What was the impact of business performance on MSMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic?
1,2Pelita Harapan University, Indonesia.
3Esa Unggul University, Indonesia.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused changes in the pattern of interactions between people and has also had an impact on market traders in Indonesia. The purpose of this research is to increase the competitiveness of MSMEs through entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and technology orientation toward product innovation and their impact on MSMEs’ business performance. This study uses the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), and convenience sampling was used to select 160 MSMEs for the study sample. Based on the path coefficients that lead to business performance, technology orientation has a value of 16.1, followed by product innovation with a value of 10.6, market orientation with a value of 0.009, and entrepreneurship orientation with a value of 0.004, which have a positive effect on business performance. But if you look at what influences product innovation, the first is technology orientation at 0.357, followed by market orientation at 0.325, and entrepreneurial orientation at 0.245. This means that technology orientation is vital in improving business performance and product innovation.
Keywords: Entrepreneurial orientation, Market orientation, Product innovation and business , Performance, Technology orientation.
ARTICLE HISTORY: Received:22 December 2022, Revised:28 February 2023, Accepted:17 March 2023, Published:5 April 2023
JEL Classification:A11.
Contribution/Originality: This study contributes to the existing literature on business performance for MSMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The originality of this research is in its examination of the impact of the pandemic on MSMEs by looking at the impact of entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, technology orientation, and product innovation on business performance, which has never been done by other researchers.
Small and micro businesses and market traders in Indonesia reached 12 million in Indonesia according to data from the Indonesian Market Traders Association. According to the Indonesian Statistics Center data, market traders in Indonesia only grew by 12% between 2019 and 2021, with retailers showing the biggest growth.
The Covid-19 pandemic also had an impact on MSMEs, especially in weaving, tofu and tempeh production, pulses, and boarding houses. The government made efforts to prevent the spread of Covid-19 by imposing the Enforcement of Community Activity Restrictions, which prevents groups of people from gathering in one location. During the pandemic, the number of MSMEs in Indonesia decreased by 2% between 2019 and 2020 (during the pandemic). According to Purwantoro (2017), the measurements of MSMEs are related to entrepreneurial orientation factors, market orientation and technology orientation for product innovation and their impact on business performance.
MSMEs | Micro, small and medium enterprises’ (MSMEs) credit at commercial banks |
||
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
|
MSMEs | 1,107,240 |
1,088,333 |
1,221,015 |
Business field | 1,107,240 |
1,088,333 |
1,220,459 |
Agriculture, hunting and forestry | 109,544 |
130,012 |
161,456 |
Fishery | 9,379 |
11,416 |
14,751 |
Mining and excavation | 8,544 |
8,039 |
8,969 |
Processing industry | 111,401 |
112,601 |
128,136 |
Electricity, gas, and water | 6,669 |
4,039 |
3,808 |
Construction | 72,033 |
59,164 |
57,583 |
Wholesale and retail trade | 548,276 |
530,653 |
601,384 |
Hospitality (Food and accommodation) | 45,137 |
50,623 |
58,603 |
Transportation, warehousing, and communication | 44,767 |
42,710 |
41,876 |
Scale enterprises | 1,107,240 |
1,088,333 |
1,221,015 |
Micro enterprises | 283,518 |
247,142 |
389,871 |
Small enterprises | 343,245 |
352,923 |
459,541 |
Medium enterprises | 480,477 |
488,268 |
371,603 |
Source: |
Indonesian Statistics Center, 2022. |
Table 1 shows that entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has become one of the most established concepts in entrepreneurship and broader management research, and there have been several reviews of the EO literature in recent decades, including Petković & Sorak (2019). In marketing literature, the concept of market orientation is prominent and, although theoretically different, is seen as a recurring theme related to corporate sustainability in market-oriented conceptualizations.
However, there is a consensus regarding market-oriented influences in creating the actions and processes necessary to ultimately create greater value for consumers through the collection and dissemination of market information (Appiah-Nimo & Chovancová, 2020).
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) play an important role in the economic development of many countries around the world. As economies of scale shrink in the age of globalization, growth opportunities for SMEs are increasing (Ravavi & Abaziz, 2017).
