Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
INFLUENCE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION ON TEAM INNOVATION: A
STUDY AMONG SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES IN THE GREATER ACCRA
REGION OF GHANA
BY
AHUNLU ACKAH JAINIE
(10240518)
THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL. INDUSTRIAL
AND ORGANIATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE.
JULY, 2018
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
i
DECLARATION
I confirm that this thesis has not been presented in whole or in part for any other
degree or professional qualification. That, this thesis is an original work carried out at the
Department of Psychology, University of Ghana for the award of an MPhil Degree in
Industrial and Organizational Psychology. I have duly acknowledged other people’s work
used in this study.
………………………………….
Ahunlu Ackah Jainie (Student)
Date …………………………
This thesis has been submitted for examination with the approval of:
……………………………….. Date ……………………………
Dr. Kingsley Nyarko
(Principal Supervisor)
…………………………………
Dr. Francis Annor
(Co Supervisor)
Date……………………………
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to Jainie Agovi Jainie.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am thankful to God for giving me the grace to be able to finish this
dissertation. I express my utmost gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. Kingsley Nyarko and
Dr. Francis Annor for their direction and guidance in shaping this work.
I am also extremely thankful and appreciative of the encouragement from my
family; my grandfather, my grandmother, my mother, my aunties, my uncles and their
families. Thank you all for your varied support in putting me through school.
Lastly, I would like to thank my MPhil colleagues for their help in varied ways
towards completion of my work and all the SME organizations who took time to respond
to the questionnaires.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
iv
ABSTRACT
The study investigated the influence of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) on team
innovation and the moderating role of power distance and collectivism in small and medium
sized (SMEs) enterprises. Two hundred and two participants from 32 SMEs organizations in
the Greater Accra Region of Ghana were used. A cross sectional study design was employed.
Having in mind that, the entrepreneurial orientation construct has been considered as being
present throughout the organizational structure without much empirical research to support
this claim, this study investigated whether entrepreneurial orientation is indeed visible at
various levels of the organization. This studied looked at whether individual entrepreneurial
orientation, team leader entrepreneurial orientation and team entrepreneurial orientation
impacted on team innovation. The result of the multiple regression conducted shows that the
individual, team leader and team entrepreneurial orientations all influence or predict team
innovation with team entrepreneurial orientation having the greatest impact on team
innovation. The Pearson correlation conducted showed a significant positive correlation
among the individual, the team, the team leader and the firm entrepreneurial orientations.
The hierarchical regression results indicated that collectivism moderated the relationships
between the predictor variables (individual, team leader and team EO) and the outcome
variable (team innovation). However, power distance did not moderate the said
relationships between the predictor variables (individual, team leader and team EO) and the
outcome variable (team innovation). The rapidly changing global market that calls for the
need for organizations to innovate in order to stay competitive makes the result of this study
very important to leaders and mangers that run organizations particularly SMEs.
Keywords: Firm, Team leader, Team and Individual entrepreneurial
orientation, Team Innovation, Power Distance and Collectivism.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
v
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................. i
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................ iv
TABLE OF CONTENT ...................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem statement ..................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Aims and objectives of the study ............................................................................. 12
1.4 Significance of the study .......................................................................................... 12
1.5 Overview of thesis .................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................. 15
LITERATUREREVIEW .................................................................................................................... 15
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 15
2.1 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................... 15
2.1.1 Dominant logic (Tomasz Obloj Krzysztof Obloj Michael G. Pratt, 2010) ............. 15
2.1.2 Motivated Information Processing in Groups (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008) ................................................................................................................. 18
2.2 Review of related studies ......................................................................................... 22
2.2.1 Understanding the nature of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) .............................. 22
2.2.2 Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) as a Multilevel Construct ................................. 23
2.2.3 Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) Influence on Innovation and Performance of Organizations ........................................................................................................................... 25
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
vi
2.2.3TeamInnovation and Organizational Performance ............................................... 30
2.2.4 Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SME Research in the Ghana ............................. 31
2.2.5 National Culture as a Moderator on the Relationship between Entrepreneurial
Orientation and Innovation. ....................................................................................................... 34
2.3 Rationale of the Study............................................................................................... 38
2.4 Statement of Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 40
2.5 Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................... 41
2.6 Operational definition of terms ................................................................................ 42
CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................... .... 44
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... ....... ... 44
3.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 44
3.1 Research Design ........................................................................................................ 44
3.2 Research Setting ....................................................................................................... 44
3.3 Population ................................................................................................................. 45
3.4 Sample and Sampling technique. ............................................................................. 46
3.5 Measures ................................................................................................................... 48
3.5.1 Section 1 Demographic Characteristic .................................................................... 49
3.5.2Section2 TeamLeader’s Entrepreneurial Orientation........................................ 49
3.5.3 Team level Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO)......................................................... 49
3.5.3 Firm level Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) ......................................................... 49
3.5.4 Individual Level Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) ................................................ 50
3.5.5 Team Innovation .................................................................................................. 50
3.5.6 Power Distance and Collectivism Cultural Dimension .......................................... 51
3.6 Procedure .................................................................................................................. 51
3.6.1 Piloting ................................................................................................................ 51
3.6.2 Main Study ........................................................................................................... 52
3.7 Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................. 54
3.8 Data Analyses............................................................................................................. 55
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
vii
CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................................... 56
RESULTS........................................................................................................................................ 56
4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 56
4.1 Preliminary Analyses ............................................................................................. 56
4.2 Hypotheses Testing .................................................................................................. 59
4.2.1 Test of Hypothesis 1............................................................................................ 59
4.2.2 Test of hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 ............................................................................... 60
4.2.3 Hypothesis 5 ....................................................................................................... 61
Figure 2: Moderation Effect of Collectivism on the Relationship between Individual
Entrepreneurial Orientation and Team innovation ....................................................................... 67
4.3 : Observed model ............................................................................................................... 70
4.4 Summary of findings......................................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................................. 72
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 72
5.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 72
5.1 Individual, Team Leader and Team Entrepreneurial Orientations Influence on Team Innovation 73
5.2 Moderating Effect of Collectivism and Power Distance .......................................... 78
5.3 Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................... 81
5.4 Recommendations for Future Study ....................................................................... 82
5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 85
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 87
Appendices ............................................................................................................ 102
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of sample ............................................................................48
Table 2:Descriptive statistics and reliability.................................................................................. 57
Table 3:Pearson correlations for the study variables .................................................................... 58
Table 4:Summary of the Analyses ................................................................................................ 60
Table 5:Results of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for the moderation effect…64
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ix
LIST OF FIGURES Figure1:Hypothesized model of the study variables ...............................................41
Figure2:Moderation Effect of Collectivism on the Relationship between Individual
Entrepreneurial Orientation and Team innovation .................................. 67
Figure3:Moderation Effect of Collectivism on the Relationship between Team
Entrepreneurial Orientation and Team innovation ................................... 68
Figure 4:Moderation Effect of Collectivism on the Relationship between Team
Leader Entrepreneurial Orientation and Team innovation ........................ 69
Figure5:Observed Model for the study variables .................................................... 70
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SME: Small and Medium Enterprise
EO: Entrepreneurial Orientation
NEIP: National Entrepreneurship and Innovation Plan
SDG: Sustainable Development Goal
MIP-G: Motivated Information Processing in Groups
GDP: Gross Domestic Product
NBSSI: National Board for Small Scale Industries
APA: American Psychological Association
ECH: Ethics Committee of the Humanities
SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SD: Standard Deviation
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
11
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) play an important role in the growth of
economies (Thurik & Wennekers, 2004) and they serve as essential means of innovation,
technological growth, and job creation (Wiklund, Patzelt, & Shepherd, 2009). In the developed
economies, SMEs are the major contributors to economic growth and prosperity; they are seen
as the largest employers (Mullineux, 1997). For instance, the European Commission annual
report on SMEs in Europe for the period 2012 – 2013 states that over
99% of all enterprises are SMEs and most of them are micro-enterprises and SMEs
employed 86 million people, accounting for 66.5% of total employment and contributed
more than half of the total value created by businesses (see Popescu, 2014).
In emerging economies such as China, South Africa, Brazil as well sub-Saharan
Africa, SMEs are the largest group in the private sector. In Africa, more than 90% of running
businesses are SMEs; their contribution to African countries GDP is more than 50% (Abor &
Quartey, 2010). In Ghana, although available data on SMEs is limited, Abor and Quartey
(2010) suggest that SMEs make up about 92% of businesses, account for over 80% of
employment and contribute about 70% to Ghana’s GDP.
SMEs have been defined in varied ways in Ghana but the number of employees is
used as the most common measure (Kayanula & Quartey, 2000). Others also use the value of
fixed assets. For instance, the National Board for Small Scale Industries (NBSSI) uses both
the size and fixed value asset for their definition. Micro enterprises are seen as those with
employee range of 1-5 people and fixed assets not exceeding 10,000 USD (excluding land
and building), and small enterprises have an employee range of 6 - 29 or have fixed assets not
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2
exceeding 100,000 USD, excluding land and building (NBSSI, 2015; as cited in Alembummah
2015). The definition of the Regional Project on Enterprise Development Ghana manufacturing
survey paper was used in this study. They use the number of employees metric and see micro
enterprise as having 1-5 employees; small enterprise, 5-29 employees and medium enterprise, 30-
99 employees (Teal, 2002; as cited in Abor & Quartey, 2010).
SMEs are seen as entrepreneurial due to the fact they engage in the creation of
employment (Gambold, 2008). In Ghana, SMEs serve as the major means through which
indigenes engage in entrepreneurial activities (Aryeetey & Ahene 2005). However, in
engaging in such ventures, they are faced with many challenges and these when not properly
addressed become inimical to the growth of their enterprises. These challenges include but
not limited to the absence of adequate and timely banking finance, limited capital and
knowledge, non availability of suitable technology, ineffective marketing strategies and low
production capacity (Ocloo, Akaba, & Worwui-Brown, 2014)
Due to the challenging environment that SMEs in Ghana operate in, the need to
adopt strategies that take into account the influence of the environment in order to ensure
the firm’s survival and/or growth becomes paramount. Appraisal of firms’ strengths, in
terms of knowledge, skills, abilities and other resources (KSAOs), leads to the adoption of
an appropriate strategy to mitigate against such challenges (Boyne & Meier, 2009). One of
the ways in which an organization sustains its business in a challenging environment, be
competitive and grow is through innovation (Kim & Maubourgne, 2005).
The need for organizations in Ghana (a sub Saharan economy) to innovate is
particularly crucial due to the competition they face from global organizations as a result of
globalization of the world economy (Le Roux & Bengesi, 2014). That is, to be able to
compete in this ultra competitive global market environment and against the well established
and larger organisations, Ghanaian SMEs need to have the competitive advantage in their
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3
product offerings. SME organizations can enjoy competitive advantage and thrive if they are
able to offer products and services that are distinct from those on the market and cater to
specific needs of customers (Porter, 1980). Innovation is one of the ways in which
organizations can do this. Innovations will lead to organizations bringing out unique products
which will results in customers valuing the products and remaining loyal to the
organisation’s brand (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988).
Innovation is defined as “the intentional introduction and application within a role,
group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of
adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or wider
society” (West & Farr, 1990, p. 9). Baregheh, Rowley, and Sambrook (2009) also defined
innovation as involving several processes whereby organizations transform ideas that have
been generated into new and improved products, services or processes. Innovation is an
essential element in enhancing the growth of small firms (Mahemba & De Bruijn, 2003).
According to Vossen (1998), when it comes to innovation, SMEs move faster and innovate
easily as a result of their flexibility and nimbleness; this is in light of the fact that large
organizations have more resources (Laforet, 2013). Laforet (2013) also states that
innovative organizations are more successful in creating products, introducing it unto the
market and they also offer more quality products. Therefore, for an organization to grow, it
needs to innovate. Innovative SME organizations will be perceived highly by their
customers, command loyalty, attract highly skilled employees and their products
commanding premium price (Rosenbusch, Brinckmann, & Bausch, 2011).
For any organization to be successful in its response to the changing demands of the
market, it must be able to innovate. To do that, the organization must rely on work teams.
Work teams drive organizations forward through their ability to bring about creative ideas that
lead to innovative outcomes (Lin, Chuang, Chang, & Yeh, 2012). Studies has shown that
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
4
organizations now rely on team innovation as a means of responding to the fast changes in the
global market space (Edmondson, 1999; Ragazzoni, Baiardi, Zotti, Anderson, & West, 2002).
It goes to show that innovation is central to the success of any organizations. Organizations are
successful in responding to the needs of the global market and staying ahead of the
competition due to the ability of the work teams innovate constantly (Tjosvold, 2004).
According to Bayarçelik, Taşel, and Apak (2014) finance, organizational size,
customer preferences, technological capability, and organizational culture represent
important factors that influence the ability of SMEs to innovate successfully. The
environment and strategic posture of the organization also influence its innovation
capabilities(Bayarçelik, Taşel, & Apak 2014). Therefore, to address the issue of innovation in
a difficult environment the strategy at the level of the firm is important (Bayarçelik et al.,
2014). Laforet (2011) noted that for an organization to be successful in the current market,
which is characterized by global competition, fast pace technological advancement and
shortened product life cycle, it must be able to innovate.
A firm level strategy that can be adopted in such challenging environment is
entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation as an organizations’ strategic posture
emphasized the need to engage in risk taking behaviour, being proactive, exploiting
opportunities in business environment through innovations that go to meet the needs of the
market at a particular time (Huang & Wang, 2011). According to Vij and Bedi (2012), the
ability to recognise whether an organization employs entrepreneurial orientation as a firm
level strategy lies in the entrepreneurial style of top-level management.
When we speak of entrepreneurial orientation, we are looking at the approach
organizations adopt when it comes to pursuing new ventures. Lumpkin and Dess (1996, p.
136–137) state that “EO refers to the processes, practices, and decision-making activities
that lead to new entry” as characterized by one, or more of the following dimensions: “a
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
5
propensity to act autonomously, a willingness to innovate and take-risks, and a tendency to
be aggressive toward competitors and proactive relative to marketplace opportunities”.
Pearce, Fritz, and Davis (2010, p. 219) also state that “EO is conceptualized as a set of
distinct but related behaviours that have the qualities of innovativeness, proactiveness,
competitive aggressiveness, risk taking, and autonomy”
EO relates to how managers act entrepreneurially (Real, Roldán & Leal, 2014).This
serves as a useful basis for studying entrepreneurial activity (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001).
However, in organizations, working groups drive entrepreneurial activity and it is evident in
individual work behaviour (Burgelman, 1983). Also when it comes to humans, they do
better in groups and their success in evolution can be attributed to their ability to corporate
(Wilson, 2012, as cited in Nijstad & Dreu, 2012). Hastie and Kameda (2005) also state that
critical decisions that transform lives are taken at the level of groups. The importance of
working in groups can be also be observed in how work are now be structured. Increasingly
work is now structured at the team level and employees are expected to work in various
roles in those work teams (Lievens, Van Dam & Anderson, 2002). According to Garland and
Elton (1995), about 70% of employees work in groups. In various work settings (formal and
informal), teams are being relied on to lead the decision making processes, plan, create and
innovate (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997, as cited in Nijstad & De Dreu, 2012).
In line with the importance of teams to the growth of organizations, research into work
teams has increased (see Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson & Jundt, 2005; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp,
& Gilson, 2008; as cited in Nijstad & De Dreu). To fully leverage on the benefits of working in
teams, the processes within the work teams need to be efficient. For instance, within all work
teams, there is a need to properly process and timeously relay information in order to arrive at
some understanding, creative insight and/or consensus (Nijstad & De Dreu, 2012).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
6
This study therefore finds it necessary to investigate entrepreneurial orientation
within teams and determine their influence on team innovation.
Studies on entrepreneurial activities using entrepreneurial orientation as the basis
for the study have grown among researchers (eg., Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin & Frese,
2009; Moruku, 2013; Quaye & Acheampong, 2013; Felnhoffer, Puumalainen, & Sjögrén,
2017). Even with the increased amount of EO research, there have been a call for more
studies to be conducted when it comes to how EO manifests itself within organizations
especially in SMEs with a call for a focus on EO impact at the subordinate level
(Felnhoffer, Puumalainen, & Sjögrén, 2017).
According to Drucker (1985) entrepreneurs’ innovate; teams however lead innovation in
organizations (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). Team innovation can be defined as
the team’s ability to come up with new and original thoughts (i.e. creative ideas) as well as have
the means to put these thoughts into practice so as to generate tangible results (Zacher & Rosing,
2015). Team innovation must involve the successful implementation of new ideas (Pirola-Merlo
& Mann, 2004). Team innovation must also effectively advance the agenda of the team.
However, unlike creativity there has not been much work done by organizational scholars when it
comes to innovation (Zacher & Rosing, 2015).
One of the means in which developing countries can catch up with their developed
counterparts is through technological changes and/or drives. In embarking on such agenda, a
country can rely on indigenous or foreign technological innovations. However, indigenous and
foreign technological innovations work best when they complement each other (Fu, Pietrobelli
& Soete, 2011). When it comes to the Ghanaian economy, the government has accepted that
innovation is key to its growth. Efforts in the form of putting in the right policies has been
expended. One of such policies is the introduction of the National, Science, Technology and
Innovation policy (MEST, 2010). The government of Ghana belief is that an
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
7
innovative and thriving business sector can serve as a catalyst for providing employment,
growing its economy and being competitive on the international stage. Such an innovative
environment will lead to the creation of new ventures, growth in business and reduction
in poverty (Robson, Haugh & Obeng, 2009).
In formulating any business strategy, organizations cannot discount the influence of
the environment. Therefore, when it comes to using entrepreneurial orientation as an
organizational level strategy for mitigating challenging business situations, such strategy
should incorporate the influence of the environment in its design. According to
Rosenbusch, Rauch and Bausch (2013) organizations’ need to take into account the
peculiar needs of the environment in which they operate. Environmental turbulence
(Rosenbusch et al., 2013) and national culture (e.g., Kreiser, Marino, Dickson &Weaver,
2010) are said to serve as the main drivers of entrepreneurial orientation. There is evidence
that indicates the influence of national culture on entrepreneurial orientation (Mueller &
Thomas, 2000) as well as innovation (Shane, Venkataraman, & MacMillan, 1995).
According to Hofstede (2001), national culture is the common mindset held by a
group or society that influences their behaviour and makes them unique from other groups or
societies. Hofstede (2001) suggests five dimensions that distinguish between various
cultures. These are; power distance, individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance,
masculinity-femininity and long-term-short-term orientation. Power distance and
collectivism have been associated with entrepreneurship and innovation in previous studies (
see Rauch, Frese, Wang, & Unger, 2010).
Power distance investigates “the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power
in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 45). Individual
power distance reflects how individuals accept that power is distributed unequally within
institutions and organizations (Hofstede, 2001). Employees with high power distance easily
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
8
follow an authority figure and do not question the hierarchical level in place (Yang, Liu
& Gu, 2017). Employees that hold low power distance orientation believe in shared
authority and that all employees enjoy the same rights (Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2007;
van Dierendonck, 2011). Collectivism orientation leads to individuals seeing themselves
as connected to an “in-group” and that their lot and that of the group they belong to are
tied (Triandis, 1993). According to Hofstede (1986), collectivism emphasis is on group
goals, socialization, loyalty and commitment.
Hofstede and Minkov (2010) classify Ghana as a collectivist country. Ghana also
rank high on power distance (Hofstede’s Insight, 2018). Rauch et al., (2010) study supported
the view that the effectiveness of innovation and entrepreneurial orientation increases when
employees and management exhibit collectivistic behaviour. According to Hofstede (1991)
the characteristics of organizations with high power distance makes their innovation
capabilities weak. Low power distance nations are more likely to engage in innovations
(Hofstede 2001; Shane 1992).Notwithstanding the labelling of Ghana as a collectivistic
country and also high on power distance, the increased access to foreign media and visitors
has resulted in greater exposure to foreign ideas, which has made the cultural labelling of
Ghana dynamic (Marbell & Grolnick, 2012). In addition, according to Yoo, Donthu and
Lenartowicz (2011) using national culture to represent individual culture is not appropriate;
an individual cultural orientation need to be measured to find out whether it is consistent
with the national culture. Therefore the need to measure individual cultural orientation.
