz, J.O. (2005). A conceptual and
empirical comparison of three market orientation scales.
Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 1–8.
Mavondo, F.T., Chimhanzi, J., & Stewart, J. (2005). Learning
Orientation and Market Orientation: Relationship with
Innovation, Human Resources Practices, and Performance.
European Journal of Marketing, 39(11–12), 1235–1363.
Messeghem, K. (2003). Strategic Entrepreneurship and Managerial
Activities in SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 21(2),
197–212.
Miles, M.P., & Arnold, D.R. (1991). The Relationship Between
Marketing Orientation and Entrepreneurial Orientation.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 15(4, summer), 49–65.
Miles, M.P., Covin, J.G., & Heeley, M.B. (2000). The Relationship
Between Environmental dynamism and Small Firm Structure,
Strategy, and Performance. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 8(2), 63–78.
Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of entrepreneurship in Three
types of Firms. Management Science, 29(7, July), 770–791.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P.H. (1978). Archetypes of strategy
formulation. Management Science, 24(9), 921–933.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1982). Innovation in conservative and
entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum.
Strategic Management Journal, 3(January–March), 1–25.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P.H. (1986). Innovation in Conservative and
Entrepreneurial Firms : Two Models of Strategic Momentum.
Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy‐making in three modes. California
Management Review 16(2), 44–53.
Morris, M.H., & Jones, F.F. (1993). Human resource management
practices and corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical
assessment from the USA. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 4(4), 873–896.
Naman, J.L., Slevin, D.P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the
Concept of Fit: A Model and Empirical Tests. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(2), 137–153.
Naor‐Elaiza, O., & Geri, N. (2008). Easy as E‐Mail? Probing the
Slow Adoption of an Online Assignment Submission System.
Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional
technologies research 2008: Learning in the technological
era Y. Eshet‐Alkalai, A. Caspi, N. Geri (Eds.), Raanana: The
Open University of Israel.
Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F. (1990). The effect of aMarket Orientation on
Business Profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(Oct), 20–35.
Norton, W.I., & Moore, W.T. (2002). Entrepreneurial Risk: Have
We Been Asking the Wrong Question? Small Business
Economics, 18(4), 281–287.
Norton, W.I., & Moore, W.T. (2006). The Influence of Entrepre-
neurial Risk Assessment on Venture Launch or Growth
Decisions. Small Business Economics, 26(3), 215–226.Can J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)

Paladino, A. (2008). Analyzing the Effects of Market and
Resource Orientations on Innovative Outcomes in Times of
Turbulence. The Journal of Product Innovation Management,
25(6), 577–592.
Panayotopoulou, L., Bourantas, D., & Papalexandris, N. (2003).
Strategic human resource management and its effects on firm
performance: an implementation of the competing values
framework. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14(4), 680–699.
creation: testing a structural model. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 9(1), 58–73.
Rogers, E., & Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innova-
tions: A cross‐cultural approach. New York: Free Press.
Schneider, K.C., & Johnson, J.C. (1995). Stimulating response
to market surveys of business professionals. Industrial
Marketing Management, 24(4), 265–276.
Sinkula, J.M. (1994). Market Information Processing and
Organizational Learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45.
ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE RODRIGUES & RAPOSOPelham, A. (1999). Influence of Environment, Strategy, and
Market Orientation on Performance in Small Manufacturing
Firms. Journal of Business Research, 45(1), 33–46.
Pelham, A. (2000). Market orientation and other potential
influences on performance in small and medium‐sized
manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management,
38(1), 48–67.
Powell, T.C. (1995). Total Quality Management as Competitive
Advantage: A Review and Empirical Study. Strategic
Management Journal, 16, 15–37.
Raposo, M., Ferreira, J., Paço, A., & Rodrigues, R.G. (2008).
Propensity to Firm Creation: Empirical Research Using
Structural Equations. International Entrepreneurship Man-
agement Journal. 4(4), 485–504.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Frese, M., & Lumpkin, T.G. (2004).
Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance:
Cumulative empirical evidence. In W.D. Bygrave, C.G.
Brush, M.L.P. Davidsson, G.D. Meyer, J. Fiet, J. Sohl, P.G.
Greene, A. Zacharakis, & R.T. Harrison (Eds.), Frontiers of
entrepreneurship research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Retrieved from http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/FER_2004/
web‐content/SectionVI/P1/VI‐P1.html
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 M3
(beta). Germany: University of Hamburg. Retrieved from
http://www.smartpls.de
Rodger, J.A., Pendharkar, P.C., Paper, D.J., & Molnar, P. (1998).
Reengineering the human resource information system at
Gamma. Facilities, 16(12/13), 361–365.
Rodrigues, R.G. (2003). Strategic Classification of Small Indepen-
dent Retailers in the Region of Cova da Beira: a Taxonomic
Study [in Portuguese: Classificação estratégica dos pequenos
retalhistas da região da Cova da Beira ‐ Um estudo
taxonómico]. Covilhã, PT: Fundação Nova Europa – UBI.
Rodrigues, R.G. (2005). Market Orientation, Entrepreneurial
Orientation and Performance in Portuguese Manufacturing
SMEs: Exploring the Relationship Between Marketing and
Entrepreneurship [in Portuguese: Orientação para o Mercado,
Orientação Empreendedora e Desempenho nas PME Indus-
triais Portuguesas: Exploração da Relação Entre o Marketing
e o Empreendedorismo], Unpublished doctoral thesis, Uni-
versity of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
Rodrigues, R.G., Raposo, M., Ferreira, J., & Do Paco, A. (2010).
Entrepreneurship education and the propensity for businessCopyright © 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 153Slater, S.F., & Narver, J.C. (1995). Market Orientation and the
Learning Organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(Jul), 63–74.
Stevenson, H., & Jarillo, J. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneur-
ship: entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management
Journal, 11, 17–27.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross‐validation and multinomial prediction.
Biometrika, 61(3), 509–515.
Tang, J., Tang, Z., Zhang, Y., & Li, Q. (2007). The Impact of
Entrepreneurial Orientation and Ownership Type on Firm
Performance in the Emerging Region of China. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 383–397.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business
enterprises: the construct, dimensionality, and measurement.
Management Science, 35(8), 942–62.
Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2005). The impact of network
capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university
spin‐off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4),
541–567.
Wang, C.L. (2008). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Learning Orien-
tation, and Firm Performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 32(4), 635–657.
Wei, L.‐Q., & Lau, C.‐M. (2005). Market Orientation, HRM
Importance and Competency: Determinants of Strategic HRM
in Chinese Firms.
Wiklund, J. (1999). The sustainability of the entrepreneurial
orientation ‐ performance relationship. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, 24(1, Fall), 37–48.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation
and small business performance: A configuration approach.
Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 71–91.
Zahra, S.A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate
entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business
Venturing, 6(4), 135–173.
Zahra, S.A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and
financial performance: A taxonomical approach. Journal of
Business Venturing, 8, 319–340.
Zahra, S.A., Covin, J.G. (1995). Contextual influences on the
corporate entrepreneurship‐performance relationship: A longi-
tudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 43–58.
Zahra, S.A., Jennings, D., & Kuratko, D. (1999). The Ante-
cedents and Consequences of Firm‐Level Entrepreneurship:
The State of the Field. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 24(2), 45–64.Can J Adm Sci
28(2), 143–153 (2011)