Based on the study by Somjai and Sangperm (2019) on improving SME performance, the existing model can be further developed by adding two variables – customer value and strategic orientation – to improve SME performance. Also, SME performance should be divided into two parts: financial performance and non-financial performance.
To test whether the entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and technology orientation factors toward product innovation have an impact on business performance.
From this research, the benefits of entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and technology orientation factors toward product innovation and their impact on business performance in SMEs will be obtained.
According to Kusa, Duda, and Suder (2021), entrepreneurial orientation is generally defined as the ability to pursue a business opportunity. Entrepreneurial orientation is also an organizational characteristic and has three dimensions, namely risk-taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness.
Meanwhile, according to Wijayanto, Wahyullah, and Aribawa (2020), entrepreneurial orientation is the attitude of entrepreneurs toward running a business. Finally, according to Somjai and Sangperm (2019), entrepreneurial orientation is the process of making organizational strategies that become the basis for decisions and actions.
Entrepreneurial collaboration has been described as a precursor to organizational performance growth. Other factors, such as management skills, business strategies, and environmental factors, are also beginning to portend better performance for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (Octavia, Indrawijaya, Sriayudha, & Hasbullah, 2020).
Kohli, Jaworski, and Kumar (1993) defined all organizational activities related to current and future customer needs as a horizontal and vertical dissemination of intelligence information within the organization, and actions or responses throughout the organization are attributed market intelligent. Meanwhile, Atuahene-Gima (1996) stated that a series of activities reflect the marketing concept philosophy at the organizational level where the activities are divided into three; the first is to collect information from the market, the second is to disseminate the information to all parts of the organization, and the last is how the organization responds.
Furthermore, according to Jaworski and Kohli (1993), market orientation is the organization-wide generation of market intelligence, dissemination of intelligence across departments, and organization-wide responsiveness to it. Appiah-Nimo and Chovancová (2020) stated that market orientation is an organizational philosophy that creates the behaviours necessary for the creation of superior value for consumers, which will eventually lead to superior firm performance.
According to Masa’deh, Al-Henzab, Tarhini, and Obeidat (2018a), technology orientation is the product, service and technology provided by a company. Furthermore, according to Hunter and Perreault Jr (2006), internal technology support is the customer's approval of the use of sales technology, salesperson experience, and its consequences as well as the effectiveness of information, smart sales tasks, and sales performance results. Ramírez-Solis, Llonch-Andreu, and Malpica-Romero (2022) stated that technology orientation influences innovation and performance.
Purwantoro (2017) stated that new products or services are introduced to the market to meet consumer needs. According to Ramírez-Solis et al. (2022), innovation is closely related to intellectual capital. Product innovation is defined as the creation of a product that is superior to competitors, the implementation of product changes, the development of new products on existing product lines, and the assessment of the degree to which a company is able to create new products.
Finally, according to Chummee (2022), product innovation is a new idea from a variety of data collection sources, such as a joint brainstorming by stakeholders, collecting information from customers or competitors, etc., and selecting new ideas to create a product to meet customers’ needs.
According to Purwantoro (2017), entrepreneurial orientation has a positive effect on product innovation, and according to Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001), entrepreneurial orientation influences product innovation. Furthermore, Salavou and Lioukas (2003) stated that entrepreneurs influence product innovation. Based on the literature review above, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Entrepreneurial orientation has a positive influence on product innovation.
Purwantoro (2017) stated that market orientation has a positive effect on product innovation. Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001) and Salavou and Lioukas (2003) also stated that market orientation influences product innovation. Based on the literature review above, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Market orientation has a positive influence on product innovation.
According to Purwantoro (2017), technology orientation has a positive effect on product innovation. Likewise, Ramírez-Solis et al. (2022) stated that technology has an influence on firm performance. Furthermore, Salavou and Lioukas (2003) stated that technology has an influence on product innovation. Based on the literature review above, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Technology orientation has a positive influence on product innovation.