In Ghana, Buame (1996) acknowledged the existence of entrepreneurial activity before
she (Ghana) was colonised. However, the growth of entrepreneurial activity has been slow since
that period (Takyi – Asiedu, 1993, as cited in Robson, Haugh & Obeng, 2009). Socio - cultural
factors have been attributed as one of the reasons for this slow growth in entrepreneurial
activity (Takyi-Asiedu 1993; Buame 1996; Kiggundu 2002). There has
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
9
however been no consensus on the effect of socio – cultural factors on Africa’s
entrepreneurial growth (Kiggundu 2002; Buame 1996). Buame (1996) reported that, the
Ghanaian entrepreneur micromanages his or her business and thus inhibits employees
autonomy and impede on their ability to think independently and innovate. Also, the
situation where the aged or elders in the Ghanaian society are associated with wisdom is
likely to stifle innovation. Among other things, this study will determine the impact of socio-
cultural factors on entrepreneurship. Hence team innovation requires a supportive context,
studying the impact of culture will help address to an extent to which innovative behaviour
at the work place is influenced by socio- cultural factors (cultural stereotypes).
1.2 Problem statement
One of the major issues confronting Ghana is the high rate of unemployment.
According to the Institute of Statistics, Social and Economic Research (ISSER) of the
University of Ghana the number of graduates who find jobs in their first year stands at
10% ("Only 10% of graduates find jobs after first year – ISSER," 2017). For majority of
the graduates it takes up to 10 years for them to secure a job. The 2015 Labour force
survey also states that the national unemployment rate stands at 11.9%, however it is
25.9% among the youth. The sitting President Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo
acknowledges the huge unemployment problem Ghana faces. In launching the National
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Plan (NEIP), the President reiterated the difficulty Ghana
face due to unemployment and this captured in a report by Citifmonline (2017, July 13). The
President stated that:
Every year, more young people join in the dispiriting search for jobs. I have come face
to face with the desperation that is engendered by the lack of jobs. I have spoken about it
often. I have even come to accept that it is this lack of jobs that has led to the
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
phenomenon of so many people looking to government for jobs, which appears to
be dampening our traditional entrepreneurial spirit.
Studies have however shown that SMEs are innovative and they are the largest
employers (Abor & Quartey, 2010; Wiklund et al., 2009). SMEs are the best place for
innovation to take place due to their lean nature, being quick in taking decisions, flexible in
their operations, customers having easier access to them as well as having a less
cumbersome administrative structure (Sulistyo & Siyamtinah, 2016). These characteristics
and their closeness to suppliers gives them competitive advantage (Sulistyo & Siyamtinah,
2016). Adding to this is the characterization of SMEs as being entrepreneurial due to their
abilities to create jobs (Gambold, 2008).
Innovation in organizations is influenced by several factors. One of the factors is the firm
strategy (Laforet, 2013). According to Huang and Wang (2011), entrepreneurial orientation is a firm
level strategy that brings about innovation. Successful innovation is essential for the growth and
competitiveness of businesses. Innovation is an essential element in enhancing the growth of small
firms (Mahemba & De Bruijn, 2003). The government of Ghana even accepts that innovation is one
the means through which firms can be successful, grow and provide employment; the government
of Ghana thus has a policy on innovation (Osei, Yunfei, Appienti,
& Forkuoh, 2016). They introduced the National Entrepreneurship and Innovation Plan (NEIP)
as a means to birth innovation, grow businesses and reduce unemployment in Ghana. On the
other hand, in an organization where there are no innovations, the organization might not be
able to improve on products they offer to the
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
11
market as well as introduce new products and this will result in decline in
organizational performance and they will thus have difficulties in trying to survive
(“Downturn not the time to deter innovators”, 2010).
However, even though research into entrepreneurship has grown in Africa, not much
attention has been paid to innovation (Robson, Haugh, & Obeng, 2009). Also unlike
creativity, organizational scholars have not done much work when it comes to innovation
(Zacher & Rosing, 2015). In addition, studies on entrepreneurial activities using
entrepreneurial orientation as the basis have grown among researchers (eg., Rauch,
Wiklund, Lumpkin & Frese, 2009; Moruku, 2013; Quaye & Acheampong, 2013; Felnhoffer,
Puumalainen, & Sjögrén, 2017). However, even with the increased amount of EO research,
it is still accepted that more work needs to be done when it comes to how EO manifests
itself within organizations especially in SMEs with a call for a focus on EO impact at the
subordinate level (Felnhoffer, Puumalainen, & Sjögrén, 2017). A country that is
entrepreneurially minded is said to use their entrepreneurial know how (in terms of KSAs)
as the catalyst to ensure economic advancement, create job, consolidate and improve their
competitive advantage(Guerrero & Urbano, 2012). Entrepreneurship leads to the creation of
wealth, innovation, employment and brings about growth of businesses (Kraus, Rigtering,
Hughes, & Hosman, 2012).
Also, to the best of my knowledge, the limited study that has examined the influenced of
national culture on entrepreneurship and innovation, examine national culture at the national
level (e.g., Engelen, Schmidt, & Buchsteiner, 2015); little is known about the influence of
culture at the individual level. Countries also generally consists of diverse group of people with
different cultural backgrounds; this further gives a rational basis for measuring cultural
orientation. The need to measure individual cultural orientation is also much supported in
managerial setting as it is seen as more important and relevant (see Kamakura &
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
12
Novak, 1992). Also measurement of national culture at the individual level will
prevent ecological fallacy. This study, therefore finds it relevant to measure the
individual cultural orientations of power distance and collectivism participants inorder
to see whether they have any influence on team innovations. National culture also
influences innovations(Hussler, 2004).
1.3 Aims and objectives of the study
The main aim is to examine the influence of entrepreneurial orientation on
team innovation in Ghanaian SMEs. The specific objectives of this study are to:
1. find out whether individual EO determines team innovation
2. determine whether team leader EO leads to team innovation
3. look at the impact of team EO on team innovation
4. determine whether the EO within the firm is homogeneous
5. Examine how power distance and collectivism orientation moderates the
relationship between individual EO, team leader EO, team EO and team innovation
1.4 Significance of the study
This study sought to examine the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation
and team innovation in the Ghanaian SME sector. It is very important to a developing
economy like Ghana, having in mind the unemployment challenges the country is facing.
In spite of the consensus on the importance of entrepreneurial activity in job creation, there
remains a paucity of research on entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in developing
economies like Ghana. Majority of the studies have also looked at EO just at the firm level.
This study helps address the issue of paucity of research when it comes to
entrepreneurial orientation and innovation in the Ghanaian context. It will also serve
as a basis for further studies on entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
13
SMEs in the Ghanaian economy will also benefit from the findings of the study. It
will speak to the effect of the various dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation and their level
of influence on team innovation. This will serve as a yardstick for directing future behaviour
and how to position organizations in order to take advantage of the available knowledge. By
examining entrepreneurial orientation at various levels, human resources department will get
additional tools when it comes to managing internal entrepreneurship more effectively.
Among other things, entrepreneurship and innovation leads to the creation of jobs
and reduction of poverty. The issue of ending poverty and ensuring prosperity for citizens is
not only the concern of the Ghana government but international agencies such as the United
Nation as well. For instance, there is global call to action “to end poverty, protect the planet
and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity” which has been captured in the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These goals are seen as critical to thedevelopment
of Africa. This study will thus serve as a resource for the government in her effort to
achieve SDG 1, 9 and also feeds into other SDGs.
Additionally it will also serve as a source of knowledge for the government and aid
in their effort to promote entrepreneurship and innovation. Non – governmental agencies
can also tap from this resource. It will also help investors in identifying entrepreneurial
firms and pump the necessary resources into these firms in order to generate greater success.
This study will also give insight into the cultural orientation (either power distance
or collectivism or both) that have a positive impact on the innovation drive of
organizations. By identifying the cultural environment in which innovations are supported,
managers will be able to encourage appropriate behaviours and also put in the requisite
measures to take advantage of the cultural environment in which the firm is embedded.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
14
1.5 Overview of thesis
The concepts this study is interested in are introduced to us in this chapter. The
concepts are entrepreneurial orientation, team innovation, the cultural orientations of
power distance and collectivism as well as what we understand about SME
organizations. Added to these concepts are the aims and objectives, the reason this study
zeroed in on these concepts (problem statement) and its significance.
Previous works that have been done in relation to this study as well as the
theoretical framework guiding this work are discussed in chapter two. In addition to that,
hypotheses emanating from the review of literature were stated. Chapter three and four
discusses the methodology used and the results of the study respectively. Finally, the
findings are discussed in relation to existing literature and the study’s limitations,
recommendation and implication for the world of work and academia are also given.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
15
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter looks at the theoretical framework guiding this study and further
delves into an extensive review of related studies. The rationale of the study and stated
hypotheses are also given in this section. A conceptual model developed out of the
stated hypotheses and operational definitions of essential terms used are explained.
2.1 Theoretical framework
The interest generated in this area of study over several decades have led to a
number of theories being used to explain the relationships that pertains to entrepreneurial
orientation and outcome variables such as performance and innovation. This study will
tap into three relevant theories as the underlying theories guiding this research. They are:
Dominant logic and Motivated Information Processing in Groups.
2.1.1 Dominant logic (Tomasz Obloj Krzysztof Obloj Michael G. Pratt, 2010)
Organizations are viewed as having either tangible or intangible resource. Even
though in an entrepreneurial firm their resources are usually limited, this issue of resource
limitation is however more pronounced in a developing economy (Bruton & Rubanik, 2002).
This will therefore require entrepreneurial firms in developing economies to be proactive,
take risk and find means of taking advantage of the intangible resources at their disposal
than firms in the developed economy (Knott, Bryce, & Posen, 2003).
That is for an organization to be able to survive and thrive its dominant logic should be
entrepreneurial. Dominant logic refers to a set of principles that are held by businesses that
determines how they behave in any given situation. It can be explained as how organizations
“conceptualize and make critical resource allocation decisions—be it in technologies, product
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
16
development, distribution, advertising, or in human resource management” (Prahalad &
Bettis, 1986, p. 490). An entrepreneurial oriented organization will however adopt an
entrepreneurial dominant logic. According to Meyer and Hepard (2000, p.2) an
entrepreneurial dominant logic “leads a firm and its members to constantly search and
filter information for new product ideas and process innovations that will lead to greater
profitability.” The quality of their leaders should lead them to be proactive and open to
new ideas, processes and way of going about their work.
The dominant logic of the entrepreneurial firm can be viewed as an intangible resource
that will allow them to be able to properly leverage the resources at their disposal. This is so
because the firms’ dominant logic informs how entrepreneur will see the environment in which
they operate. Their perception can either hinder them to see the opportunities available or it
will allow them to see more available resources and opportunities (Prahalad, 2004). Secondly,
dominant logic is embedded in the way the organization operates. It can either allow them to
properly take advantage (exploit) of the resource at the organization disposal or otherwise.
Dominant logic can be viewed as a set of “dominant themes” that has been generated by the
entrepreneur (Miller, 1996). It determines the way an organization acts.
There are two basic views that characterized dominant logic. They are dominant
logic as routines and dominant logic as information filters. Dominant logic as a routine
should be seen as a set of identifiable (specific) corporate level functions that dictates how
resources are allocated, business strategies formulated and setting and monitoring of
performance targets. They are routines of the organization that will lead to behaviours that
are rewarded to be learned and repeated akin to operant conditioning (Prahalad & Bettis,
1986). It is said that there is a learning element within this. As continues learning takes
place, the routines then come to be accepted as the convention and rules set to back them.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
17
Dominant logic as information filter sees the concept (dominant logic) as a knowledge
structure that changes over a period of time. This change is influenced by; experiences with
the nature (characteristics) of the business, activities that leads to success, how performance
are measured and the change in the values and norms of the organisation. This processes
inherent in the knowledge structure leads to the information from the environment be sieved
and subsequently specific actions are taken that goes to dictate future behaviour.
Obloj and Pratt (2005) extend these two streams of dominant logic into four.
According to Obloj and Pratt (2005) dominant logic can be viewed in four ways;
i. perception/sensemaking orientation: focuses on whether organizations draw
knowledge from their environment and whether they see the environment as
a threat or an opportunity for the organization.
ii. choices/actions: this refers to the decision making style of management
and how fast they are able to translate those decisions into actions. Are the
managers proactive or reactive?
iii. learning: looks at how organizations address setbacks and disruption
iv. codification of leaning/routines: looks at the extent to which learning is
converted into the organization way of operating (routines).
An entrepreneurial firm will therefore scan his environment critically and take advantage
of the opportunities available and guard against threats (Obloj et al., 2010). Thus an
entrepreneurial SME organization that adopts a market oriented approach and sees the
environment as an opportunity will engage in entrepreneurial behaviours (Shane, 2003). They
are therefore likely to encourage their employees to be proactive, innovative and take risk in
their decisions. The employees will be task to challenge the status quo and come out with
methods, process and products. An entrepreneurial organization will also likely exercise agency
(being proactive), take advantage of the situation and lead the market. Due to resource
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
18
scarcity that beset entrepreneurial firms in developing economy (eg., Ghana) their
dominant logic which encourages proactive behaviour will allow them to
discover opportunities inherent in the environment and innovative.
The dominant logic of an entrepreneurially oriented SME will thus promote
innovation as it will encourage employees to take advantage of opportunities in the
environment and also not get bogged down by routines. The successful entrepreneurial
organisation will be more particular on following routines when it comes to pragmatic
situations (e.g., adhering to legal environment) and instead encourage employees to think
outside the box in their bid to stay competitive (Obloj & Platt, 2005).
The concept of the dominant logic leads to learning and engaging in certain routine
activities that dictate how resources are allocated. However, in a highly volatile market
where market situations changes rapidly and does not allow for codification of certain
learned behaviours that are deemed as appropriate, the dominant logic concept is silent on
the influence of the environment. Is the learning process relatively more needed in a stable
environment or not? How is the dominant logic likely to develop in such as environment
over a certain period of time? Thus in this study context of a developing market context, how
will the dominant logic manifest itself in this environment.
2.1.2 Motivated Information Processing in Groups (De Dreu, Nijstad, &
Van Knippenberg, 2008)
Organizations usually structure employees into work team and give them tasks to perform
because they believe that the team as a whole have more resources to draw upon than just the
individual employee. When groups are required to perform cognitive activities such as coming up
with ideas and solving problems, the most vital resource that the group members use are the
knowledge they possess, experiences, skills and general ability (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath,
1997; Nijstad & Paulus, 2003). In order to successfully and effectively perform the
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
19
assigned task, group members have to rely on individual team members resources (skills,
insights, knowledge etc). The reliance on each other will allow them to produce a well
thought through, workable, appropriate and at certain times creative outcome. The
process of sharing and combining the information they posses represents group level
information processing; this involves the cognitive tasks that they engage individually
and among themselves (Ickes & Gonzalez, 1994).
The motivated information processing in groups (MIP-G) is predicated on the belief that
groups are information processors ( eg., Hinsz et al., 1997). They rely on the assumption that,
group members individually search and process their information. However, communication
allows for the information being processed at the individual level to move to the group level
where it influences other group members’ thinking and is manipulated (distorted) and ignored
or deliberately analyzed. This process where information moves from the individual to the
group level and vice versa is engaged in until a decision is arrived at.
In the MIP-G model, the belief is that information processing is driven by two distinct and
orthogonal motivational types. These two motivations are epistemic and social motivation.
Epistemic motivation reflects an individual’s ‘‘willingness to expend effort to achieve a
thorough, rich and accurate understanding of the world, including the group task or decision
problem at hand’’ (De Dreu et al., 2008, p.23). It can either be low or high. Social motivation on
the other hand is the ‘‘individual preference for outcome distributions between oneself and
other group members’’ (De Dreu et al., 2008, p. 23). It can involve the individual exhibiting a
completely pro-self (group members interested in what benefits them solely) behaviour or a
wholly pro-social (group members look out primarily for group interest) behaviour. These
motivations depend on individual disposition or situational variable (Dreu et al., 2008).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
20
There are certain conditions that are necessary for epistemic and social motivations to
lead to successful outcomes or innovations. For instance, when individuals are made
responsible for the decisions they take, their epistemic motivation increases; they are
deliberate, systematic and thorough in how they process information (De Dreu, Koole, &
Steinel, 2000; as cited in De Dreu et al., 2011). Also group members will exhibit prosocial
behaviour when reward systems (eg., financial rewards ) are based on collective results (De
Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000) .Collectivist cultures, groups that have a collective identity
and have worked together in the past are likely to be prosocial (De Dreu, Nijstad, Bechtoldt,
& Baas, 2011). Prosocial behaviour and high epistemic motivation are siad
to lead to innovation.
The MIP-G model predicts that groups which epistemic motivation is high and
exhibit prosocial behaviour are more likely to be successful (De Dreu, Nijstad, Bechtoldt, &
Baas, 2011). The MIP-G states that individuals with high epistemic motivation are original in
their thinking which makes groups more creative and also innovative (De Dreu et al., 2011).
Also group that is prosocial and exhibit preference diversity bring about innovation (De Dreu
& West, 2001). Somech (2006) also found that groups that have functional heterogeneous
(exhibit diverse and opposing ideas) promote group innovation especially when there is
participative leadership style. Participative leadership along with prosocial behaviour is said
to promote innovation (see De Dreu, & Homan, 2004; as cited in De Dreu et al., 2011).
According de Dreu et al.,(2011) functional heterogeneous groups is likely to promote high
epistemic motivation due to the fact that people hold different or opposing point of view.
Also according to Nijstad, De Dreu, and Selman (2008), participative safety (which is view
as a situation where group members actively partake in group interactions in a situation
where they don’t feel threatened and are also supported) leads to innovation as individual
group members can express different opinions. Furthermore Bechtoldt, De Dreu, Nijstad, and
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
21
Choi,(2010) noted that a high epistemic motivation coupled with prosocial behaviour leads
to generation of more ideas and that the ideas produce are more authentic (original),
appropriate and feasible as a result of the group norms. Originality of ideas is favoured
more in individualistic societies whereas the collectivist societies prefer appropriateness.
The characteristics of prosocial behaviour are consistent with collectivist
cultures. Participative safety and participative leadership share similar characteristics
with low power distance societies. It can thus be extended to imply that teams which are
collectivist and exhibit low power orientation will innovate.
Employees that hold low power distance orientation believe in shared authority and
that all employees enjoy the same rights (Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2007; van
Dierendonck, 2011). In such societies, participative leadership style will be encouraged. For
instance, according to Den Hartog et al.,(1999) societies that have low power distance
orientation (promotes equality), leaders are encouraged to promote (emphasize) the fact that
they are equal to others. Also according to Choi and Levine (2004) groups that are open to
ideas are have high epistemic motivation and this is likely to lead to innovation in groups.
The dimensions of entrepreneurship includes proactiveness and risk taking behaviour,
which presupposes that teams that are entrepreneurially oriented will be open to ideas and
thus lead to innovation.
Thus the dispositional and situation variables associated with the teams that exhibit
collectivism, power distance orientation and are also entrepreneurially oriented will influence
their level of information processing which will ultimately affect their innovation output.
The MIP-G assumes primarily that individual members’ exposure to the similar
dispositional and situational variable with trigger similar level of information processing
within the group and thus lead to the team having a similar level of motivation in terms of their
information processing. This assumption discount the fact that group members are likely
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
22
to be different in terms of their personality and thus their individual motivations levels
are likely not aggregating at a similar level. This study testing the individual cultural
dimensions of power distance and collectivism in a team setting will shed light on
whether this assumption hold true.
2.2 Review of related studies
2.2.1 Understanding the nature of entrepreneurial orientation (EO)
According to Covin, Green and Slevin (2006), the entrepreneurial orientation
construct has received both theoretical and empirical validation to be used as a basis of
studying entrepreneurial behaviour. A lot of research work has been done to investigate
whether entrepreneurial orientation affects innovation and/or performance; the results
of those studies has led to the acceptance and use of the entrepreneurial orientation
concept (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009).
Entrepreneurial orientation can be conceptualized as a firm level management style
that informs of the strategies management use to run their organizations (Covin & Slevin,
1988). The root of the initial definition and the dimensions given to entrepreneurial
orientation concept can be traced to Miller’s (1983) work. Due to Miller’s work,
proactiveness, innovativeness and risk taking are viewed as dimensions of entrepreneurial
orientation. As such, entrepreneurially oriented organizations can be conceptualised as
‘‘those that are geared towards innovation in the product-market field by carrying out risky
initiatives, and which are the first to develop innovations in a proactive way in an attempt to
defeat their competitors’’ (Miller, 1983, p. 771). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) built primarily
on Miller’s and other research works and added the additional dimension of autonomy and
competitive aggressiveness to the dimensions of entrepreneurial research. Now, the accepted
dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation are; proactiveness, innovativeness, risk taking,
autonomy and competitive. These dimensions exhibit high intercorrelations among
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
23
themselves (Rauch et al., 2009).
There are arguments for entrepreneurial orientation to be looked at as a
unidimensional construct while some scholars root for its multidimensional feature. The
dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation can however be combined in different ways and
used to undertake a study (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Covin et al., 2006; as cited in Rauch et al.,
2009). Whether being looked at as a uni or multidimensional concept, they have all been
observed to correlate positively with organizations performance (Wójcik-karpacz, 2016).
2.2.2 Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) as a Multilevel Construct
Organizations that are described as being entrepreneurially oriented are those that
focus on engaging in entrepreneurial activity (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Every decision they
make is dependent on this underlying principle. An organization can be graded in terms of
their entrepreneurial orientation as EO represents a continuous variable upon which they can
be positioned. An organization’s level of entrepreneurial orientation is seen in the important
decisions they make; EO is therefore seen as an organizational level strategy (Covin &
Slevin 1989). Miller and Friesen (1982, p. 1) adds that EO is seen in “the nature of the
innovative strategy of the firm, something that is often determined by executives on the basis
of their goals and temperaments.” The conceptualisation of EO as a firm level strategy came
about as a result of Miller and his colleagues studying the subject of firm level
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial firms take great risk in terms of their product and market
strategies while also committing wholly to innovation (Miller & Friesen, 1982). Miller
(1983) expanded on a firm that is entrepreneurial to include one that is proactive. In addition
to been innovative in terms of product introduction and market strategy and engaging in
risky ventures, an entrepreneurial firm is also one that is proactive and lead the market.
Entrepreneurial orientation is usually evidenced by the way top level managers’ act as it
is seen as an organizational level strategy. In order to describe entrepreneurial orientation as
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
24
a multilevel construct (i.e., evident throughout various levels of the organization), it is
necessary to investigate and detect whether the entrepreneurial orientation concept runs through
all levels of the organization. Fellnhofer (2016) investigated the pervasiveness of
entrepreneurial orientation within organizations and found that entrepreneurial orientation was
homogeneous. That is, entrepreneurial orientation is present all levels at the various levels of
the organization. In Fellnhoffer (2016) study, she observed that there was no significant
difference between work group members and leaders entrepreneurial orientation.
In a further investigation, Fellnhofer, Puumalainen and Sjögrén (2017) sought to
find out how entrepreneurial orientation manifests itself within the organization. Fellnhofer,
Puumalainen and Sjögrén (2017), conducted the research across several industries and the
results indicated that the entrepreneurial orientation of the work group leader influences the
entrepreneurial orientation of the work group members, which in turn had a positive impact
on performance (Fellnhofer, Puumalainen & Sjögrén, 2017). The work group leader
entrepreneurial orientation however had a greater influence on performance.
Also for one to identify or described a small or an entrepreneurial oriented organization,
the individual behaviours of the employees can be used as a basis (Bolton & Lane, 2012). It is
the individual level behaviour that feeds into the organizations’ activity and that is used to define
the firm. Thus for an organization to be describe as entrepreneurial oriented will be as a result of
the individual entrepreneurs within the organization. However, the entrepreneurial orientation
construct have been seen primarily as a firm level construct (e.g., Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Due
to the fact that, EO has been seen primarily as a firm level construct, various research works
have developed instruments for measuring individual level entrepreneurial orientation while also
looking into its influence on performance (Kraus, Frese
& Unger, 2005; Kollmann, Christofor & Kuckertz, 2007; Bolton & Lane, 2012;
Vantilborg, Joly & Pepermans, 2015).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
25
For instance, Bolton and Lane (2012) develop an individual entrepreneurial
orientation measure that had a significant correlation with the measures of entrepreneurial
orientation. Vantilborg, Joly and Pepermans, (2015) also found that, using venture life
cycle as a moderator, individual entrepreneurial orientation influenced objective venture
performance. Thus using individual level entrepreneurial orientation as a means of
understanding entrepreneurship within organizations is appropriate. Kraus, Frese and Unger
(2005), using a sample of 248 of small southern Africa business owners found that
individual entrepreneurial orientation was related to business success.
According to Kuratko, Ireland, Covin and Hornsby, (2005), focusing on the
association between individual entrepreneurial orientation and business performance
is therefore an appropriate action. Thus using the multilevel nature of the
entrepreneurial orientation construct as a predictor of team innovation is appropriate.
2.2.3 Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) Influence on Innovation and Performance of
Organizations
Organisations now operate in a liberalised global market where they face competition
from both local and international firms. Among the challenges they now face is the need to
survive and remain competitive. To survive, organizations need to reinvent themselves
constantly in these fast changing markets by taking advantage of competencies that are
available and venturing into new areas through exploitation (Jansen, Van Den Bosch &
Volberda, 2006). Innovation is one of the means through which an organization can reinvent
itself and remain competitive.
To be able to survive in a globally competitive environment, organizations’ should
distinguish themselves through the product and services they offer. In such environment they
have to lead the market, be aggressive, flexible and innovative (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). That
is, in order to remain competitive and be able to survive in the globalised environment,
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
26
firms both small and large should develop and have the ability to innovate in order to have
and maintain a competitive edge (Ireland, Hitt, Camp & Sexton, 2001). Thus to reach the goal
of innovation, an organization must adopt an entrepreneurially oriented posture.
Entrepreneurs lead economic growth through offering of new products, new means of
production and other innovative offerings that serve as a catalyst to economic activities
(Schumpeter, 1936, 1950). According to Barringer and Bluedom (1999), Schumpeter viewed
entrepreneurs as disruptors – they are always looking to improve or replace existing products
as well as methods of production. Thus for firms to remain competitive, survive and/or lead
the market they should be entrepreneurial; that is they should be able to sniff out emerging
trends and opportunities and have the capability to turn these into a financially profitable
venture (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). In a dynamic business environment, firms that are
successful are those that are able to react appropriately to changes in the market space in
order to be able to meet existing business demands and also capable of addressing emerging
ones (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).
According to Hult, Snow and Kandemir (2003) when entrepreneurship is part of an
organization’s DNA they engage in proper exploration and exploitation of resources
available to them in order to adequately leverage and benefit from opportunities that they
identified. The benefits that entrepreneurial activity brings to organizations have is evident
in several research works (Drucker, 1985; Hult et al., 2003; Miller and Friesen, 1982;
Rauch et al., 2009; Oly Ndubisi and Agarwal, 2014).
The interest of scholars in the entrepreneurial orientation construct has run over
several decades, however in my bid to get an informed perspective through literature search,
none of the studies I have come across address the issue of entrepreneurial orientation and
team innovation in small and medium sized enterprises. The available literature primarily
looks at how entrepreneurial orientation affects innovation and organizations performance in
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
27
general.
Using multiple regression to test the relationships between the relationship between
three variables of strategic orientation (Market Orientation, Technology Orientation,
Entrepreneurial Orientation) and organizational performance in the Jordanian
pharmaceutical sector, Ra’ed, Jawaher, Ali, and Obeidat (2018) found that entrepreneurial
orientation contributed the least to organization performance. However, looking at
entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance in Bangladesh, Hoque (2018) determine
that entrepreneurial orientation was significantly related to SME performance. Also using a
Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) technique, Ribau, Moreira
and Raposo (2017) research into SME firms in Portugal found that those who have
entrepreneurial orientation capabilities are better at innovating.
Salavou and Lioukas (2003) conducted a study among SMEs in Greece that
examined antecedents of radical product innovation. Market focus, technological posture and
entrepreneurial orientation were investigated to see how they affect radical product
innovations. The empirical results gathered indicated that, entrepreneurial orientation
dimensions of proactiveness and risk taking explains the choice of radical product
innovations as against incremental product innovations. This study therefore revealed that,
EO rather than the other market focus or technological push factor is the main ingredient that
drives radical product innovations.
In acknowledging the changing nature of the global market space and the need to
remain competitive, Bulut and Yilmaz (2008) examined how the four dimensions of
proactiveness, risk taking, innovativeness and competitive aggressiveness influences
innovative performance in Turkey, a developing economy. A sample of 2032 respondents
was drawn from 312 distinct organizations. The outcome indicated that the entrepreneurial
dimensions of proactiveness and innovativeness greatly influence innovative performance.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
28
The other dimensions (risk taking and competitive aggressiveness) however, did
not have a significant impact on innovative performance.
Khalili, Nejadhussein and Fazel's (2013) research on entrepreneurial orientation
and innovative performance in Iran was an effort to shed more light on whether
entrepreneurial orientation influences innovative performance in public institutions.
Drawing on a sample of 180 employees from a public petrochemical company, the study
showed that the entrepreneurial dimensions of innovativeness, risk taking and autonomy
influenced innovative performance. The same effect was however not observed in the
dimension of proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness.
Oly Ndubisi and Agarwal (2014) examined innovation and entrepreneurial
orientation in order to determine how they affect organizational performance in a small
enterprise context in Asia. They focused on the direct and indirect relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation, innovation and quality performance. The study found that
entrepreneurial orientation dimensions of proactiveness, autonomy and risk taking had a
significant impact on overall innovation. That is, they explained about 59% of variation in
innovation. It therefore revealed that entrepreneurial orientation accounted for a
significant part of innovation in small IT firms in Pakistan.
Miller (1983) argues that for a firm to be called entrepreneurial oriented, it must be able to
able to introduce innovative products unto the market, engage in somewhat risky ventures and
lead its competitors in terms of product introduction. With entrepreneurial orientation, the
suggestion is, a firm must be able to ‘innovate’ in order to meet future demands. However, the
degree or level of a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation dictates the type of innovation
(Schindehutte, Morris & Kocak, 2008). The argument is that for a firm to engage in radical
innovations, it need a high level of entrepreneurial orientation while those who engages in
incremental innovations, entrepreneurial orientation level is low. Entrepreneurial orientation
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
29
have a positive impact on innovations that are considered as having set the pace in their
market area - radical (Zhou, Yim & Tse, 2005). The entrepreneurial orientation dimensions
of proactiveness, risk taking and autonomy bring about innovation that changes the norm
in product innovations in the environment they operate (Lassen, Gertsen & Riis, 2006). It
brings about products that are termed as radical.
Research has shown that entrepreneurial orientation is present at the level of the small
and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Kocak, Carsrud, and Oflazoglu (2017) conducted a
study on 1000 SMEs in Turkey, looking at the effects of entrepreneurial, technology and
market orientations on innovations and performance within the firm. It emerged that,
entrepreneurial orientation was positively related to both radical and incremental innovations
with entrepreneurial orientation impact on radical innovations being higher.
Also in terms of entrepreneurship and innovation, a study was conducted by Popescu
(2014) on SMEs to see any link between these; looking at the contribution of SME business
to economic recovery. SMEs were found to contribute to economic recovery however
Romanian SME commitment to innovation was low. This was manifested in investments
allocated to innovation. Their low commitment to innovation led to about half of SME
firms (46.39%) not generating revenue on new products/services. SMEs within that
particular space were not proactive to the demands and needs of clients and were also
unwilling to invest in research and development activities as they perceived it as expensive.
This goes to buttress the point that, in order to achieve innovation it must be a deliberate
firm level decision taken by management that affects every sector of the firm.
Le Roux and Bengesi (2014) states that markets that were previously
protected in developing countries as a result of trade barriers now face greater competition and
pressure as the trade barriers now longer exists. A study was therefore conducted to
investigate how certain dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation impacts on performance.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
30
The findings show a strong relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance
and that entrepreneurial orientation can account for 72% of the variance in SME performance.
SMEs that are entrepreneurially oriented are therefore able to face external challenges better
and also cope with competition in the open market. Their study, threw light on the fact that, a
proper understanding of these EO dimensions (risk taking, proactiveness and competitive
aggressiveness) focuses SMEs on how they can sustain and improve performance. The paper
further states that, risk taking promotes proactive behaviour which impacts positively on SME
performance while competitive aggressiveness allows these firms to maintain their standard in
terms of performance.
Still on the entrepreneurship and innovative outcomes subject, Liu, Ko, Ngugi, and
Takeda (2017) looked into how proactive entrepreneurial behaviour, market orientation
impact on innovative outcomes in 401 small and medium-sized firms in the manufacturing
sector in the United Kingdom using a cross sectional survey design. This paper went beyond
the linear relationship that exists among entrepreneurial behaviour, market orientation and
innovative performance. Their findings indicated that, there is a curvilinear relationship
between the variables proactive entrepreneurial behaviour and new product development. The
relationship is upward. On the other hand the relationship turned downwards when the
organization drove a customer and competitor orientation agenda.
These studies draw a link between the organizations’ entrepreneurial orientation
and their ability to innovative. Their focus has generally being on the organization’s
innovative performance or introduction of innovative products. To my knowledge no study
has sought to investigate and link entrepreneurial orientation to innovation in work teams.
2.2.3 Team Innovation and Organizational Performance
In this current competitive complex global work environment, organizations face
challenging demands. In order to successfully manage organizations and ensure its survival,
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
31
teams within the organization should be able to create new ideas, reform and optimize
the enterprise, be innovative and thus help the organization to survive through internal
operations and organization culture.
Lin, Chuang, Chang, and Yeh (2012) conducted a study that sought to find out the
relationship between team innovation and organizational innovation. Their aim was to
determine how team innovation influences organizational innovation and whether
organization culture moderates that relationship. They realized that, team innovation had a
significant and positive relationship with organizational innovation and that organizational
culture influences the direction of this relationship as it had a significant and positive
relationship with organizational innovation. Team innovation is therefore seen as key to the
growth of the firm. It is generally accepted that a firm’s innovation creates wealth and ensures
its growth (Nonaka & Yamanouchi, 1989; Peter Drucker, 1985).
The Ghanaian economy is currently grappling with issues of unemployment.
Therefore SMEs, who are a major contributor to our GDP, ought to be able to rely on
team innovations to create new products, services, processes and strategies to meet this
challenge. This study will help us uncover whether entrepreneurial orientation can
bring about team innovation.
2.2.4 Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SME Research in the Ghana
A considerable number of researches have been conducted to investigate the
relationship between entrepreneurship and local private businesses and how they influence
Africa’s economic growth (Spring & McDade 1998; Bowditch 1999; Kinunda-Rutashobya
& Olomi 1999, Agbaw 2000, Mshomba 2000; McDade 2003; as cited in McDaDe &
Spring, 2005). According to McDaDe and Spring (2005), not much research has focus on
entrepreneurship in the medium and large formalized business sector. Most of the study on
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
32
entrepreneurship in the African setting has focused on entrepreneurs within the
micro and small-scale business in the informal traditional and formal sector.
According to Osei, Yunfei, Appienti and Forkuoh (2016) even though several
governments in the developing economies has put in policies to stimulate innovation and
growth among SMEs, the level of innovation among SMEs is low compared to those in
the developed economies. In Ghana the government has always been interested in
supporting local businesses (Robson, Haugh & Obeng, 2009). For instance in 2010, the
government of Ghana introduced an innovation policy (Osei, Yunfei, Appienti & Forkuoh,
2016). The introduction of the National Entrepreneurship and Innovation Plan (NEIP) in
2017 by the Ghana government is an evidence of their effort to ensure entrepreneurship
and innovation among SMEs in Ghana.
Quaye and Acheampong (2013), state that there is need for empirical investigation
into Ghanaian SMEs in order to identify entrepreneurial business. They posit that an
observation on the Ghanaian market paints a picture of business not being entrepreneurial
as majority of the products on the market are imported. There are studies in the Ghanaian
context that investigate entrepreneurship and innovation in SMEs.
Quaye and Acheampong (2013), themselves used Covin and Slevin
unidimensional view of measuring entrepreneurial orientation to examine whether
Ghanaian SME owners in the services, trade, manufacturing and agro – processing sector
are entrepreneurs. The study looked at the innovativeness, risk taking and proactive
behaviours of SME owners. The sample comprised of 300 individuals who owned SME
organizations. In the final analysis, they came to the conclusion that, in Ghana those who
own and run SME organizations did not take risk or exhibit any form of innovativeness.
With the view that, the outcome of entrepreneurship is innovation, the conclusion was
drawn that in SME owners cannot be described as entrepreneurs.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
33
Adding to that knowledge, Alembummah (2015) conducted a study to examine the
influence of entrepreneurial orientation on growth of SMEs in the food processing sector
in Ghana. Unlike Quaye and Acheampong (2013), Lumpkin and Dess (1996) multi
dimensional EO concept was used to examine that relationship. It was found that SMEs in
the food processing sector exhibits EO dimensions of proactiveness and competitive
aggressiveness but not innovativeness, risk-taking and autonomy.
In terms of entrepreneurship and innovation, Robson, Haugh and Obeng (2009)
studied innovation activities in 496 entrepreneurs in Ghana. They observed that innovation
was related to the entrepreneur educational level, firm size, export activities and also
innovation activities was greater in organizations sighted in conurbations as against
organizations who operate primarily in large and small areas. Also the incidence of
incremental innovation was far greater than that of novel innovation. SME organizations that
fell within the employee strength range of 4-50 were studied. Level of education being
associated with innovation falls in line with (Hausman’s 2005) findings that firms managed by
individuals with no formal education and limited experience were less innovative.
With the widely acknowledge truth that, SMEs are the engines of growth for both
developed and developing economies, Osei, Yunfei, Appienti and Forkuoh (2016) conducted
a study in Ghana to gauge how product innovativeness affects SMEs performance. It was
found out that, product innovation especially the introduction of new products has a very
significant influence on firm’s performance. This result speaks to the importance of
innovation in the Ghanaian SME sector. For Ghanaian SME firms to be able to survive and
grow, deliberate effort should be made to ensure their ability to innovate. Stated studies
shows that, through entrepreneurial orientation innovation can be achieved and this will
allow the Ghanaians SMEs to compete and survive in the global market space.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
34
2.2.5 National Culture as a Moderator on the Relationship between Entrepreneurial
Orientation and Innovation.
Entrepreneurial behaviour is impacted by national culture (Hayton, George, &
Zahra, 2002). The tendency to take risk, accept uncertainty which are features of
entrepreneurial behaviour is influenced by cultural values of the individual (Hayton &
Cacciotti, 2014). Thus the social beliefs and values that hinder or reward innovation,
risk taking and creativity will impact on entrepreneurial behaviour.
As touched on in the introduction, culture has not been looked at extensively as a
moderator in the entrepreneurial orientation literature. Employees with their own personal
experiences are nested within organizations nested within societies. Employee character,
beliefs and value system is likely to be shaped by the culture in which he or she is embedded
and other prior experiences he or she has been exposed to (Schwartz, 1992; Triandis, 1994).