Chummee (2022) stated that product innovation has an effect on business performance. Furthermore, according to Khamaludin et al. (2022), product innovation affects marketing performance, and if marketing performance increases, business performance will also increase.
Finally, according to Fitri et al. (2020), there is a positive influence of product innovation on business performance. Based on the literature review above, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Product innovation has a positive influence on business performance.
According to Masa’deh et al. (2018a), entrepreneurial orientation has a positive effect on business performance. Khalid, Ahmed, Tundikbayeva, and Ahmed (2019) stated that entrepreneurial orientation influences organizational performance. Based on the literature review above, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5: Entrepreneurial orientation has a positive influence on business performance.
According to Masa’deh et al. (2018a), technology orientation has a positive impact on corporate performance. According to Hunter and Perreault Jr (2006), technology orientation has a direct or indirect impact on a firm's internal performance.
Finally, Hunter and Perreault Jr (2006) found that in-house technical support, customer acceptance of the use of sales technology, and salesperson experience are closely related to business or sales performance (information effectiveness, intelligent sales tasks, and business performance results). Likewise, Ramírez-Solis et al. (2022) stated that technology plays a role in the performance of firms. Based on the literature review above, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H6: Technology orientation has a positive influence on business performance.
Masa’deh et al. (2018a) and Jaworski and Kohli (1993) stated that market orientation has a positive effect on business performance.
According to Guðlaugsson and Schalk (2009), in the retail business, there is an influence between market orientation and business performance. Based on the literature review above, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H7: Market orientation has a positive influence on business performance.
Based on the development of the hypotheses in this study, Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework with the relationships between entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, technology orientation and product innovation and business performance.
This research is quantitative, which tests whether enthusiasm, anxiety, and expertise in using computers have an impact on the intention to use technology.
Data were collected via Google Forms from 160 market traders, who were selected through the convenience sampling technique.
The operationalization variables in this study are as follows:
Symbol | Construct | Variable operationalization | Source |
MO1 | Market orientation | We constantly monitor our level of commitment and orientation to serve customer needs | Masa’deh et al. (2018b) |
MO2 | Our business objectives are primarily driven by customer satisfaction |
||
MO3 | Our business objectives are driven by creating greater value for our customers | ||
MO4 | Our competitive strategies are based on our understanding of customer needs |
||
MO5 | We measure customer satisfaction frequently | ||
MO6 | We pay close attention to aftersales service | ||
MO7 | Our sales people regularly share information concerning competitors’ activities | ||
MO8 | We rapidly respond to competitive actions that threaten us | ||
MO9 | Our top managers regularly discuss competitors’ strengths and actions |
||
MO10 | We target customers where we have an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage | ||
MO11 | Our top managers from every function regularly visit our current and prospective customers | ||
MO12 | We freely communicate information about our successful and unsuccessful customer experiences across all business functions |
||
MO13 | All our business functions are integrated in serving the needs of our target market | ||
MO14 | All our managers understand how everyone in our business can contribute to creating value for customers | ||
MO15 | We share resources with other business functions | ||
TO1 | Technology orientation | Research and development activities are very important in our firm | Masa’deh et al. (2018b) |
TO2 | Advanced technologies and methods are used to develop new products in our firm | ||
TO3 | New product development processes are directed by technical personnel | ||
TO4 | New technologies are integrated into our firm rapidly | ||
TO5 | Our firm initiates the development of new technologies and products | ||
TO6 | Our products include high technology items | ||
TO7 | We are very active in developing new technologies | ||
TO8 | We intend to develop new technologies in order to respond to the changing expectations of our customers | ||
TO9 | We have better technological knowledge than our competitors | ||
TO10 | Our product development programs are more ambitious than our competitors’ | ||
EO1 | Entrepreneurial orientation | In our company, new ideas are put forward regularly | Masa’deh et al. (2018b) |
EO2 | Continuous renewal and innovation are important for our company | ||
EO3 | Lately, we have launched many new products/services | ||
EO4 | We invest heavily in developing new products, services and business practices | ||
EO5 | Our company often acts before our competitors do | ||
EO6 | We aim to be at the forefront of development in our business sector | ||
EO7 | We prefer the cautious line of action, even if some opportunities might be lost that way (reversed) | ||
EO8 | Bold action is necessary to achieve our company’s objectives | ||
EO9 | In uncertain situations, we are not afraid to take substantial risks |
||
PI1 | Product innovation | Our products are superior to those of our competitors | Masa’deh et al. (2018b) |
PI2 | Innovation for product changes are new developments | ||
PI3 | We develop new products on existing product lines | ||
PI4 | New product innovations have lower prices | ||
PI5 | New product innovations have advantages over competing products | ||
PI6 | Repairing old products has an advantage over competing products | ||
PI7 | New product innovations have more features than old products | ||
BP1 | Business performance | Sales growth | Sirat (2022) |
BP2 | Profit growth | ||
BP3 | Capital growth | ||
BP4 | Market growth | ||
BP5 | Customer growth | ||
BP6 | Asset growth | ||
BP7 | Labor growth |
Table 2 presents the operationalization of the study’s five variables which comprise 48 research indicators.