It has been reported that our principles or standard of behaviour can be traced to our national
culture (Hofstede, 1991), organizational culture (Feldman, 1976), and our individual prior
experiences (Schwartz, 1992). That is, culture exists on various levels; being the national
and organizational levels (Fayolle, Basso & Bouchard, 2010) and there is the accepted view
that they influence each other (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez & Gibson, 2005). Even though
organizations have their distinct culture, they are influenced by the culture in which they
operate (Hofstede, 1991).
Since the performance of an organizations hinges on the competencies and orientation
of its employees, it thus stand to reason that, their (employees) cultural orientations affects
the firm and its entrepreneurial orientation (Rauch, Wiklund, Frese & Lumpkin, 2004).
Entrepreneurial spirit is shown to be affected by cultural values. For instance, in
the United States of America, individualism has been associated with a high
level of entrepreneurial drive (Morris, Davis, & Allen, 1994).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
35
A broad cross country study involving nine nations examined how national
culture influences entrepreneurial orientation and it was found that when organizations
that operates in individualistic nations interacts with market turbulence, individualistic
nations tend to be more entrepreneurially oriented than their collectivists counterparts
(Engelen, Schmidt, & Buchsteiner, 2015). A number of studies have examined the
link between culture and innovation. Positive association has been found between
cultural individualism and innovation (Kaasa, Vardi & Varblane, 2013)
Hofstede (1980) noted that low power distance are less structured and hierarchical,
this feature influences innovation positively. According to Hofstede (1980) when countries
that are individualistic as well as hold low power distance orientation, their level of innovation
increases. Shane (1993) also indicates individualistic economies that are more tolerant of
uncertainty and have low power distance attain greater performance in innovation.
Conflicting findings however exists when it comes to the cultural dimension of power
distance and innovation. A negative association between power distance and innovation has
been established (Vecchi & Brennan, 2009; Kaasa, 2013). This runs contrary to Hofstede (1984)
and Shane’s (1993) report of a positive association between low power distance societies and
innovation. Vecchi and Brennan (2009) bring into question, the reported findings of Shane
(1993) that the high hierarchical nature of high power distance inhibits creative thinking by their
imposition of a rigid top down approach. Vecchi and Brennan
(2009) suggest that the high power distance cultural dimension might serve as a means of
inducing a creative environment to unearth innovative solutions at the lowest level (bottom
up) probably as a means of circumventing the lack of flexibility associated with a highly
structured bureaucratic society. High power distance has also been argued to aid entrepreneurs
in successfully implementing their innovation policies as the employees are highly likely to
adhere to the vision and new ideas of the entrepreneur owner of a firm (Rauch et al., 2010).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
36
Generally, organizations operating in a high power distance economies tend to be more
innovative as shown on the national innovation index (Vecch & Brennan, 2009).
A number of research work has unearth the indirect role power distance play on a
firm or a nation’s innovation performance as they interact with other factors or resources
(Grinstein, 2008; Efrat, 2014). According to Grinstein (2008) in his study of market
orientation and innovation consequences, it was observed that in nations with culture that
are characterized by high individualism and power distance orientation, market orientation
has a greater influence on innovation. Efrat (2014) further added to that, by reporting that
national culture has an influence on either local or multinational enterprises ability to engage
in innovation activities. Efrat (2014) identified individualism, masculinity and uncertainty
avoidance as strong indicators of the ability to innovate, however, power distance did not
carry the similar influence.
Cultural orientation moderating effects on entrepreneurial orientation and subsequent
outcomes have also been reported. There are studies that have examined the individualism-
collectivism role as a moderator between entrepreneurial activity and subsequent outcomes
(Kreiser, Kuratko & Weaver, 2013). For instance, Marino et al. (2002) examined the
moderating role of cultural dimension on SMEs entrepreneurial orientation and propensity to
form alliances. The results showed that in collectivist culture there was a stronger positive
relationship between SMEs entrepreneurial orientation and tendency to use alliances than in
individualistic cultures. Kreiser, Marino and Kuratko (2013) also investigated the non linear
relationships between the entrepreneurial orientation dimensions of proactiveness, risk
taking and innovativeness on SMEs performance. Kreiser, Marino and Kuratko (2013) found
that the national cultural dimension of individualism moderated the relationships between
proactiveness and performance as well as innovativeness and performance in small and
medium sized enterprises. The influence of the cultural dimensions (power distance,
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
37
individualis-collectivism) on innovation has been made apparent by these stated
studies and a host of others not directly stated in this instant study.
In the stated literature above, the cultural dimensions were examined at the national
but not the individual level. Also in most of the studies, national culture direct influence on
innovation was studied, not its moderating influence. The circumstance where the cultural
dimension was looked at as a moderator, the outcome variable on which it was tested was
not team innovation. In the organizational setting, the generally accepted and practiced way
of designing and structuring work is in a team setting. The dynamics involved in a team
situation differs quite a bit from that of the individual; it thus gives greater impetus to the
need to look at the moderating role of individual cultural orientation on a team outcome.
This instant study will therefore be filling a void which I have not come across in my
literature search particularly in the Ghanaian setting.
2.2.6 Summary of Literature Reviewed
Research indicates that entrepreneurial orientation is present at all levels of the
organization. For instance, Felnhoffer (2016) research on organizational pervasiveness of
entrepreneurial orientation indicated the presence of entrepreneurial orientation among
work group leaders and members. To add to that, a lot of scholarly work on entrepreneurial
orientation shows its ability to influence performance (Rauch et al., 2009). A study (Salavou
& Lioukas, 2003) looking at entrepreneurial orientation among Greek SMEs using the
unidimensional approach found that, entrepreneurial orientation greatly influences radical
product innovation. In a different study, the dimensions of proactiveness and innovativeness of
entrepreneurial orientation were found to influence innovative performance within
organizations (Bulut &Yilmaz, 2008). Buli (2017), researched on SME managers in Ethiopia in
order to find whether entrepreneurial and market orientation leads to superior performance.
Using the unidimensional approach, the results indicated that, all the dimensions except
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
38
innovativeness positively affected SMEs performance. Liu, Ko, Ngugi, and Takeda (2017)
further found that proactive entrepreneurial behaviour have a positive influence on new product
development. Another study done in Ghana focusing on entrepreneurial orientation at the level
of the firm found that SME owners in were not risk takers and innovative (Quaye &
Acheampong, 2013). Even though the studies conducted drew valid conclusion, majority of
them looked at entrepreneurial orientation at the level of the firm. , Fellnhofer, Puumalainen and
Sjögrén (2017) has however called for investigation as to how entrepreneurial orientation
manifests itself at all levels of the organisation especially in the SME sector.
In terms of the moderating influence of culture on innovation, the influence of
the cultural dimensions of power distance, collectivism were measured at the national
level (eg., Efrat, 2014; Kreiser, Marino and Kuratko 2013). This study approach of
measuring individual cultural orientation will help prevent ecological fallacy which is
likely to happen when culture was measured at the national level.
2.3 Rationale of the Study
Entrepreneurship and its importance to the growth in Africa is seen in the
increasing number of research being done in that area but there have not been a particular
focus on innovation (Robson, Haugh & Obeng, 2009). Research studies exist that looks at
how entrepreneurial orientation influences innovative performance. To the best of my
knowledge, no study exists in the Ghanaian setting that looks at entrepreneurial orientation
and team innovation. The changing nature of the work environment to more of team based
makes it paramount for team level variables to be assessed. Work is now structured at the
level of the team (Lievens, Van Dam & Anderson 2002).
Majority of the studies done mainly investigated how firm level entrepreneurial
orientation affects organization performance or innovation (see, Bulut & Yilmaz, 2008;
Salavou & Lioukas, 2003; Schindehutte, Morris & Kocak, 2008). There are concerns that
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
39
calls for the need to investigate whether entrepreneurial orientation cuts across all levels
of the organisation; be it individual or groups ( see, Joardar & Wu, 2011; Bolton 2012;
Covin and Miller 2013). Is entrepreneurial orientation a construct that can be said to be
possessed by individual employees or teams?
According to Felnhoffer, Puumalainen, and Sjögrén (2017), the studies that have
looked at entrepreneurial orientation at the individual or work group level are not
sufficient. They argued that, while entrepreneurial orientation is seen as a construct that
cuts across all levels of the organization, its influence at the lower levels of organizations
(subordinate levels) has largely been neglected. There are solid reasons for studies to
also probe how employees view entrepreneurial orientation at various levels of the
organization. They therefore called for the need for further research to be done in this
regard especially in SME organizations.
It is generally accepted that humans are all not the same. They are individual traits
that make human stand out from each other. On the other hand there are certain underlying
tendencies that lead to a group of people being described as similar and likely to act in a
particular way. Thus drawing inference of a possible human behaviour is likely to be made
a bit easier if the individual can be classified as a part of a particular group. Such
underlying traits have been referred to as ‘culture’. According to Hofstede (2001) culture
can be viewed as a common (similar mindset) of behaving which set apart members of one
group (human) from other groups. Culture basically serves as an identifier to distinguish
different group of people. Hofstede went ahead to named five dimensions on which groups
differ. These are; individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
masculinity-femininity. and long-term-short-term orientation. Employees’ idiosyncrasies
are likely to be shaped by the culture in which they are embedded. This will influence their
behaviour and likely to impact on the work their work behaviour.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
40
According to Hayton, George, and Zahra (2002) entrepreneurship draws largely on
the national cultural characteristics; however, the impact of national culture on corporate
entrepreneurship (entrepreneurial orientation) is under researched. National culture goes a
long way to determine how opportunities are exploited. Fayolle, Basso, and Bouchard
(2010) also found that not much attention has been paid to cultural variables when it comes
to research in corporate entrepreneurship (entrepreneurial orientation). Due to the fact that
national culture has not be looked at adequately as a moderator when it comes to
entrepreneurial orientation, the cultural dimensions of power distance and collectivism will
be used as moderators in this study.
This study is unique in the sense that it focuses on cultural orientation at the individual
level. Most studies that use national culture (e.g., power distance and collectivism) as moderators
examined it at the national level (e.g., Engelen, Schmidt, & Buchsteiner,
2015). The focus on individual cultural dimension is prudent to do so because in
managerial situations, how culture is perceived at the personal (individual) level is more
important and relevant (Kamakura & Novak 1992; Kamakura & Mazzon 1991).
Also in Ghana, the studies that I have come across examined entrepreneurial
orientation as an organizational level construct and did not investigate it influence through
the various levels of the organization (see, Alemmbummah, 2015; Quaye &Acheampong,
2013). Undertaking this study is important as Felnhoffer, Puumalainen, and Sjögrén
(2017) state that a gap exists when it comes to investigating entrepreneurial orientation at
various levels within SMEs.
2.4 Statement of Hypotheses
• H1: Firm’s EO will be positively and significantly related to the individual EO.
• H2. Individual EO will be positively and significantly related to team innovation.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
41
Power
Distance and
Collectivism
Team
Entrepreneurial
Orientation
• H3.Team members’ perception of their team leader’s EO and team innovation will be
significantly and positively related.
• H4. There will be a significant and positive relationship between the team
EO and team innovation.
• H5. Power distance and collectivism orientation will moderate the relationship
between individual EO, team leader EO, team EO and team innovation.
2.5 Conceptual Model
Extant literature has revealed that entrepreneurial orientation has a positive
correlation with organization performance whether looked at as a uni or multidimensional
construct (Wójcik-karpacz, 2016). Also, studies have also established the fact that,
entrepreneurial orientation is a multilevel construct (see Felnhoffer, 2016).Thus based on the
reviewed lliterature which also touched on the relevance of undertaking a moderation
analysis, the following relationships will be established among the various variables.
Team leader
Entrepreneurial Team
Orientation innovation
Individual
Firm
Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial
Orientation Orientation
Figure 1: Hypothesized model of the study variables
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
42
2.6 Operational definition of terms
Individual entrepreneurial orientation: A set of unique but closely related
behaviours that is exhibited by an employee at the work place characterised
by the dimensions of proactiveness, innovativeness, risk taking and
autonomy. Team leader entrepreneurial orientation: The work place
behaviours exhibited by the team leader that has the related but distinct
qualities of innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking and autonomy.
Team entrepreneurial orientation: The exhibition of the distinct and related
behaviours of innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness and autonomy at the
work place by the work team.
Firm entrepreneurial orientation: the tendency of the firm to act be proactive
in their actions, be prepared to take risk, promote innovative and autonomous
work behaviour.
Team: Individual employees not less than two embedded within a group for a
minimum of six months working and relying on each other to achieve a
common determined objective with a recognised leader in place.
Small and medium enterprise: Refers to enterprises that are properly structured,
operates in a registered office, have paid employees and with an employee
number not more than ninety nine (99).
Power distance: Refers to the relationship that exist between superior and
subordinate in organizations and the extent to which less powerful
individuals (subordinates) accept that power is distributed unequally.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
43
Collectivism: Refers to the whether the employees sees themselves as
part of the working group (team) and look out for the group’s interest or
view themselves as distinct and look out for their own interest.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
44
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This section describes the research processes involved in undertaking this study. It
explains in detail the reasoning behind why certain processes were followed. It talks about the
research design, the population and sample characteristics as well as the sampling technique
employed. The research instruments used to study the constructs under study were also
appropriately described. The procedures followed in terms of the pilot study processes, the main
study and ethical consideration taken into account were also touched on extensively.
3.1 Research Design
A quantitative cross sectional survey design was used for this study. A cross –
sectional survey was chosen because respondents from various SMEs with different
demographic characteristics such as educational background, experience level, sex etc were
sampled. This method was appropriate as it allowed for primary data to be collected from
population too large to be observed directly (Babbie, 2004). The quantitative cross sectional
survey method was used as it is a method that can explain the relationships that exists
between the variables (dependent and independent) as well allow for data to be collected at a
single point in time from respondents (Cresswell, 2012). Quantitative study also allows for
relationships that exist with regard to the phenomenon under study to be established,
empirically measured and explained statistically (Boateng, 2014; Hultman, 2008).
3.2 Research Setting
The research setting was the Greater Accra Region, primarily Accra and Tema.
Tema is often described as the industry city of Ghana as a lot of industries are located there.
Accra is also the nation’s capital with majority of the businesses located there. According to
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
45
Alembummah (2015) in Ghana, over 55% of the SMEs are in the Greater Accra Region.
Innovation activities are believed to be higher among SMEs in conurbations (Robson, Haugh
& Obeng, 2009). The Greater Accra Region possesses this feature, thus it grants another solid
reason to carry out this study in this particular region. The setting allowed us to have access to
SME firms in various sectors such as building and construction, IT/software, advertising etc.
The questionnaire was sent to the premises of various SME firms and at the end,
valid data was collected from 31 SME firms.
3.3 Population
The population of study was the organized SME sector in the Greater Accra Region.
The SME sector was selected because they play a vital role in the Ghanaian economy. SMEs
are job creators, engage in innovation and help in poverty reduction. According to Abor and
Quartey (2010), SMEs account for about 92% of businesses in Ghana and their contribution to
Ghana’s GDP stands at 70%. The bulk of Ghana’s employed labour force are within the SME
sector, and they are the pillar on which the private sector rest (Hayford, 2010).
SMEs in Ghana fall within two categories; the urban and rural with the former
further divided into the ‘organized’ and the ‘unorganized’ enterprise. This study solely
targeted or chose the organized SMEs because they operate in a registered office, have
employees who are paid and also were properly structured. (Abor & Quartey, 2010). This
did not involve the ‘unorganized SMEs’ because they mainly operate in wooden
structures, or at home, in an open environment (spaces) and usually employ a couple of
workers or have no salaried workers on their books ( Abor & Quartey, 2010).
This study focus was on teams so the organized SMEs who took part in the study had
to meet certain criteria. The employees who took part in the study were part of a functional
team. The teams had a recognised leader and both the team leader and his or her members
must have been together for a minimum of six months. These criteria were used because team
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
46
members had to assess their leader entrepreneurial behaviour. Both the team leader and
the members also had to assess the team’s entrepreneurial behaviour. The criteria
outlined ensured that the team leader and the members had an adequate idea on the
constructs they were being asked to assess each other due to the working relationship
that would have developed.
3.4 Sample and Sampling technique.
A sample represents a small fraction of the population under study that is selected
randomly to serve as a representative of the whole (Buckingham & Saunders 2004;
Sansonetti, 2004). This allows generalization to be made to the population under study.
Teams were therefore purposively and conveniently selected from a cross section of
organized SME firms in the Greater Accra. The teams were purposively sampled because
the study had to meet the criteria of at least having being together for six months and had a
recognised leader. Sixty one (61) teams from thirty two (32) organized SMEs in the Greater
Accra Region were used. A minimum of three and a maximum of six team members
responded. A minimum of 5 and a maximum of 9 made of the teams that were sampled.
From the returned data, a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of 7 team members
responded to the questionnaire.
Acccording to Stevens (1996) for an equation to be relied upon in social sciences
when conducting a study at the team level, fifteen respondents are needed per a predictor.
This study had three predictors. The sixty three (teams) used in this study therefore meet the
requirement set out by Stevens (1996). Using Stevens reasoning, this study exceeded the
minimum requirement set out. For the purposes of external validity, a large sample size is
recommended (Opoku, 2012). A response rate of 61.43% was thus achieved. The mean age of
the employees was 29.3 with the oldest employee at 55 years.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
47
The convenience and purposive sampling technique was utilized in this study.
Organizations that fell within the SME sector were approached. Those that agreed to partake
in the study after being approached and the purpose of the research explained to them were
used. In order to get the characteristics as specified, that is, a working team who had been
together for at least six (6) months and had a recognized leader, the purposive sampling
technique was also employed. This ensured that the criteria set was met.
The sample comprises of one hundred and eleven (111) males and ninety one (91)
females with a percentage of 55% and 45% respectively. The sector which accounted for the
least sample was manufacturing, i.e., 4.5% with the services sector accounting for the
highest, making up 48% of the sample. Majority of the employees, i.e. 62.4% have been with
their organization between one to five (1-5) years with those who have been with their
organization for more than sixteen (16) years being in the minority as they account for just
2.5% of the total sample. Majority of the data was also collected from the medium sized
SMEs as they account for 63.4% of the sample. This can be attributed to the fact that, the
sample of interest for the current research are employees who are embedded within teams
and the medium sized organized SMEs usually allowed for the employees to be organized
into teams. 73.8% of the employees within the collected sample have tertiary education. They
are the highest group. A tabular representation (Table 1) of the explained characteristics has
been presented on the next page.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
48
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of sample
Characteristics N (%)
Gender
Female 91 (45%)
Male 111 (55%)
Education
Other 2 (1%)
SHS 13 (6.4%)
Diploma Certificate 15 (7.4%)
Polytechnic 18 (8.9%)
University 149 (73.8%)
Sector
Trade 9 (4.5%)
Manufacturing 13(6.4%)
Advertising 16(7.9%)
Building and Construction 19 (9.4%)
Software/IT/Technology 47(23.3%)
Services 97(48%)
Firm Size
Micro (1-5) 4(2%)
Small (6-29) 70(34.7%)
Medium (30-99) 128(63.4%)
Employee tenure
6months – 11months 47(23.3%)
1 year - 5years 126(62.4%)
6 -15years 18(8.9%)
16 and above 5 (2.5%)
3.5 Measures
Questionnaire was used to assess the constructs under study. The questionnaire
consisted of four (4) different sections. Section one (1) was used to assess the demographic
characteristics of respondents. Section two (2) had various sub sections up to section 2d. This
was used to assess the predictor/independent variables. Section 3 and 4 were used to assess
the outcome/dependent variable (team innovation) and moderating (power distance and
collectivism) variables respectively.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
49
3.5.1 Section 1 Demographic Characteristic
This section was used in order to get a fair idea on the type of respondents in the
study and also solicit information about certain variables that may need to be controlled when
analyzing the predictor variables against the outcome variable. Information solicited included
but not limited to age, sex, organization size, organization sector, educational background etc.