To prove the reliability and validity of the model, the first step is to test the indicator reliability (outer loading). According to Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2019), an indicator is reliable if the value of the outer loading is > 0.708. Table 3 shows that all indicators are greater than 0.708, so it can be stated that all indicators representing each construct are considered reliable.
The second step is to test the construct reliability. This is measured by Cronbach’s alpha, which must have a value above 0.7, and the average variance extracted (AVE) must be more than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2019). From Table 3, we can see that Cronbach’s negligence is greater than 0.7 and the AVE is greater than 0.5, so it can be stated that all constructs are reliable.
The third step is to test the construct validity, as depicted in Table 4, which is measured by the discriminant validity test. The value must be greater than the value on the left-hand side and below it (Hair et al., 2019).
Table 4 shows that all variables have good reliability, because the Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability values are above 0.7 and are declared reliable.
Constructs and items | Loading | ||
CR = 0.972 | AVE = 0.700 | ||
MO1 | Market orientation | We constantly monitor our level of commitment and orientation to serve the customers’ needs | 0.802 |
MO2 | Our business objectives are primarily driven by customer satisfaction |
0.796 | |
MO3 | Our business objectives are driven by creating greater value for our customers | 0.805 | |
MO4 | Our competitive strategies are based on our understanding of customer needs |
0.819 | |
MO5 | We measure customer satisfaction frequently | 0.806 | |
MO6 | We pay close attention to aftersales service | 0.865 | |
MO7 | Our sales people regularly share information concerning competitors’ activities | 0.885 | |
MO8 | We rapidly respond to competitive actions that threaten us | 0.858 | |
MO9 | Our top managers regularly discuss competitors’ strengths and actions |
0.878 | |
MO10 | We target customers where we have an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage | 0.884 | |
MO11 | Our top managers from every function regularly visit our current and prospective customers | 0.824 | |
MO12 | We freely communicate information about our successful and unsuccessful customer experiences across all business functions |
0.833 | |
MO13 | All our business functions are integrated in serving the needs of our target market | 0.872 | |
MO14 | All of our managers understand how everyone in our business can contribute to creating value for customers | 0.867 | |
MO15 | We share resources with other business functions | 0.737 | |
TO1 | Technology orientation | R&D activities are very important in our firm | 0.810 |
TO2 | Advanced technologies and methods are used to develop new products in our firm | 0.846 | |
TO3 | New product development processes are directed by technical personnel |
0.909 | |
TO4 | New technologies are integrated into our firm rapidly | 0.923 | |
TO5 | Our firm initiates development of new technologies and products | 0.928 | |
TO6 | Our products include high technology items | 0.871 | |
TO7 | We are very active in developing new technologies | 0.922 | |
TO8 | We intend to develop new technologies in order to respond to the changing expectations of our customers |
0.906 | |
TO9 | We have better technological knowledge than our competitors |
0.914 | |
TO10 | Our product development programs are more ambitious than our competitors’ | 0.897 | |
CR = 0.974 | AVE = 0.809 | ||
EO1 | Entrepreneurial orientation | In our company, new ideas are put forward regularly | 0.881 |
EO2 | Continuous renewal and innovation are important for our company | 0.866 | |
EO3 | Lately, we have launched many new products/services | 0.897 | |