3.5.2 Section 2 Team Leader’s Entrepreneurial Orientation
The team leader EO was measured using a 13 item scale adapted by Fellnhofer,
Puumalainen and Sjögrén, (2017) (α = .95). Responses were scored on a seven-point scale
from ‘strongly disagree’ = 1 to ‘strongly agree’ = 7. Some of the items are; “My team
leader excels at identifying opportunities”, “Our team leader considers working
independently to enhance creative thinking”. Fellnhofer et al., (2017) adapted their scale
from that of Covin and Slevin (1989b) and Hughes et al. (2007b). The scale taps into
domains such as risk taking behaviour, proactiveness, autonomy and innovativeness of
the team leader. The Cronbach’s alpha obtained for this study was .80
3.5.3 Team level Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO)
The team level EO was measured using a 14 item scale adapted by Fellnhofer et al.,
(2017) (α = .93). Responses were on scored on a seven-point scale from ‘strongly disagree’
= 1 to ‘strongly agree’ = 7. Some of the items are; “My team excels at identifying
opportunities”, “My team initiates actions to which other teams respond”. This scale was
initially adapted by Fellnhofer et al.,(2017) from Hughes et al. (2007a) fourteen item
scale. The Cronbach’s alpha obtained for this study was .72
3.5.3 Firm level Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO)
The firm level EO was measured using a 14 item scale adapted by Fellnhofer et al.,
(2016) with α = .91 from the EO scale developed by Covin and Slevin (1989); and adopted by
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
50
Wales et al. (2013). Responses were on scored on a seven-point scale from ‘strongly disagree’
= 1 to ‘strongly agree’ = 7. Some of the items are; “My firm always tries to take the initiative
in every situation”, “My firm typically initiate action to which competitors then respond”. The
Cronbach’s alpha obtained for this study was .74
3.5.4 Individual Level Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO)
The individual level was measured using a 17 item scale adapted by Fellnhofer,
Puumalainen & Sjögrén, (2017) with a reported Cronbach’s alpha of .92. Felnhoffer et al.,
(2016) scale was also adapted originally from a firm level EO by Covin and Slevin (1989b).
One can score between 7 and 119 with a higher score indicating that there respondent posses
a high level of the variable. This scale was modified into the individual level by Langkamp
Bolton and Lane (2012) and Bolton (2012). Responses were on scored on a seven-point scale
from ‘strongly disagree’ = 1 to ‘strongly agree’ = 7. Some of the items are; “I excel at
identifying opportunities and tend to plan ahead on projects”, “I often like to try new and
unusual activities that are not typical and place strong emphasis on innovative and creative
ideas”. Cronbach alpha of .74 was obtained.
3.5.5 Team Innovation
Team innovation was measured using a combination of De Dreu and West’s
(2001) four-item scale and Tjosvold, Tang, and West’s (2004) two items with α = .90.
Some of the items are; “Team members often produce new services, methods or
procedures”, “Team members often implement new ideas to improve quality of our
products and services”. Responses was scored on a five-point scale from ‘strongly
disagree’ = 1 to ‘strongly agree’ = 5. Cronbach alpha = .80
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
51
3.5.6 Power Distance and Collectivism Cultural Dimension
The CVSCALE is a 26-item five-dimensional scale of individual cultural values
that assesses Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance,
collectivism/individualism, long-term orientation and power distance) at the individual level.
This study was interested in the power distance and collectivism dimension. The Power
distance dimension was measured on 5 items with α = .69 and collectivism on 6 items with α
= .80. Response was scored on a five-point likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ = 1 to ‘strongly
agree’ = 5. A sample item for the power distance dimension is; “People in higher positions
should make most decisions without consulting people in lower positions” and for the
collectivism is; “Individuals should sacrifice self-interest for the group”. The Cronbach’s
alpha obtained for power distance and collectivism were .83 amd .80 respectively.
3.6 Procedure
In order to undertake the study, these processes were followed. A pilot study
was initially conducted, followed by the substantive (main) study.
3.6.1 Piloting
To identify various issues that might be faced in conducting the main study, a pilot study
was conducted. The pilot study allows for pretesting or ‘trying out’ the instrument to be used in
the study (Baker, 1994). According to Teijlingen and Hundley (2001), the need for a pilot study
is emphasized in some of these reasons; developing and testing the adequacy of the research
instrument, assessing whether conducting a full scale study or survey is feasible, help in
designing a research protocol and assessing whether the protocol is appropriate. Basically it helps
in unearthing any difficulties that might crop up in the main study and appropriate remedies put
in place in order to address the said issues. This will ensure the suitability of the questionnaire
and the likely success of the said project. In undertaking the pilot study, ethical
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
52
clearance that also covers the prospective main study was obtained from the
Ethics Committee for the Humanities (ECH) at University of Ghana, Legon.
A sample of 30 individuals within teams was therefore conveniently and purposively
sample from organized SMEs organizations within the Greater Accra region and used for the
pilot study. The teams were purposively sampled. This allowed for the reliability of the research
instrument to be tested and also to ensure that the items were clearly understood. After
collecting the data, the Cronbach’s alpha values of the scales were assessed. For the scales used
in the pilot study, their Cronbach’s alpha values were above the .70 as recommended by
Nunnally (1978); this indicates internal consistency that is acceptable.
3.6.2 Main Study
The targeted population of the study were organized SME organizations operating
in the Greater Accra Region. An introductory letter from the Psychology Department of the
University of Ghana detailing the nature and purpose of study as well as approved ethical
clearance was obtained. A list comprising of SME organizations was obtained from the
National Entrepreneurial and Innovation Plan (NEIP) agency. This was followed up by
calling up the listed organizations. Some of the organizations agreed with the requested
meeting in order to furnish them with further details concerning the study while others
requested for the introductory letter in addition with a sample of the questionnaire to be
sent to them for further studies.
Questionnaires were thus sent to organizations that agreed to partake in the study. In
addition to depending on the provided list from NEIP, other SME organizations across
various sectors were conveniently sampled by obtaining their details online or physically
going to their office premises. In such instances, an introductory letter is physically sent to the
Human Resource department to obtained permission to undertake the study. However, in
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
53
some of the organizations, the office managers instead of the Human Resource
department were briefed and the purpose of the research properly explained to them
before permission was granted.
After permission is granted for the questionnaire to be distributed within the
organization, the inclusion criteria (must be in a team, team must have a leader,
employees must have been with the team for not less than 6 months) is clearly explained
to the authorizing authority and those that falls within the said framework were allowed to
take part. However, in the demographic section, to serve as an additional checked,
information such as number of years an employee has been with the team is solicited.
Those that provided answer that indicated they had been with the team for less than 6
months were excluded from the analysis.
Also to be able to identify the specific team a respondent belongs to separate
envelopes were provided to be given to each specific team. Also, as an additional check,
there was an item that requires that you indicate the team you belong to, this served as an
additional check as it allowed respondents to be placed in the right team. Information about
the study and also instructions as to how to fill the questionnaire was duly provided. Since the
respondents were all literate, there was an inform consent section which the respondents were
to read and sign before they were proceeded to answer the questionnaire. No respondent was
coerced to partake in the study. Their participation was voluntary.
In order to ensure anonymity, respondents were specifically instructed not to write
their names or use any markings or identifier that might lead to them be identified.
Questionnaires were given out in sealed envelope and responses collected in similar
manner. The questionnaire were left with the respondents as they were given a week to fill
them. However, some of the questionnaires took more than a week to fill, thus the
collection of the entire questionnaire took about one (1) month and three weeks.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
54
Two hundred and fifteen (215) out of the three hundred and fifty (350) physical
questionnaires distributed were returned. Two hundred and two (202) of the returned
questionnaires were used in the data analysis. The thirteen (13) questionnaires not used were
made out of three (teams). The questionnaires were also transformed into a Google forms
format and sent out to about 10 different SMEs. This format had to be later abandoned as
the responses that came could not be placed in their distinct teams even though there were
specific instructions on using labels to identify the teams were given. Fifteen online
responses were received, two questionnaires were not answered and the remaining 13 could
not be placed in specific teams. At the end of our data collection, the valid data collected on
the individuals in the various teams were from five (5) sectors in the SME landscape.
3.7 Ethical Considerations
Deliberate and careful measures were taken in order to ensure that in conducting this
research the directions and guidelines as outlined in the American Psychological Association
(APA, 2002) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct were adhered to when
the research involves human participants. As stated in its preamble, the ethics code is intended
to provide a blueprint that allows for clearly stated standards to guide situations encountered by
psychologists. The goal is to safeguard and protect the welfare of individuals and groups with
whom psychologists work. Attached to this is the education of members, students, and the
public pertaining to ethical standards of the discipline.
In order to carry the said research, a research proposal was duly presented to the
Ethics Committee of the Humanities (ECH) to seek approval and obtain ethical
clearance. This process was followed after approval was granted by the Department of
Psychology on behalf of the Board of Directors of Graduate Studies. On approval and
subsequent granting of ethical clearance by ECH the targeted institutions were
approached with the necessary documents.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
55
The institutions were given the relevant and required information pertaining to the
nature and purpose of study, expected duration, procedures, information on their right to
decline or withdraw, incentives, prospective research benefits and people to contact for
further clarification. Proper steps were taken to ensure that respondents did not provide
any information that will lead to their identity being known. Thus anonymity and
confidentiality were ensured.
3.8 Data Analyses
All the analyses were done using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 21. The stated hypotheses were tested using the most appropriate statistical method.
Hypothesis one was tested using the Pearson Product’s Moment correlation coefficient as
the study was looking to establish whether a relationship existed between the individual
entrepreneurial orientation and firm entrepreneurial orientation. Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 were
tested using a hierarchical multiple regression. The basis for using the hierarchical multiple
regression was because certain demographic variables were controlled in the bid to find out
whether these predictor variables (individual entrepreneurial orientation, team leader
entrepreneurial orientation and team entrepreneurial orientation) influences the outcome
variable (team innovation). In the analysis, the team and firm entrepreneurial orientations
were treated as independent variables and used to examine how they influenced the
outcome. This therefor made the analysis used to be appropriate since we are measuring
individual level perception on certain variables such as team entrepreneurial orientation.
For hypothesis 5 in order to test for the moderating effect of power distance and
collectivism, hierarchical multiple regression was used. This allowed for the various
variables of interest to be entered in blocks and their interaction effect measured.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
56
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.0 Introduction
The main aim of the study was to examine the influence of entrepreneurial
orientation (EO) on team innovation within the Ghanaian SME space. Bearing in mind
that, the cultural orientation of power distance and collectivism were used as moderators,
they were also analyzed to determine whether they influence the variables under study or
not. Multiple regression analysis was also done to see whether the hypotheses stated would
be supported or not. All the analyses were done using the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 21. This chapter will also detail the preliminary analysis done
before the main analysis was carried out.
4.1 Preliminary Analyses
In conducting the regression analyses, certain prescribed preliminary analyses
were done. Reliability analysis, descriptive statistics, tests of normality and assumptions of
collinearity were computed for the study variables. The relationships among the study
variables were analysed using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients.
According to Field (2009), the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) should not be more than
10. The Tolerance values should also not be less than .2 (Field, 2009). These recommendations
were met in this study. The largest VIF was 3.04 with the least tolerance value being .33. None
of the correlations between the predictors was also greater than .80. These values show that the
predictors are not highly correlated. It thus makes it suitable for regression analysis to be
carried out. In order to test for the presence of common method bias, Harman’s single factor
test was conducted. The result of the exploratory factor analysis after constraining the number
of factors to be one and using an unrotated solution state that
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
57
approximately 32% of the variance is explained by a single factor. This indicates that, the data
does not suffer from a common method bias issue because the variance explained by a single
factor is less than 50%.
Using the SPSS statistical tool, the Skewness and Kurtosis of the data were
determined. Garson (2012) points out that, normality is acceptable when the Skewness and
Kurtosis fall within the range of +2 to -2. Garson further went on to state that in the case
of kurtosis, a range of +3 and -3 is even acceptable. The data used in this analysis fell
within the acceptable ranges suggested as indicated in table 2.
In conducting any study, the reliability of the instruments used should be above
.70 (Nunnally, 1978). The various instrument used in this study all had
reliability indications above .70. Find results as indicated in table 2.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics and reliability
Variable Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Alpha
Team innovation 24.48 4.26 -1.100 2.077 .80
Individual EO 91.52 15.82 -.641 .523 .74
Team leader EO 70.71 16.60 -.536 .902 .78
Team EO 72.48 15.82 -.641 .233 .72
Firm EO 84.01 18.01 -.839 .670 .75
Power distance 11.30 6.00 .870 -.383 .83
Collectivism 24.00 4.61 -1.037 1.418 .80
N = 202
From table 2, one can clearly identify that the data is normally distributed.
The Skewness and Kurtosis fall within the acceptable range (Garson, 2012).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
58
The subsequent step taken in analyzing the instant data was to test for the correlation
between the predictor and outcome variable using the Pearson Product’s Moment correlation
coefficient. Indicated below in table 3 is the outcome of the correlation run between the
predictor and outcome variables.
Table 3: Pearson correlations for the study variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Team Innovation 1
2.Sex
** -.15
1
.07**
3.Age
.20*** 1
** .58
*** -.08
** .13
4.Individual EO 1
** .72
*** -.11
5.Team EO .02 .72*** 1
6.Team Leader EO .51*** ***
-.09 **
.09 .50*** **
.55 1
7.Firm EO .56***** -.03 .03** .64** .74
** .50***** 1 ***
** .53
** 8.Collectivism .38 .04*** .33 1 **
.18
* .06
.42
* .07
.40
* .07 9.Power Distance .02 .11 .03 -.01 .14 1
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, N =202
Table 3 indicates that there exists a strong correlation between the predictor variables and
the outcome variable. In studying the variables used in computing the correlation, it is observed
that all the predictor variables have a strong significant positive correlation (i.e., p<.01) with the
outcome variable. Team EO had the strongest significant positive correlation with team
innovation (r = .72 ). Collectivism had a positive significant correlation with team innovation (r
= .38). Power distance correlation with team innovation was however weak and not significant
even though it was positive (r = .02). In terms of the demographic variables (sex and age), only
two of them had a significant correlation with the outcome variable (team innovation). Sex had a
negative correlation (r = -.15) with age correlation being positive ( r =.07). From the table, it is
also observed that the predictor variables show relationship among
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
59
them, as all the r value is above .30. As previously stated from the preliminary analysis
the predictors are not highly correlated.
4.2 Hypotheses Testing
The Pearson Product’s Moment correlation coefficient was used to test for hypothesis 1
as it was looking to establish whether a relationship existed between the variables under study.
The objective of hypotheses 2 to 4 was to find out whether these predictor variables (individual
entrepreneurial orientation, team leader entrepreneurial orientation and team entrepreneurial
orientation) will influence team innovation. For hypotheses 2 to 4 multiple regression was used
to do the analyses. In order to test for the moderating effect of power distance and collectivism,
Hierarchical Multiple regression was used.
4.2.1 Test of Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that Firm’s entrepreneurial orientation will be positively
and significantly related to the individual entrepreneurial orientation. The result of the
correlation analysis done for hypothesis one can be seen in Table 3 (the Pearson
Correlation among the variables)
After running the correlation analysis, the results indicated that assumption that
there will be a positive and significant relationship between firm and individual
entrepreneurial orientation was supported. From table 3, one can clearly observe a strong
and positive relationship between individual entrepreneurial orientation (M = 91.52 SD =
15.82) and firm entrepreneurial orientation (M =84.01 SD = 18.01), (r = .641 p< .001). The
mean and standard deviation obtained is indicated in table 2.
Firm entrepreneurial orientation has therefore been shown to have positive correlation
with individual entrepreneurial orientation. The results suggest that individuals who viewed
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
60
or perceived their firm as having high entrepreneurial orientation were more likely to
report high entrepreneurial orientation.
4.2.2 Test of hypotheses 2, 3 and 4
Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 predicted that individual entrepreneurial orientation, team
members’ perception of team leader entrepreneurial orientation and team entrepreneurial
orientation would have a significant positive relationship with team innovation. A hierarchical
multiple linear regression was used to investigate the degree to which individual entrepreneurial
orientation, team members’ perception of team leader entrepreneurial orientation and team
entrepreneurial orientation will predict team innovation.
Table 4: Summary of the Analyses.
2 Step 1: R
2 of .033, F = 18.76, Step 2: R
2 = .556, ΔR = .523, F = 275.26
2 From table 4, the second Step (F(5, 1099) = 275.26, p = .000, R = .556) which is the
summary of overall contributions of the variables, was significant. It indicated that all the
Model B SE β P
Step 1
Constant 8.54 .682
.000
Sex -1.48 .26 .173 .000
Age .07 .022 .10 .001
Step 2
Constant 8.54 .682
.000
Sex
-.08 .000
Age
.05 .023
Individual entrepreneurial orientation .024 .008 .090 .002
Team leader entrepreneurial orientation .034 .006 .134 .000
Team entrepreneurial orientation .156 .008 .578 .000
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
61
study variables together accounted for a 55.6 % variance in team innovation. In Step 1 where
2 age and sex were controlled, the model (F(2, 1102) = 18.76, p = .000, R = .033) was significant. This
indicates that age and sex accounted for a 3.3 % variance in team innovation. At step two, the
2 model Step (F(5, 1099) = 275.26, p = .000, ΔR = .523) was significant. It was further observed that
the predictors (i.e., individual entrepreneurial orientation, team leader entrepreneurial
orientation and team entrepreneurial orientation) were all significant predictors of team
innovation. From the summary Table 4, team entrepreneurial orientation made the largest
contribution (β = .578), followed by team leader entrepreneurial orientation (β = .134) with
individual entrepreneurial orientation making the least contribution (β = .090).
From Table 4, these stated hypotheses:
1. Individual entrepreneurial orientation (EO) will be positively and significantly
related to team innovation (H2) was supported.
2. Team members’ perception of their team leader’s entrepreneurial orientation and
team innovation will be significantly and positively related (H3) was supported
3. There will be a significant and positive relationship between team
entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation (H4) was also supported.
4.2.3 Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 5 is examining the moderating influence of the cultural orientation power
distance and collectivism. It was therefore hypothesized that power distance (PD) orientation
and collectivism (CO) will moderate the relationship between individual EO, team EO, team
leader EO and team innovation. To test for the moderating influence of power distance and
collectivism, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted. In moderation, the intent is to find
out whether the magnitude or direction of the effect of a predictor variable (X) on an outcome
variable (Y) depends on or interacts with a moderator variable (M) or variables (Hayes, 2012). In
this study, the intent is to find out whether the cultural dimensions of power
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
62
distance and collectivism moderate the relationship between the predictor variables
(individual entrepreneurial orientation, team leader entrepreneurial orientation and team
entrepreneurial orientation) and the outcome variable (team innovation). To determine
whether the moderators change the direction or the extent (magnitude) of the relationships
that exists between the predictor variables and the outcome variable under consideration.
To test the moderation, the interaction effect between the predictor variables and the
moderators was studied to determine whether such an effect has an influence in predicting our
outcome variable (team innovation). There is a need to determine whether as the value of the
moderator changes, the type (nature) of the association that pertains between the variables
changes as a result. To begin the process, we create an interaction effect, inspect to see
whether the interaction is significant, and can better account for the change in the outcome
variable than previously explained. The recommended process by Baron and Kenny (1986)
was followed. It involves four stages; perform
i. There is a need to standardize (center) the variables (that is, the predictor and
moderator variables) in order to avoid multicollinearity and also allow for a much
easier interpretation of output (Aiken & West, 1991). The mean are thus centered.
The centered mean represents each person deviation from the grand mean.
ii. The interaction between the predictor and moderator variable is then
determined. This is done with the centered variable.
iii. The regression analysis is then carried out. That is, the outcome variable is
regress on the predictor, moderator and interaction variables. These are entered
in sequentially (in blocks). The predictor, moderator and interactions are entered
in that order. If there a need to control any variable, it would have been done
first before the other variables are entered in their stated order.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
63
iv. Moderation is determined if the interaction effect is significant. Other
than that, there is no moderation.