EO4 | We invest heavily in developing new products, services and business practices | 0.872 | |
EO5 | Our company often acts before our competitors do | 0.916 | |
EO6 | We aim to be at the forefront of development in our business sector | 0.909 | |
EO7 | We prefer the cautious line of action even if some opportunities might be lost that way (reversed) |
0.902 | |
EO8 | Bold action is necessary to achieve our company’s objectives | 0.923 | |
EO9 | In uncertain situations, we are not afraid to take substantial risks |
0.926 | |
CR = 0.972 | AVE = 0.834 | ||
PI1 | Product innovation | Our products are superior to those of our competitors | 0.875 |
PI2 | Innovation for product changes are new developments | 0.913 | |
PI3 | We develop new products on existing product lines | 0.922 | |
PI4 | New product innovations have a more economical price | 0.901 | |
PI5 | New product innovations have advantages over competing products | 0.931 | |
PI6 | Improvements to old products have advantages over competing products | 0.941 | |
PI7 | New product innovations have more features than old products | 0.908 | |
CR = 0.923 | AVE = 0.706 | ||
BP1 | Business performance | Sales growth | 0.846 |
BP2 | Profit growth | 0.846 | |
BP5 | Customer growth | 0.785 |
Variable | Cronbach's alpha |
Composite reliability |
Result |
Business performance | 0.897 |
0.923 |
Reliable |
Entrepreneurial orientation | 0.970 |
0.974 |
Reliable |
Product innovation | 0.967 |
0.972 |
Reliable |
Market orientation | 0.969 |
0.972 |
Reliable |
The fourth step is to test the convergent validity. This is measured by the AVE, which must be more than 0.5.
Variable | Average variance extracted (AVE) |
Result |
Business performance | 0.706 |
Valid |
Entrepreneurial orientation | 0.809 |
Valid |
Innovation of product | 0.834 |
Valid |
Market orientation | 0.700 |
Valid |
Table 5 shows that all variables have good convergent validity because they all have a value above 0.5 and can be declared valid.
The next step is to test the construct validity, which is measured by the discriminant validity test.
Variable | Business performance |
Entrepreneurial orientation |
Product innovation |
Market orientation |
Business performance | 0.840 |
|||
Entrepreneurial orientation | 0.226 |
0.899 |
||
Innovation of product | 0.235 |
0.765 |
0.913 |
|
Market orientation | 0.178 |
0.682 |
0.697 |
0.837 |
Table 6 shows that all constructs have a value < 0.9; therefore, all constructs are reliable and valid.
The results of the inner model come from the bootstrapping process using SmartPLS, through which the t-statistic value for each path can be identified.
The model quality parameters used in the inner model are the variance inflation factor (VIF), R-squared, and Q-squared (Hair et al., 2019).
Independent variable | Business performance |
Entrepreneurial orientation | 4.335 |
Product innovation | 3.130 |
Market orientation | 2.202 |
Technology orientation | 3.699 |
Table 7 shows that entrepreneurial orientation has little high, but have no multicollinearity. Also product innovation, market orientation and technology orientation have no multicillinearity.
Dependent variable | R-squared |
Adjusted R-squared |
Business performance | 0.067 |
0.044 |
Product innovation | 0.680 |
0.675 |
Table 8 shows that business performance has an adjusted R-squared value of 0.044, which means that 4.4% of business performance is influenced by entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, technology orientation and product innovation. Product innovation has an adjusted R-Squared value of 0.675, which indicates that 67.5% of product innovation is influenced by entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, and technology orientation.
The R-squared for business performance has value of 0.067 and is weak, so entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, innovation product, technology orientation have a positive influence on business performance.
The values of Q2 range from 0 to 1 (Hair et al., 2019). Q-squared values greater than 0 up to 0.25 indicate poor predictive power or low predictive relevance, Q-squared values between 0.25 and 0.5 are considered to have a moderate predictive power or moderate predictive relevance, and Q-squared values greater than 0.5 indicate good predictive power or predictive relevance. The higher the value of Q-squared, or the closer it is to 1, the more accurate the predictive power of the variable is in predicting the outcome resulting from changes in data parameters (Hair et al., 2019). The Q2 value indicates the quality of the empirically tested proposed model. The Q2 values were obtained from calculations using the PLS-SEM blinded menu.
Source: |
Processed data, 2022. |
Figure 2 shows the results of the hypothesis testing between the variables of market orientation, technology orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, product innovation, and business performance.
Dependent variable | Q-squared (Relevant) |
Q-squared (Predicted) |
Business performance | 0.042 |
0.029 |
Product innovation | 0.558 |
0.655 |
Source: |
Processed data, 2022. |
Table 9 shows that business performance has a predicted Q-squared value of 0.029, and product innovation has a predicted Q-squared value of 0.655. Both have a predictive relevance value of more than 0, which means that they have a good predictive relevance value.
Variable | Path coefficient |
T-statistic |
P-value |
Result |
Entrepreneurial orientation -> Business performance | 0.004 |
0.031 |
0.488 |
Not supported |
Entrepreneurial orientation -> Product innovation | 0.245 |
1.682 |
0.047 |
Supported |
Product innovation -> Business performance | 0.106 |
0.837 |
0.201 |
Not supported |
Market orientation -> Business performance | 0.009 |
0.103 |
0.459 |
Not supported |
Market orientation -> Product innovation | 0.325 |
4.114 |
0.000 |
Supported |
Technology orientation -> Business performance | 0.161 |
1.357 |
0.088 |
Not supported |
Technology orientation -> Product innovation | 0.357 |
2.883 |
0.002 |
Supported |
Source: |
Processed data, 2022. |
Based on the data in Table 10, entrepreneurial orientation has an insignificant effect on business performance, while it has a significant effect on product innovation. Product innovation has an insignificant effect on business performance. Market orientation has an insignificant effect on business performance, while it has a significant effect on product innovation. And technology orientation has an insignificant effect on business performance, while it has a significant effect on product innovation.
From the results of the hypothesis testing, it was found that entrepreneurial orientation does not have a positive effect on business performance; thus, H1 is rejected because the entrepreneurial ability of businesspeople is not enough to directly improve business performance.
Entrepreneurial orientation has a positive and significant effect on innovation of product, so H2 is accepted because increased revenue is a result of product innovation and technological orientation.
If product innovation is not accompanied by technology orientation, business performance will not improve; therefore, H3 is rejected.
Market orientation does not have a positive and significant effect on business performance; therefore, H4 is rejected because market changes are much faster than product innovation.
Market orientation has a positive and significant effect on product innovation, H5 is accepted.
Technology orientation does not have a positive and significant effect on business performance; therefore, H6 is rejected.
Technology orientation has a positive and significant effect on product innovation; therefore, H7 is accepted.
From the seven hypotheses, it can be concluded that technology orientation has a positive and direct impact on business performance. Because businesses have now entered the digital era, not least for SMEs, to succeed in the market they must use the right technology and improve business performance. When viewed from the path coefficient leading to business performance, technology orientation has a value of 16.1, followed by product innovation at 10.6, market orientation at 0.009, and entrepreneurial orientation at 0.004, which have a positive effect on business performance. But if you look at what affects product innovation, the first is technology orientation (0.357), followed by market orientation (0.325), and entrepreneurial orientation (0.245).
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
Appiah-Nimo, C., & Chovancová, M. (2020). Improving firm sustainable performance: The role of market orientation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence. Sciendo.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Market orientation and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 35(2), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00051-8
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Ko, A. (2001). An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization Science, 12(1), 54-74. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.1.54.10121
Chummee, P. (2022). The determinants of product innovation and marketing innovation effecting to the innovation performance. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 1-6.