In order to test for the predicted moderation effect in Hypothesis 5, the process as
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) was followed. The predictor variables (individual
EO, team leader EO and team EO) and the moderators (power distance and collectivism)
were centered in line with Aiken and West (1991) procedure. Then the interaction effects
were performed through multiplying the centered predictor variables by the moderator
variables. That is, each moderator against the predictor variable until interaction effect was
created for all the variables to be used in the analysis. The outcome variable (team
innovation) was then regressed on the predictor variables, moderators and the created
interaction terms. The first action is to enter the predictor variable, followed by the
moderators in the next stage (block) and finally the interactions in the following block.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
64
Table 5: Results of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for the moderation effect
B SE Β P
Step 1
Individual EO .026 .008 .096 .001
Team leader EO .036 .006 .141 .000
Team EO .155 .008 .577 .000
Step 2
Individual EO .018 .008 .066 .036
Team leader EO .034 .006 .134 .000
Team EO .155 .008 .578 .000
Collectivism (CO) .059 .022 .064 .008
Power Distance (PD) -.025 .015 -.035 .085
Step 3
Individual EO .012 .009 .043 .201
Team leader EO .033 .007 .128 .000
Team EO .156 .008 .582 .000
Collectivism (CO) .023 .024 .025 .322
Power Distance (PD) -.015 .015 -.021 .310
Individual EO X Power Distance .001 .002 .034 .367
Team leader EO X Power Distance .001 .001 .034 .216
Team EO X Power Distance -.002 .001 -.056 .121
Individual EO X Collectivism -.004 .002 -.092 .016
Team leader EO X Collectivism -.005 .001 -.113 .000
Team EO X Collectivism .004 .002 .085 .026
2 2 Note: For Step 1, F = 445.517, R = .545, Step 2, F = 270.688, ∆R = .004 and Step 3,
2 F =129.080, ∆R = .01
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to investigate whether the
relationship between the predictor variables (individual entrepreneurial orientation, team
leader entrepreneurial orientation and team entrepreneurial orientation) and the outcome
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
65
variable (team innovation) is moderated by the cultural orientation dimensions of
power distance and collectivism.
The interactions for the power distance and the predictor variables were not
2 significant, [F (11, 1107) = 129.080, p >.05 R = .013]. Power distance was not a significant
predictor (β = .034, p = .367), (β = .034, p = .261), (β = -.056, p = .121) for individual
entrepreneurial orientation, team leader entrepreneurial orientation and team
entrepreneurial orientation respectively.
The interaction term for the model was therefore dropped and only the collectivism
moderator was used to rerun the hierarchical multiple regression. The result for the
reduced model is reported below.
For the interaction between collectivism and predictor variables, the output from Table
5 was generated. The third step which is the overall contribution indicates that the model [F (7,
2 1114) = 202.535, p < .05 R = .560] accounted for 56% of variance in team innovation. The
variables in model one had a significant contribution in step one, it explained (54.5%) of
2 variance in the team innovation [F (3, 1118) = 446.716, p <.05, R = .545]. At step two of the
model, collectivism made a contribution of (0.2%) in explaining the variance in team
2 innovation, [F (4, 1117) = 337.924, p<.05, ∆R = .002]. Collectivism was a significant predictor of
team innovation (β = .057, p < .05). The third step revealed that the model
accounted for (1.2%) variance in team innovation [F = 202.535, p < .05, ∆R2 = .012]
(7, 1114)
Thus, the interaction between collectivism and individual entrepreneurial orientation
was significant (β = -.077, p< .05). The hypothesis that collectivism would moderate the
relationship between individual entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation was
confirmed. Also, the interaction between collectivism and team leader entrepreneurial
orientation was significant (β = -.109, p< .05). The hypothesis that collectivism will moderate
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
66
the relationship between team leader entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation was
also confirmed.
Further the interaction between collectivism and team entrepreneurial orientation was
significant (β = .071, p< .05). The hypothesis that collectivism will moderate the relationship
between team entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation was thus supported.
Thus for hypothesis 5, the prediction that power distance will moderate the
relationship between individual EO, team EO, team leader EO and team innovation was not
supported. On the other hand the corresponding hypothesis that collectivism will moderate
the relationship between individual EO, team EO, team leader EO and team innovation were
supported.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
67
Figure 2: Moderation Effect of Collectivism on the Relationship between
Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation and Team innovation.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
68
Figure 3: Moderation Effect of Collectivism on the Relationship between
Team Entrepreneurial Orientation and Team innovation.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
69
Figure 4: Moderation Effect of Collectivism on the Relationship between
Team Leader Entrepreneurial Orientation and Team innovation.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
70
Firm
entrepreneurial
Collectivism
Individual
entrepreneurial
Team leader
Team Innovation entrepreneurial
Team
entrepreneurial
4.3 : Observed model
Figure 5: Observed Model for the study variables
As shown in Figure 2, the three predictors, individual, team leader and team
entrepreneurial orientation are significantly related to team innovation. These relationships
are moderated by the cultural orientation variable collectivism with their magnitude and
direction of moderation indicates by the beta values attached. The relationship hypothesized
between firm entrepreneurial orientation and individual entrepreneurial orientation has also
been indicated.
4.4 Summary of findings
Following analyses of the data, the results indicated a support for hypotheses 1 to 4
while for hypothesis 5, one aspect was supported and the other not supported. These are
the results:
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
71
1. There was a strong positive correlation between individual
entrepreneurial orientation and firm entrepreneurial orientation
2. Individual entrepreneurial orientation was significantly and positively related
to team innovation
3. Team members’ perception of their team leader’s entrepreneurial orientation and team
innovation were significantly and positively related.
4. There was a positive and significant relationship between team
entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation
5. Collectivism moderated the relationship between individual EO, team EO, team leader
EO and team innovation while power distance did not moderate the relationship between
individual EO, team EO, team leader EO and team innovation.
Generally the findings confirmed the predicted outcome and supported previous
works that have been done in this area. However, certain outcomes were at variance with
what pertains in available literature, it thus calls for closer examination of those
variables and find coherent and logical reasons as to why it is so. This will be done in
the subsequent chapter termed as the discussion segment.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
72
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
5.0 Introduction
The study sought to investigate the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and team
innovation. The main focus of the study was to look at whether entrepreneurial orientation is
homogeneous within SME organizations (i.e., it cuts across all levels within the organization)
and its ability to determine the level of team innovation. The study added the additional
dimension of investigating whether the interactions (moderation) between entrepreneurial
orientation and the cultural dimensions of power distance and collectivism would have an
effect on team innovation capabilities within the SME organizations. According to Fellnhoffer
(2016), prior to her work, no study had empirically investigated the belief that entrepreneurial
orientation cuts across all levels of the organization. To the best of my knowledge, her work
on the organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial orientation is the first attempt to
empirically test the homogeneity assumption of entrepreneurial orientation within
organizations.
The outcome of this study indicated that individual entrepreneurial orientation, team leader
entrepreneurial orientation, and team entrepreneurial orientation influences team innovation.
It was further found that team entrepreneurial orientation has a greater influence on team
innovation than the team leader and individual entrepreneurial orientation. The pervasiveness
of entrepreneurial orientation within the firm was also confirmed. The study, however,
produced mixed findings on the moderating effects of collectivism and power distance in the
relationship between the predictor variables (individual entrepreneurial orientation, team
leader entrepreneurial orientation and team entrepreneurial orientation) and the outcome
variable (team innovation). Collectivism had a significant moderating effect on the
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
73
relationship between the predictor variables and the outcome variable. However, power
distance did not have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between the predictor
variables and the outcome variable.
The implications of these findings as well as the limitations of the study are discussed in the
subsequent sections.
5.1 Individual, Team Leader and Team Entrepreneurial Orientations Influence on Team
Innovation
The study investigated the relationship between individual entrepreneurial orientation and
team innovation. It was therefore hypothesized that Individual EO will be positively and
significantly related to team innovation. The results supported this prediction. This finding
suggests that individual entrepreneurial orientation influences team innovation. The finding
that individual entrepreneurial orientation influences team innovation is in line with results of
previous research that reported that individual entrepreneurial orientation has a positive
impact on performance (Krauss, Frese, Friedrich, & Unger, 2005; Kollmann, Christofor, &
Kuckertz, 2007). This finding also suggests that individual entrepreneurial orientation can be
used as a basis of explaining entrepreneurial behaviour on the part of the individual employee
which influences the employee to engage in behaviours that result in innovative outcomes at
the team level. For instance, Green, Covin and Sevin (2008) state that entrepreneurial
orientation can be used to explain organizations performance that leads them to innovate and
maintain competitive advantage. Generally, a positive association has been established
between entrepreneurial orientation and improved firm performance (Rauch et al. 2009).
The results of this study are also consistent with other studies that showed entrepreneurial
orientation positive impact on innovation (Schindehutte, Morris & Kocak, 2008; Zhou, Yim
& Tse, 2005; Khalili, Nejadhussein, and Fazel 2013). Thus, the presence of entrepreneurial
orientation manifests in innovative performance of the organization. The fact that individual
entrepreneurial orientation brings about innovation at the level of the team, supports the view
that entrepreneurial orientation is used as a means of measuring entrepreneurial activities
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
74
within organisations (Real, Roldán & Leal, 2014). This is important because entrepreneurs
measure their success through innovations they bring unto the market, that is, their unique
product offering that differentiate them from the competition. Therefore in a team where the
individual members entrepreneurially orientation is high, it will show itself in the innovative
output of the team. The entrepreneurial employees will bring on board new ways of doing
things (eg., in terms of improve processes) that will move the team forward. Entrepreneurs
must be able to diligently scan the environment and identify trends or happenings in which
they can tap into and bring about successful innovation; create unique product or offering that
has a market (buyers) for it (Drucker, 1985).
The present study’s results further supported the hypothesis that team members’ perception of
their team leader’s EO would be positively related to team innovation. The fact that, the team
leader’s entrepreneurial orientation shapes the behaviour of its members to be innovative is in
line with the assertion that, to bring about a collective entrepreneurial spirit, the team leader
needs to be strong in order to shape the behaviours of its members (Lounsbury, 1998).
This result falls in line with previous research that states that, the team leader’s
entrepreneurial orientation influences the members’ entrepreneurial orientation which in turn
leads to improvement in performance (Felnhoffer, Puumalainen, & Sjögrén 2017). The team
leader directs the team towards achieving its goals. The leader’s entrepreneurial orientation
influences that of the team he/she is leading. This in turn leads to an improvement in the
performance of the workers. As stated in Fellnhofer, Puumalainen, and Sjögrén (2017),
realizing that an individual’s entrepreneurial orientation influences performance, gives
credence to the theory that, entrepreneurial orientation can be conceptualized as an individual
level construct ( see Joardar andWu 2011; Bolton 2012; Langkamp Bolton & Lane 2012;
Goktan & Gupta 2013; Backhaus 2014; cited in Fellnhofer, Puumalainen, & Sjögrén, 2017).
Leadership is indispensable to the growth of any enterprise and one can argue in that in this
current high technological knowledge economy, proper leadership is needed in order to exact
high performance from work teams. This study results that indicates that team leader’s
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
75
entrepreneurial orientation influences innovation within the Ghanaian SME sector is thus very
important. Currently, in the Ghanaian market, there is the need to attract high knowledge
workers (i.e., highly trained individuals) in order to be able to maintain the organization’s
competitive edge in an environment characterized by technological advancement and rapid
change. This has been necessitated by the change in the operations of organizations
attributable to the increasingly competitive nature of the current globalized market
(Katzenbach, 1998). To survive in such a space, organizations need to be entrepreneurial
through the innovation that they bring unto the market (Jansen, Van Den Bosch & Volberda,
2006).
The result supports the view that team leader entrepreneurial orientation influences team
innovation. This will therefore allow the entrepreneurially oriented team leader to influence
the direction of the organization in order to make it entrepreneurial. When the leader clearly
define his/her a sense of purpose and direction, the possibility of attracting equally ambitious
and achievement oriented individuals to the team is high (Wing, 2005). The leader’s ability to
pull employees in one direction and tap into their unique abilities can lead to innovation in the
SME sector. Organizations gain by creating the right leadership culture that allows for the
transfer of the verve for entrepreneurship from a figure head (an individual leader) into an
identifiable work team (Soriano & Martínez, 2007). The team leader’s entrepreneurial ability
will foster an environment of team entrepreneurial spirit and this will reflect in the innovation
outcomes that are generated. Team leaders tap into the strategic vision of the organization that
creates the enabling environment for an entrepreneurial mindset to exist (Soriano & Martínez,
2007). The leader’s entrepreneurial orientation outlook will influence the work characteristics
(attitudes and behaviours) of his/her team which will in turn reflect in the work performance
of the team.
The team leader’s entrepreneurial orientation having an effect on team innovation can also be
viewed through the theoretical lenses of the information processing model proposed by Dreu
et al., (2008). Communication allowed for the information processed at the level of the leader
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
76
(individual) to trickle down to the team. Based on the highly competitive market in which the
teams operate, the epistemic motivation will be high and the collectivist orientation of the
work groups as indicated by the generated result allowed for prosocial behaviour, which
ultimately engendered innovation at the level of the team. In further support of the team
leader’s entrepreneurial orientation influencing team members’ behaviours, the dominant
logic theory can be use.
The behaviour of the organization is influenced by the dominant logic they hold. An
organization that is entrepreneurially oriented will adopt an entrepreneurial dominant logic.
According to Meyer and Hepard (2000, p.2) an entrepreneurial dominant logic “leads a firm
and its members to constantly search and filter information for new product ideas and process
innovations that will lead to greater profitability.” The team leader will thus promote an
atmosphere that encourages proactive behaviour, be open to new ideas, processes and
methods of going about their work. The members will be actively searching for opportunities
within the environment based on the culture of an entrepreneurial dominant logic that has
been created by the team leader. The quality of their leaders will also lead them to be
proactive and open to new ideas, processes and way of going about their work.
The result of this study supports the fourth hypothesis, which state that there would be a
significant and positive relationship between team EO and team innovation. That is team
entrepreneurial orientation influences team innovation. This result is consistent with
Felnhoffer et al., (2017) which states that the work group (team) entrepreneurial orientation
influences performance.
The result indicates that, team entrepreneurial orientation has the strongest influence (β =
.578) on team innovation. That is the teams entrepreneurial orientation brings about the most
innovation within organizations. This is consistent with previous research that indicate that it
is work teams that bring about innovation within organization (Edmondson, 1999; Ragazzoni,
Baiardi, Zotti, Anderson, & West, 2002; Tjosvold, 2004)
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
77
The result of this study which shows work teams as the biggest contributors of innovation
within organization can be attributed to the changing nature of work design; work is now
mostly structured (organized and coordinated) at the level of the team (Kozlowski and Ilgen,
2006; Mathieu, Maynard & Gilson, 2008). In terms of entrepreneurial activity also, it is
working teams that drive entrepreneurial behaviour in organizations and this manifested in
individual work behaviour (Burgelman 1983). This is particularly welcomed because, in the
current global market space, organizations require its workforce to continually innovate
through the combination of their individual knowledge and skills (Dess and Picken, 2000).
According to Somech and Khalaili (2014) there is a need for innovations as in this current
market, customers are constantly changing their expectations and behaviours.
It therefore goes to suggest that SMEs in the Greater Accra Region can use their team
entrepreneurial orientation as a vehicle to allow them to innovate in order to meet the
challenges they are confronted with and remain competitive. Teams are now used as the
vehicles of innovations as organizations evolves and become flatter as a means of countering
the rapidly changing nature of the market (Büchel, Nieminen, Armbruster-Domeyer, &
Denison, 2013). SME organizations can thus zero in on the entrepreneurial orientation
dimensions of innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking and autonomous work behaviour as a
means of fostering and maintaining innovative work output in order to be able to compete and
thrive in the current global market space. From the perspective of team cognition, when the
teams come to appreciate and understand that these entrepreneurial dimensions are relevant
knowledge that will enable them innovate, team members output will be much effective
(DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). When they have a clear understanding of what they
need to do, their expectations and behaviours will coalesce to allow for an effective output
(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). This thus calls for a conscious and deliberate effort on the part of
management to drum in the tenets of entrepreneurial behaviours in their work teams so as to
reap the benefits thereof a in terms of effective innovation (work performance).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
78
The finding that team entrepreneurial orientation influences team innovation is supported by
previous research that suggested that an entrepreneurial mindset brings about innovations in
organizations, which could in turn strengthen organizations’ ability to sustain competitive
advantage (Zeebaree & Siron, 2017). That the team entrepreneurial orientation is associated
with team innovation is also supported by previous studies that suggests that entrepreneurial
orientation has a positive influence on an organizations ability to innovate which impacts
positively on performance (Avlonitis & Salavou, 2007;Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese,
2009; Oly Ndubisi & Agarwal, 2014). This thus calls for the need for the SME organizations
to deliberately and diligently put in measures to ensure that their organizations are highly
entrepreneurial oriented.
5.2 Moderating Effect of Collectivism and Power Distance
According to Rauch et al., (2009) even though the linkage between entrepreneurial orientation
and performance has been established, the influence differs across several measures.
Entrepreneurial orientation effects on performance depend on interaction with other variables
such as national culture. In this study, we tested whether collectivism and power distance
moderate the relationship between the predictor variables (individual, team leader, team
entrepreneurial orientation) and the outcome variable (team innovation). The influence of
culture on entrepreneurial behaviour is hardly looked at in the African context in
entrepreneurial research (Vershinina, Woldesenbet Beta, & Murithi, 2017).
The results indicated that collectivism moderated the relationship between the predictor
variables (individual, team leader, team entrepreneurial orientation) and the outcome variable
(team innovation). The result is consistent with studies that affirms the moderating role of
collectivism on performance (eg., Marino, Strandholm, Steensma, & Weaver, 2002).
In terms of the relationship between team entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation, the
results indicated that collectivism strengthened that relationship. This increases the likelihood
of team innovation occurring in an entrepreneurial team. According to Wink (1997) in
collectivist society there is an acceptable standard of behaviour that the actors involved have
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
79
to reach. Thus, in an entrepreneurial oriented team, the set standards can be said to have led to
the exhibition of behaviours that influence innovation positively. The standards set will make
the team pull together around one common goal in a collectivist environment (Paulus &
Dzindolet, 1993). Thus in a high entrepreneurial oriented team, the team is likely to band
together and move towards their set objective.
That collectivism strengthened the relationship between team entrepreneurial orientation and
team innovation points to the diverse nature of the team in place. The team was thus able to
draw on the different skill set of team members in order to improve on their ability to
innovate. Collectivism encourages working towards group interest and rewarding the group as
a whole. In an entrepreneurial oriented team, individual team members will therefore work
consciously and deliberately towards achieving the group interest as entrepreneurial
orientation is very much dependent on the on the workforce harmoniously pulling in one
direction rather than individual initiatives (Saffu, 2003).
The findings showed that collectivism moderated negatively on the relationship between team
leader entrepreneurial orientation or individual entrepreneurial orientation and team
innovation. This suggests that the collectivist orientation weakens the relationship between
individual or team leader entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation. This result
supported the stated hypothesis that collectivism will moderate the relationship between
individual EO, team leader EO and team innovation. The weakened effect collectivism had
could be attributed to the fact individualism rather than collectivism promotes innovation as
claim by a section of research work (McGrath, Macmillan, & Scheinberg, 1992; Shane,
1993).That is the pursuit of innovation is mainly an individualistic affair. The view that it is
individualism that promotes entrepreneurship is contrary to other research findings that view
collectivism as having a positive impact on entrepreneurial behaviour. The instant research
even supports the positive influence of collectivism on entrepreneurial behaviour at the team
level.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
80
The fact that collectivism weakens the relationship between individual or team leader
entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation can be attributed to the fact that collectivism
looks at the group interest as a whole and does not reward individual stand out performers.