Fitri, H. N., Putra, R. B. P. B., & Lusiana, L. L. (2020). The effect of business knowledge on business performance through business skills and innovation in Padang City Umkm in the industrial Era 4.0. Jurnal Benefita, 5(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.22216/jbe.v5i1.4405
Guðlaugsson, P. Ö., & Schalk, A. P. (2009). Effects of market orientation on business performance: Empirical evidence from Iceland. Paper presented at the EIRASS Conference 2009. Niagara Falls, Canada Eindhoven :European Institute of Retailing and Services Studies.
Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Hunter, G. K., & Perreault Jr, W. D. (2006). Sales technology orientation, information effectiveness, and sales performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26(2), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.2753/pss0885-3134260201
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251854
Khalid, N., Ahmed, U., Tundikbayeva, B., & Ahmed, M. (2019). Entrepreneurship and organizational performance: Empirical insight into the role of entrepreneurial training, culture and government funding across higher education institutions in Pakistan. Management Science Letters, 9(5), 755-770. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.1.013
Khamaludin, K., Syam, S., Rismaningsih, F., Lusiani, L., Arlianti, L., Herlani, A., . . . Widiyatun, F. (2022). The influence of social media marketing, product innovation and market orientation on Indonesian SMEs marketing performance. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 6(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.11.002
Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(4), 467-477.
Kusa, R., Duda, J., & Suder, M. (2021). Explaining SME performance with fsQCA: The role of entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneur motivation, and opportunity perception. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 6(4), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2021.06.001
Masa’deh, R., Al-Henzab, J., Tarhini, A., & Obeidat, B. Y. (2018a). The associations among market orientation, technology orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance. Benchmarking, 25(8), 3117–3142. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2017-0024
Masa’deh, R., Al-Henzab, J., Tarhini, A., & Obeidat, B. Y. (2018b). The associations among market orientation, technology orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance. Benchmarking, 25(8), 3117–3142. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2017-0024
McDowell, W. C. (2013). The impact of organizational efficacy and flexibility on small business performance. The Coastal Business Journal, 12(1), 1-20.
Octavia, A., Indrawijaya, S., Sriayudha, Y., & Hasbullah, H. (2020). Impact on E-commerce adoption on entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation in business performance of SMEs. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 10(5), 516-525. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr.2020.105.516.525
Petković, S., & Sorak, S. (2019). Effects of the establishment of entrepreneurial orientation on the performances of small and medium enterprises in transition countries: Empirical evidences from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 22(s1), 37-67. https://doi.org/10.2478/zireb-2019-0004
Purwantoro, G. (2017). The effect of entrepreneur orientation, market orientation, and technology orientation to innovation of products and quality products (Empirical Study at Convection SMEs in the village of Tritunggal, Lamongan District) Gatut Purwantoro. MAGISTRA: Journal of Management, 1(2), 1-21.
Ramírez-Solis, E. R., Llonch-Andreu, J., & Malpica-Romero, A. D. (2022). How beneficial are relational capital and technology orientation for innovation? Evidence from Mexican SMEs. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 6(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2022.02.001
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x
Ravavi, S. H., & Abaziz, K. (2017). The dynamics between entrepreneurial orientation, transformation leadership, and intrapreneurial intentition in Iranian R&D sector. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(5), 769-792.
Salavou, H., & Lioukas, S. (2003). Radical product innovations in SMEs: The dominance of entrepreneurial orientation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(2), 94-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00272
Sirat, A. H. (2022). Islamic financial management practices and business performance in small industrial companies. ATESTASI: Scientific Journal of Accounting, 5(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.33096/atestasi.v5i1.1192
Somjai, S., & Sangperm, N. (2019). Exploring the nexus between entrepreneur orientation, entrepreneur education, entrepreneur self-efficacy and entrepreneur intention among university students in Thailand. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 6(10), 319-338.
Wijayanto, S. A., Wahyullah, M., & Aribawa, D. (2020). The effect of entrepreneur orientation and financial literacy toward small business enterprises performance in Mataram. Jurnal Benefita, 5(3), 352. https://doi.org/10.22216/jbe.v5i3.5022
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s). The Asian Economic and Financial Review shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc., caused in relation to/arising from the use of the content. |