The individuals whose entrepreneurial orientations were assessed could not be singled out and
rewarded. Entrepreneurship is usually associated with individualism due to the fact it is
viewed as a figure head that leads in the creation of products and services (see, Zahariah,
Amalina., & Ghani, 2010, Arora, Singhai, & Patel, 2011; Rozell, Meyer,Scroggins, & Guo,
2011). It is the individual that lead the entrepreneurship drive and thus the collectivist cultural
orientation that promotes group interest at the expense of the individual interest will be
suppressed (not promoted).
The study’s results failed to support the fifth hypothesis, which stated that Power distance will
moderate the relationship between individual EO, team leader EO, team EO and team
innovation. The finding can be attributed to the rapid changes in the market space as a result
of globalisation and advancement in technology. The constantly changing nature of the global
market space accounts for the conflicting influence of culture on innovation (Wennekers,
Thurik, van Stel, & Noorderhaven, 2007). There is added pressure to be entrepreneurial,
innovate and be able to rapidly respond and meet the demands of customers. This causes
organizations, regardless of the cultural influence at play to look for avenues to meet the
demand to innovate and remain competitive. It is also said that unlike the other cultural values
such as individualism, uncertainty avoidance and materialist values which are relatively
stable, power distance appears to constantly evolved (McGrath, MacMillan and Yang 1992).
For instance, in Rauch et al., (2009) meta analyses on the influence of entrepreneurial
orientation on performance, the outcome indicated that entrepreneurial orientation influences
performance, however when culture was used as a control variable in analysing the
differences in performance across continents, it was realised that, its contribution was
insignificant. Their outcome gives support to this study result that indicates that power
distance has no moderating effect.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
81
5.3 Limitations of the Study
This study used a cross sectional design which is observational and descriptive in nature. Data
were recorded at a single point in time. Cross sectional studies can therefore not be used to
determine causation. One can only infer association between the variables studied. Making a
categorical cause and effect statement among the variables would be false. For instance, a
categorical statement cannot be made that, the predictor variables (individual, team leader and
team entrepreneurial orientation) cause team innovation. Only an inference can be made that
entrepreneurial orientation is associated with team innovation. Thus extending the result to
explain the relationship between the variables at play will be inaccurate.
In addition to the cross-sectional nature of the study, the reliance of self-report data raises
concerns about self-report bias. The use of the subjective measures to assess variables can
bring about issues such as socially desirable responses or common source bias. Even though
there is the tendency of bias in subjective measures of the variables, this methodology is
accepted in the scientific community.
The data was also obtained from SME organizations that are generally perceived to be nimble
and can easily innovate. Due to the unique nature of SME organizations’ the result cannot be
generalized to cover large organizations. Even though an adequate sample size was obtained
several difficulties arose as a result of a number of SME organizations were not willing to
participate. The targeted population was organized SMEs, however, those contacted usually
gave the feedback of not having adequate time to attend to the questionnaires. In order to
make the process easier, in future a deliberate and concerted effort should be made to engage
targeted organizations prior to the administering of the questionnaire in order to educate
management and where possible employees on the nature and benefit of the research. The
online questionnaires sent also generated little or no response. Those that were returned could
also not be used as it was practically impossible to place them in their various teams.
Instructions were given for unique team identifiers to be used but they were not followed.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
82
5.4 Recommendations for Future Study
There are practical and theoretical recommendations that researchers must take into account
when undertaking future studies. In future studies, researchers should employ an objective
measure to assess the value of innovation to organizations. The use of an objective measure
will allow for an independent assessment of the value of innovation to organizations in order
to see whether for instance, it is reflected in the revenues or competitive advantage of the
organization. Also in order to account for some of the limitations of the cross sectional survey
method future studies should look beyond the use of cross sectional survey method and use
other methods such as a longitudinal study that is more likely to establish a cause-effect
relationship.
The team level variables were assessed from a single source. That is a member of the team
gave his/her perception concerning the team variable under study. To get a more accurate
measure of team level variable, future research should look to obtain the data from different
sources. That is instead of assessing entrepreneurial orientation at various levels from a team
member’s perception, the view of the majority of the team members’ entrepreneurial
orientation could be assessed in a sitting (akin to focus group) and the consensus answer used
to represent the team. This may help obtain a more accurate view. In the situation such
method is used, multilevel analysis should be used in order to account for some of the
assumptions of Ordinary Least Squares regression (OLS) such as independence of errors that
may be broken. Also qualitative approach should be considered and use in future research.
In order to extend the entrepreneurial orientation research beyond organizations in the
medium and large formalized business sector, further research should be conducted in the
micro and small-scale informal businesses in the traditional informal sector. This will help in
shedding light on how the entrepreneurial orientation construct manifests itself in the micro
and small-scale traditional informal sector. This will help broaden the scope on how
behaviours such as innovativeness, proactiveness, risk taking and autonomous work which are
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
83
dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation influences organizational performance within those
business environment.
The results also supports the view that entrepreneurial orientation is homogenous. That is, for
an entrepreneurially oriented firm, EO is present at all levels of the organization.
5.5 Implications for the World of Work
Teams (working group) have a greater impact on entrepreneurial orientation and that leads to
improve performance and they drive organisations (Fellnhofer et al., 2017; Mathieu,
Maynard, Rapp & Gilson 2008). This assertion is supported by the instant study as it shows
team entrepreneurial orientation to have the greatest impact on team innovation. And as
literature shows, the presence of entrepreneurial orientation inevitable has a positive impact
on organizations performance (Rauch et al., 2009). This thus calls for the need for the SME
organizations to deliberately and diligently put in measures to ensure that their individual
employees and teams within their organizations are highly entrepreneurial oriented. For
instance, in their recruitment, selection and placement activities, efforts should be made to
assess and engage individuals that are perceived to be entrepreneurially oriented through the
tools employed in such exercises. Industrial and Organisational Psychologists can be engaged
to undertake such exercises.
Individual behaviours influences firm level performance. Managers within the Ghanaian SME
sector would therefore know the behaviours they should encourage in their bid to make their
organizations entrepreneurially oriented. It is accepted that to meet the challenges of the
current global market, organizations need to innovate in order to be able to stay competitive.
Innovation is said to be the outcome of entrepreneurial behaviour. The human resources
department will thus be able to tailor training needs to fit the knowledge and skills employees’
require if they are to be successful in their innovation drive. Training exercises that will
ultimately lead to their employees being proactive, innovative, taking risk as well as
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
84
leveraging on the benefits of autonomous work behaviour should be implemented. By
equipping the human capital (employees) with the right knowledge and necessary skills, they
will then have the wherewithal to discover and exploit opportunities for the growth of the
organization. The posture of the management in encouraging entrepreneurial behaviour which
involves delegation will empower employees which will also let them feel as though they own
the entrepreneurship process and ultimately impact positively on their innovation ability.
Thus, SMEs through their entrepreneurial orientation cutting across all levels of the
organization will improve their ability to innovate and this will allow them to meet the
challenges they are confronted with in the current global market space and remain
competitive.
Africans are perceived to collectivist. This has found expression in their daily lives. For
instance, the concept of Ubuntu (‘I am because we are’) and Harambee ( ‘all pull together’)
all talk of the need to recognise that success is not dependant on one individual. Tapping into
this cultural orientation in order to maximise on the output of teams in the organisation setting
is thus prudent. As it is generally acknowledge, businesses ought to leverage on their area of
competitive advantage to help them surge ahead. This study has revealed that the interaction
of team entrepreneurial orientation and collectivism impact positively on team innovation. It
is therefore prudent for SMEs within the Ghanaian setting to encourage the practices of
collectivist behaviour within teams in the work place. This will allow the team to draw on the
diverse skill set of team members in order to move the organization forward. By attaching
reward systems to the performance of team, the collectivist behaviours that will be
engendered will have a positive effect on team performance. SMEs should inculcate practices
in the work place that encourages oneness, as corporate entrepreneurships is very dependent
on the workforce harmoniously pulling in one direction rather than individual initiatives
(Saffu, 2003).
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
85
5.5 Conclusion
This study sought to examine the construct of entrepreneurial orientation within various levels
of the organization, specifically the individual, the team leader and the team in order to
determine whether they influence team innovation in Ghanaian SMEs. It went on further to
determine whether entrepreneurial orientation within the firm, from the individual level to that
of the firm positively correlate together. The cultural orientation of power distance and
collectivism were also taken into consideration in order to determine whether they have any
bearing on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation. The
resultant evidence from the study indicates that, the three level of entrepreneurial orientation
studied indeed influence team innovation within firms in the Greater Accra Region. It was
observed that team entrepreneurial orientation contributed the most to team innovation. On
the issue of the moderating effect of power distance and collectivism, it was realised that
power distance unlike collectivism did not moderate the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and team innovation.
Organizations now face greater competition from both internal and external competitors. To
remain in business, be profitable and maintain competitive advantage, organization need to be
entrepreneurial in order to birth innovations. Entrepreneurs are important actors of growth as
they use the capability to innovate to explore and exploit opportunities that will lead to the
introduction of new processes that are much more effective and products that serves the needs
of the market better. This study has shown that entrepreneurial orientation particularly in
teams contribute greatly to innovation. However, it has been shown that the other levels of
entrepreneurial orientation also contribute to innovation. Organizations thus need to put in the
appropriate structures and implement strategic management decisions that will lead to the
proper exploitation of the human capital at their disposal in terms of their entrepreneurial
ability. It is particularly important for SMEs to immerse themselves in this process of proper
use of employees’ entrepreneurial abilities as they form the bulk of businesses and they are
the major contributors to employment in this country. The Ghana Government has bought into
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
86
the concept of entrepreneurship and innovation contributing to growth, however as it is
generally accepted, ‘the private sector is the engine of growth’, thus SMEs who are the largest
group in the private sector need to lead this entrepreneurship and innovation agenda.
An entrepreneurial mindset can lead to creation of more businesses and serve as a means of
creating employment and reducing poverty. The demonstrated positive influence of
entrepreneurial orientation on innovation underscores the need for organizations to encourage
entrepreneurial behaviours, particularly in teams, as work teams provide the biggest conduit
for innovations.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
87
REFERENCES
Abor, J., & Quartey, P. (2010). Issues in SME Development in Ghana and South Africa.
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics Issue, 39(39).
https://doi.org/ISSN 1450-2887
Agyapong, D. (2010), Micro, small and medium enterprises activities, income level and
poverty reduction in Ghana - A synthesis of related literature. International Journal
of Business and Management, 5(12), 196-205.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allotey, G. (2017, July 13). Akufo-Addo sets up $100m fund for entrepreneurs, innovators |.
Retrieved from https://citifmonline.com/2017/07/13/akufo-addo-sets-up-100m-fund-
for- entrepreneurs-innovators/
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Aryeetey, E. and Ahene A. A. (2005). Changing regulatory environment for small-
medium size enterprises and their performance in Ghana. Centre on regulation
and competition working paper series, paper no.103
Avlonitis, G. J., & Salavou, H. E. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation of SMEs, product
innovativeness, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 566–575.
doi: org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.001
Babbie, E. (2004). Laud Humphreys and research ethics. International Journal of Sociology
and Social Policy, 24(3/4/5), 12-19.
Barringer, B. R., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). The relationship between corporate
entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,
20(5), 421-444.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
88
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Boateng, R. (2014). Research Made Easy. PearlRichards Foundation
Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H. S. (2010). Motivated
information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 99(4), 622.
Buame, S. K. (1996). Entrepreneurship: A contextual perspective, discourses and
praxis of entrepreneurial activities within the institutional context of Ghana.
Lund: Lund University Pres
Büchel, B., Nieminen, L., Armbruster-Domeyer, H., & Denison, D. (2013).
Managing stakeholders in team-based innovation: The dynamics of
knowledge and trust networks. European Journal of Innovation Management,
16(1), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061311292841
Bulut, C., & Yilmaz, C. (2008). Innovative performance impacts of corporate
entrepreneurship: An empirical research in Turkey. Proceedings of
Academy of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2008, 414–417.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the
diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 223–244.
Chen, G., & Gogus, C. I. (2008). Motivation in and of work teams: A multilevel
perspective. Work motivation: Past, present, and future.
Choi, H. S., & Levine, J. M. (2004). Minority influence in work teams: The impact
of newcomers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2), 273-280.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
89
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of
an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of management studies, 25(3),
217 234.
Covin, G. and Slevin, D. (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. (2008). Exploring the relationship between
strategic reactiveness and entrepreneurial orientation: The role of structure-style
fit. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 356-383.
Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2011). The measurement of entrepreneurial
orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 677-702.
doi:10.1111/j.1540 6520.2010.00432.x
DeChurch, L.A. and Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. (2010), “The cognitive underpinnings of effective
teamwork: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 32-53.
De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Thongpapanl, N. (2010). Themoderating impact of internal
social exchange processes on the entrepreneurial orientation-
performance relationship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 87–103.
De Dreu, C. K., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives
on integrative negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(5), 889.
De Dreu, C. K., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance
of participation in decision making. Journal of applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191.
De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level
in the mood-creativity link: toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 94(5), 739.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Baas, M. (2011). Group creativity and
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
90
innovation: A motivated information processing perspective. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017986
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman,
P. W., Abdalla, I. A., ... & Akande, B. E. (1999). Culture specific and cross-
culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of
charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? 1. The
Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-256.
Dess, G.G. and Picken, J.C. (2000), “Changing roles: leadership in the
21st century”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 18-33
Downturn not the time to deter innovators. (2010). Strategic Direction, 26(3), 6-9. doi:
10.1108/02580541011022847
Efrat, K. (2014). The direct and indirect impact of culture on innovation. Technovation,
34(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.08.003
Engelen, A., Schmidt, S., & Buchsteiner, M. (2015). The simultaneous influence of
national culture and market turbulence on entrepreneurial orientation: A nine-
country study. Journal of International Management, 21(1), 18–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2014.12.002
Farley, J. U., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Cross-national “laws” and differences in
market response. Management Science, 40(1), 111-122.
Katharina Fellnhofer, Kaisu Puumalainen, Helena Sjögrén, (2016) "Entrepreneurial orientation
and performance – are sexes equal?", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior
& Research, 22 (3), 346-374, doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-12-2015-0286
Fellnhofer, K. (2016). The organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial orientation across
hierarchical levels. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 17(4),
217–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750316669906
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
91
Fellnhofer, K., Puumalainen, K., & Sjögrén, H. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation in work
groups – effects of individuals and group characteristics. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal (Vol. 13). International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0408-5
Florin, J., Lubatkin, M., Schulze, W., 2003. A social capital model of high
growth ventures. Academy of Management Journal 46 (3), 374–384
Fritsch M., & Storey, D.J. (2014) Entrepreneurship in a regional Context: Historical
roots, recent developments and future Challenges, regional Studies, 48(6), 939
954, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2014.892574
Gollwitzer, P.M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E.T. Higgins & R.M. Sorrentino
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition 2, 53-92. NewYork: Guilford.
Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-
9171-x
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White Paper, 1–39.
doi: org/978-1-60918-230-4
Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship:
A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 26(4), 33.
Hayton, J., & Cacciotti, G. (2014). Culture and entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence
for direct and indirect effects. A Handbook of research on entrepreneurship: What
we know and what we need to know, 14171183.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization
of groups as information processors. Psychological bulletin, 121(1), 43.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. Intercultural cooperation and its importance
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
92
for survival. Software of the mind. London: Mc Iraw-Hill.
Hofstede. G. (2001). Culture's Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors. Institutions
and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks. California: Sage
Huang, S. K., & Wang, Y. L. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation,
and innovation in small and medium enterprises. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 24, 563–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.004
Hult, G. T. M., Snow, C. C., & Kandemir, D. (2003). The role of entrepreneurship in
building cultural competitiveness in different organizational types. Journal
of management, 29(3), 401-426.
Hussler, C. (2004). Culture and knowledge spillovers in Europe: new perspectives
for innovation and convergence policies?. Economics of Innovation and New
Technology, 13(6), 523-541.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations:
From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology,
56(1), 517–543. doi: org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S., & Kyläheiko, K. (2005).
Entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic capabilities and international performance.
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 223-243.
Katzenbach, J. (1998), Teams at the Top: Unleashing the Potential of Both Teams
and Individual Leaders, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
Kamakura, W. A., & Novak, T. P. (1992). Value-system segmentation: Exploring
the meaning of love. Journal of consumer research, 19(1), 119-132.
Kamakura, W. A., and J. A. Mazzon. 1991. Value segmentation: A model for the
measurement of values and value systems. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (2):
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
93
208–218
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In
M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 75-170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kayanula, D. and Quartey, P. (2000), “The policy environment for promoting small
and medium-sized Enterprises in Ghana and Malawi”, Finance and
development research programme, Working Paper Series, Paper No 15, IDPM,
University of Manchester
Kiggundu, M. N. (2002). Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship in Africa: What is known
and what needs to be done. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 239-258.
Khalili, H., Nejadhussein, S., & Fazel, A. (2013). The influence of entrepreneurial
orientation on innovative performance. Journal of Knowledge-Based Innovation in
China, 5(3), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKIC-09-2013-0017
Knox, S. (2002), “The broad room agenda: developing the innovative
organization”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 27-36
Kocak, A., Carsrud, A., & Oflazoglu, S. (2017). Market, entrepreneurial, and technology
orientations: impact on innovation and firm performance. Management Decision,
55(2), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2015-0146
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Ilgen, D.R. (2006), “Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and
teams”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 77-124.
Kraus, S., Rigtering, J. P. C., Hughes, M., & Hosman, V. (2012). Entrepreneurial
orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the
Netherlands. Review of Managerial Science, 6(2), 161–182.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-011-0062-9
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
94
Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D., Dickson, P., Weaver, M.K., 2010. Cultural
influences on entrepreneurial orientation: the impact of national culture on
risk taking and proactiveness in SMEs. Enterp. Theory Pract. 34, 959–983
Kuratko, D., Ireland, D., Covin, J. and Hornsby, J. (2005), “A model of middle-level
managers’ entrepreneurial behaviour”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and
Practice, 13(4), 62-72.
Le Roux, I., & Bengesi, K. M. (2014). Dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation and small
and medium enterprise performance in emerging economies. Development
Southern Africa, 31(4), 606-624. doi:10.1080/0376835x.2014.913474
Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture
and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future
research. Journal of international business studies, 36(4), 357-378.
Lievens, F., Van Dam, K., & Anderson, N. (2002). Recent trends and challenges in personnel
selection. Personnel Review, 31(5), 580-601. doi:10.1108/00483480210438771
Liu, G., Ko, W. W. J., Ngugi, I., & Takeda, S. (2017). Proactive entrepreneurial
behaviour, market orientation, and innovation outcomes: A study of small- and
medium-sized manufacturing firms in the UK. European Journal of Marketing,
51(11–12), 1980– 2001. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2016-0663
Lin, Y. T., Chuang, M. L., Chang, Y. M., & Yeh, M. C. (2012). A study of the relationship
between team innovation and organizational innovation in the high-tech industry:
Confirmation of the organizational culture moderation effect. Advances in
management and Applied Economics, 2(2), 19 - 52. Retrieved from
https://www.scienpress.com/journal_focus.asp?main_id=55&Sub_id=IV&Issue=253
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new
product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
95
perspective. Academy of management journal, 44(4), 779-793.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct
and linking it to performance”, The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-
720 Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial
orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment
and industry life cycle. Journal of business venturing, 16(5), 429-451
Mahemba, C. M., & Bruijn, E. J. D. (2003).Innovation activities by small and medium‐sized
manufacturing enterprises in Tanzania. Creativity and innovation management, 12(3),
162-173.
Marino, L., Strandholm, Κ., Steensma, H„ & Weaver. K. (2002). The moderating effect of
national culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic
alliance portfolio extensiveness. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,26(4), 145-160.
Mathieu, J.E., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008), “Team effectiveness 1997
2007:a review ofrecent advancements and a glimpse into the future”, Journal of
Management, 34(3), 410-476
McDade, B. E., & Spring, A. (2005). The ‘new generation of African entrepreneurs’:
networking to change the climate for business and private sector-led
development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(1), 17-42.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms:
Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic management journal, 3(1), 1-25.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms.
Management science, 29(7), 770-791.
Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L., & Allen, J. W. (1994). Fostering corporate entrepreneurship:
Cross-cultural comparisons of the importance of individualism versus collectivism.
Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 65-89.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
96
Nijstad, B. A., & Dreu, C. K. W. De. (2012). Motivated information processing in
organizational teams : Progress , puzzles , and prospects. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 32, 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.004
Ndubisi, N.O., Gupta, O.K. and Ndubisi, G.C. (2005), “The moguls’ model of computing:
Integrating the moderating impact of users’ persona into the technology acceptance
model”, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8(1), 27-47
Ocloo, C. E., Akaba, S., & Worwui-Brown, D. K. (2014). Globalization and
competitiveness: Challenges of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Accra,
Ghana. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(4).
Odoardi, C., Battistelli, A., & Montani, F. (2010). Can goal theories explain innovative work
behaviour? The motivating power of innovation-related goals. Bollettino Di Psicologia
Applicata, 261–262(57), 3–17. Retrieved from
http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc7&NEWS=N&
AN=2011-16354-001
Oly Ndubisi, N., & Agarwal, J. (2014). Quality performance of SMEs in a
developing economy: direct and indirect effects of service innovation and
entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 29(6),
454–468. doi: org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2013-0146
Only 10% of graduates find jobs after first year – ISSER. (2017, June 3). Retrieved
from http://citifmonline.com/2017/06/03/only-10-of-graduates-find-jobs-after-
first-year-isser/
Osei, A., Yunfei, S., Appienti, W., & Forkuoh, S. (2016). Product Innovation and
SMEs performance in the manufacturing sector of Ghana. British Journal of
Economics, Management & Trade, 15(3), 1-14. doi:10.9734/bjemt/2016/29906
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K. & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A
model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827-856.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Pfeffer, J., 1994. Competitive Advantage Through People. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
97
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and
team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.240
Popescu, N. E. (2014). Entrepreneurship and SMEs Innovation in Romania. Procedia
Economics and Finance, 16(May), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-
5671(14)00832-6
Quaye, D. M., & Acheampong, G. (2013). Are SME owner-managers entrepreneurs?
Evidence from Ghana. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(23), 37-47.
Real, J. C., Roldán, J. L., & Leal, A. (2014). From entrepreneurial orientation and
learning orientation to business performance: analysing the mediating role of
organizational learning and the moderating effects of organizational size. British
Journal of Management, 25(2), 186-208.
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
Rauch, A., Frese, M., Wang, Z.-M., & Unger, J. (2010). National cultural values, firm’s
cultural orientations, innovation, and performance: Testing cultural universals and
specific contingencies across five countries. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
30(15), Article 4. Retrieved from
http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol30/iss15/4/
Robson, P. J., Haugh, H. M., & Obeng, B. A. (2009). Entrepreneurship and innovation in
Ghana: enterprising Africa. Small Business Economics, 32(3), 331-350.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
98
Rosenbusch, N., Rauch, A., Bausch, A., 2013. The mediating role of entrepreneurial
orientation in the task environment–performance relationship a meta- analysis. Manag.
39, 633–659
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always
beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and
performance in SMEs. Journal of business Venturing, 26(4), 441-457.
Rozell, E. J., Meyer, K. E., Scroggins, W. A., & Guo, A. (2011). Perceptions of the
characteristics of successful entrepreneurs: an empirical study in China. International
Journal of Management, 28(4), 60.
Saffu, K. (2003). The role and impact of culture on South Pacific island
entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 9(2),
55-73.
Salavou, H., & Lioukas, S. (2003). Radical product innovations in SMEs: The
dominance of entrepreneurial orientation. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 12(2), 94-108. doi:10.1111/1467-8691.00272
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social
psychology 25, 1-65. Academic Press
Shane, S. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8(1), 59-73.
Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and
innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of management, 32(1), 132
157.
Soriano, D. R., & Martínez, J. M. C. (2007). Transmitting the entrepreneurial spirit to
the work team in SMEs: The importance of leadership. Management Decision, 45(7),
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
99
1102–1122. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740710773934
Stam, E. (2008). Entrepreneurship and innovation policy. In B. Nooteboom, and E. Stam
(eds), Micro-Foundations for innovation policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press and Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Sulistyo, H., & Siyamtinah. (2016). Innovation capability of SMEs through entrepreneurship,
marketing capability, relational capital and empowerment. Asia Pacific Management
Review, 21(4), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2016.02.002
Takyi-Asiedu, S. (1993). Some socio – cultural factors retarding entrepreneurial activities
in Sub –Saharan Africa. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 91-98
Teece, D. (1994). The Dynamic Capabilit ies of Firms : an Introduction.
Thurik, R., & Wennekers, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship, small business and economic
growth. Journal of small business and enterprise development, 11(1), 140-149.
Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual review
of psychology, 53(1), 133-160.
Van Everdingen, Y. M., & Waarts, E. (2003). The effect of national culture on
the adoption of innovations. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 217-232.
Vecchi, A., & Brennan, L. (2009). A cultural perspective on innovation in international
manufacturing. Research in International Business and Finance, 23(2), 181–192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2008.03.008
Vershinina, N., Woldesenbet Beta, K., & Murithi, W. (2017). How does national
culture enable or constrain entrepreneurship? Exploring the role of
Harambee in Kenya. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-03-2017-0143
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
100
Vij, S., & Bedi, H. S. (2012). Relationship between entrepreneurial orientation
and business performance: A review of literature.
Vossen, R. (1998). Relative strengths and weaknesses of small firms in
innovation. International Small Business Journal, 16(3), 88-94
Wennekers, S., Thurik, R., van Stel, A., & Noorderhaven, N. (2007). Uncertainty avoidance
and the rate of business ownership across 21 OECD countries, 1976–2004. Journal of
Evolutionary economics, 17(2), 133-160.
Wiklund, J., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). Building an integrative
model of small business growth. Small Business Economics, 32(4), 351–
374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9084-8
Wing, L. S. (2005). Leadership in high-performance teams: A model for superior team
performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 11(1–2), 4–
11. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590510584285
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding Dynamic Capabilities, 995, 991–995.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318
Wójcik-karpacz, A. (2016). The Researchers ’ Proposals : What Is The Entrepreneurial
Orientation ? 1 Abstract : Management, Knowledge and Learning Joint International
Conference with Technology, Innovation and Industrial Management, 247–255.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring hofstede’s five dimensions of
cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of
CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3–4), 193–210.
doi: org/10.1080/08961530.2011.578059
Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54-68.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
101
Zahra, S. Davidson.(2006). Enterpreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A review,
model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, col, 43, 429-453.
Zeebaree, M. R. Y., & Siron, R. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurial orientation on
competitive advantage moderated by financing support in SMEs. International Review
of Management and Marketing, 7(1), 43–52. Retrieved from
file:///Users/haniruzila/Desktop/3157-10307-1-PB.pdf
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
102
Appendices
Appendix 1: Ethical Clearance Certificate
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
103
Appendix 2: Introduction Letter from Department of Psychology
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
104
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
105
Official
Use only
Protocol
number
PROTOCOL CONSENTFORM
Section A- BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
Section B–CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
IN RESEARCH
Appendix 3: ECH Protocol Consent Form
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA
Ethics Committee for Humanities (ECH)
Title of
Study: Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) and Team Innovation Among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana: The Moderating
role of Power Distance and Collectivism Principal Ahunlu Ackah Jainie
Investigator:
Certified Protocol Number
General Information about Research
Small and Medium-sized (SMEs) enterprises account for the largest group in the
private sector in emerging economies such as China as well as sub-Saharan Africa countries
such as Ghana. In Ghana 92% of registered business are micro, small and medium
enterprises. They however face a variety of challenges such as limited capital and knowledge,
ineffective marketing strategies etc. Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is seen as a firm level
strategy that can be use to address such challenges. Limited studies have been undertaken that
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
106
looks at how EO influences firms’ innovative performance. Even though research into
entrepreneurship has grown in Africa, not much attention has been paid to innovation and to a
larger extent how culture affects the entrepreneurship – innovation dynamics. This study will
look at how EO influences team innovation in SMEs and examine how the culture moderates
that relationship. Functional teams with a leader within the SME sector will be survey in
order to see how EO affects team innovation at the work place. The work teams who consent
to partake in the study will spend at most a maximum of 30 minutes to answer the
questionnaire. Before administering the questionnaire to those who have consented,
permission would have been taken from the recognized authority within the said organization.
Benefits/Risk of the study
Participants who willingly avail themselves and partake in this study will not be put in
harm’s way as no risk is involved in this study. No direct benefit will accrue to you, if you
decide to participate in this research. However, the results of this study will aid in the
government entrepreneurship and innovation drive and help address the unemployment
situation in Ghana.
Confidentiality
To ensure anonymity and confidentiality, you are not supposed to write your names,
contact number, email or mark the questionnaires with anything that might reveal your
identity. Details revealed by you would be deemed as confidential and thus, such details
would not be released or shared to a third party without your express authorization. Assurance
would be given that the ultimate purpose of this study is for academic purpose.
Compensation
The research is for academic purpose; hence, no reward would be given.
Withdrawal from Study
You are not under any compulsion to partake in this study. As a result, there would be no
negative consequences as a result of your refusal to participate or withdraw from the study.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
107
If you decide to participate in the research, you may at any time, for any reason,
discontinue your participation without any victimization.
Contact for Additional Information
You can contact the following for any further clarifications you want answers to about
the research. Ahunlu Ackah Jainie.Post Office Box AS 605, Ashaiman. Contact:
+233(0)553269943. For any further questions about your rights as a research participant in
this study you may contact the Administrator of the Ethics Committee for Humanities, ISSER,
University of Ghana at [email protected] / [email protected] or 00233- 303-933-866.
"I have read or have had someone read all of the above, asked questions,
received answers regarding participation in this study, and am willing to give consent
for me, mychild/ward to participate in this study. I will not have waived any of my
rights by signing this consent form. Upon signing this consent form, I will receive a copy
for my personal records."
Name of Volunteer
Signature or mark of volunteer Date
If volunteers cannot read the form themselves, a witness must sign here:
I was present while the benefits, risks and procedures were read to the volunteer. All
questions were answered and the volunteer has agreed to take part in the research.
Name of witness
Section C-VOLUNTEER
AGREEMENT
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
108
Signature of witness Date
I certify that the nature and purpose, the potential benefits, and possible risks
associated with participating in this research have been explained to the above individual.
Ahunlu Ackah Jainie
Name of Person who Obtained Consent
Signature of Person Who Obtained Consent Date
Appendix 4: Output of Analyses
Model Summary
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error Change Statistics
Square Square of the R Square F df1 df2 Sig. F
Estimate Change Change Change
1
a .181
.033
.031
4.20013
.033
18.757
2
1102
.000
b .746 2 .556 .554 2.84976 .523 431.604 3 1099 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Age of respondent, what is your sex
b. Predictors: (Constant), Age of respondent, what is your sex, TEO_total, TLEO, IEO_total
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 661.793 2 330.896 18.757 b
.000
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
109
2
Residual 19440.522 1102 17.641
275.26
c 0 .000
Total 20102.315 1104
Regression
11177.162
2235.432
Residual 8925.153 109 9 8.121
Total 20102.315 110 4
a. Dependent Variable: TI_total
b. Predictors: (Constant), Age of respondent, what is your sex
c. Predictors: (Constant), Age of respondent, what is your sex, TEO_total, TLEO, IEO_total
a Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized T Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 24.677 .696 35.446 .000
1
what is your sex
-1.484
.259
-.173
-5.727
.000
Age of respondent .071 .022 .099 3.264 .001
(Constant) 8.543 .682
12.524 .000
what is your sex -.657 .177 -.077 -3.701 .000
Age of respondent .034 .015 .047 2.272 .023
2
IEO_total .024 .008 .090 3.037 .002
TLEO .034 .006 .134 5.477 .000
TEO_total .156 .008 .578 18.695 .000
a. Dependent Variable: TI_total
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
110
Model Summary
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of Change Statistics
Square Square the R Square F df1 df2 Sig. F
Estimate Change Change Change
1
a .738
.545
.544
2.87414
.545
445.517
3
1115
.000
2
b .741
.549
.547
2.86545
.004
4.385
2
1113
.013
3
c .750
.562
.558
2.83098
.013
5.546
6
1107
.000
a. Predictors: (Constant), TEO_total, TLEO, IEO_total
b. Predictors: (Constant), TEO_total, TLEO, IEO_total, PD_total, CO_total
c. Predictors: (Constant), TEO_total, TLEO, IEO_total, PD_total, CO_total, cenTLEO_cenPD,
cenTEO_cenCO, cenTEO_cenPD, cenTLEO_cenCO, cenIEO_cenPD, cenIEO_cenCO
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression
11040.842
3
3680.281
445.517
b .000
1 Residual 9210.672 1115 8.261
Total 20251.514 1118
Regression
11112.858
5
2222.572
270.688 c
.000
2 Residual 9138.655 1113 8.211
Total 20251.514 1118
3
Regression
11379.523
11
1034.502
129.080
d .000
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
111
Residual 8871.990 1107 8.014
Total 20251.514 1118
a. Dependent Variable: TI_total
b. Predictors: (Constant), TEO_total, TLEO, IEO_total
c. Predictors: (Constant), TEO_total, TLEO, IEO_total, PD_total, CO_total
d. Predictors: (Constant), TEO_total, TLEO, IEO_total, PD_total, CO_total, cenTLEO_cenPD,
cenTEO_cenCO, cenTEO_cenPD, cenTLEO_cenCO, cenIEO_cenPD, cenIEO_cenCO
Coefficientsa
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
112
Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig. 95.0% Correlations
Coefficients Coefficients Confidence
Interval for B
B Std. Beta Lower Upper Zero- Partial Part
Error Bound Bound order
(Constant) 8.300 .523 15.863 .000 7.273 9.326
1
IEO_total .026 .008 .096 3.264 .001 .010 .041 .581 .097 .066
TLEO .036 .006 .141 5.744 .000 .024 .049 .508 .170 .116
TEO_total .155 .008 .577 18.776 .000 .139 .171 .724 .490 .379
(Constant) 8.004 .574
13.940 .000 6.878 9.131
IEO_total .018 .008 .066 2.104 .036 .001 .034 .581 .063 .042
TLEO .034 .006 .134 5.449 .000 .022 .047 .508 .161 .110
2 TEO_total .155 .008 .578 18.807 .000 .139 .172 .724 .491 .379
CO_total .059 .022 .064 2.637 .008 .015 .103 .381 .079 .053
PD_total
-.025
.015
-.035
-1.726
.085
-.054
.003
.016
-.052
-
(Constant)
9.522
.679
14.031
.000
8.191
10.854
.035
IEO_total .012 .009 .043 1.280 .201 -.006 .030 .581 .038 .025
TLEO .033 .007 .128 5.025 .000 .020 .045 .508 .149 .100
TEO_total .156 .008 .582 18.498 .000 .140 .173 .724 .486 .368
CO_total .023 .024 .025 .991 .322 -.023 .070 .381 .030 .020
3
PD_total
-.015
.015
-.021
-1.016
.310
-.045
.014
.016
-.031
-
.020
cenIEO_cenPD .001 .002 .034 .902 .367 -.002 .005 .139 .027 .018
cenTLEO_cenPD .001 .001 .034 1.237 .216 -.001 .003 .135 .037 .025
cenTEO_cenPD
-.002
.001
-.056
-1.552
.121
-.005
.001
.068
-.047
-
.031
cenIEO_cenCO
-.004
.002
-.092
-2.403
.016
-.007
-.001
-.275
-.072
-
.048
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
113
cenTLEO_cenCO
-.005
.001
-.113
-3.814
.000
-.008
-.002
-.252
-.114 -
.076
cenTEO_cenCO .004 .002 .085 2.229 .026 .000 .008 -.210 .067 .044
a. Dependent Variable: TI_total
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Squared Cronbach's
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Correlation Correlation Deleted
TI_total 353.9850 3473.825 .700 .552 .797
IEO_total 286.9895 2429.665 .742 .609 .740
TLEO 307.6692 2588.655 .575 .361 .780
TEO_total 306.0382 2335.478 .820 .739 .721
PD_total 367.0568 3761.304 .062 .033 .834
CO_total 354.4397 3547.241 .508 .311 .807
FEO_total 294.3834 2266.071 .728 .579 .746
Appendix 5: Survey instruments
DEAR RESPONDENT,
I am a final year MPhil psychology student from the University of Ghana, conducting a study on
“entrepreneurial orientation and team innovation among small and medium-sized enterprises in the
Greater Accra region of Ghana” under the supervision of Dr. Kingsley Nyarko and Dr. Francis Annor
in fulfillment of the requirement of my graduate programme. There are no wrong or right answers. Your
contribution through honest completion of this questionnaire is very much appreciated.
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
114
Finance HR Marketing ProductionGeneral Admin.
Other (Please specify)………………………….
Responses will be kept confidential and will be used only for the purpose of the study.
Kindly sign if you have agreed to take part in this study…………………………………..
Kindly contact me if you have questions, suggestions or concerns; 0266554956/[email protected]
SECTION 1: ABOUT YOURSELF (DEMOGRAPHIC DATA)
Please TICK or provide the information that best describe you or your team.
1. What is your sex? Female Male
2. Age
3. Level
of
education? SHSDiploma certificate College of education Polytechnic University Other…………………….
4. Marital status? Married Single
5. What is your ethnicity? Please specify………………………………… 6. What is your religion? Please specify…………………………………. 4. Please indicate your educational background and provide the specific discipline/subject area? Arts Humanities Science Other (Please specify)……………………
Specific discipline/subject area………………………………..
5. Which sector is your organisation?
Services Manufacturing Agriculture Building and Construction
IT/Software/Internet Trade Other (Please specify)………………………
6. Which department do you work in?
7. How long have you been with this organization?
8. What is the size of your organization/number of full time employees?
1-5 employees 6-29 employees 30-99 employees
9. How old is your organization?
10. How long has your current team been in place?
11. How many are you in this team/size o
12. Are you the team leader?Yes
f team?
No
If Yes skip SECTION 2A
SECTION 2(S2). Please read the following statements and indicate to what extent you agree or
disagree with each statement by ticking the number that applies to you.
1= Strongly Disagree (SD): 2= Moderately Disagree (MD); 3= Slightly Disagree (sd): 4= Neutral (N):
5= Slightly Agree (sa): 6= Moderately Agree (MA): 7= Strongly Agree (SA).
(SECTION 2A) Team Leader’s entrepreneurial orientation
strongly
disagr.
D d
slightly
isagr.
slightly
agree
A a
strongly
gree
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
115
1. My team leader initiates actions to which other team leaders 1
3
5
7
respond
2. My team leader excels at identifying opportunities 1 3 5 7
3. My team leader always tries to take the initiative in every
1
3
5
7 situation (e.g., against other team leaders in projects and when
working with others)
4. Our team leader tends to take calculated risk with new ideas 1 3 5 7
5. Our team leader emphasizes both exploration and
1
3
5
7 experimentation for opportunities and take bold, wild-ranging
actions to achieve the objectives
6. When our team leader is confronted with decisions involving 1
3
5
7
uncertainties, our team leader typically adopts a bold posture
7. Our team leader places strong emphasis on innovative and
1
3
5
7 creative ideas in its methods of operation
8. Our team leader is often the first in coming up with new
1
3
5
7
ideas related to new products, services, in-company processes,
methods or other innovative improvements related to our
business
9. In the last three years, our team leader actively introduced
1
3
5
7 improvements and innovations that have been usually quite
dramatic
10. Our team leader considers working independently to 1
3
5
7
enhance creative thinking
11. When working autonomously, our team leader ensures
1
3
5
7 adequate coordination to minimize inefficiencies and
duplication of efforts
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
116
12. Our team leader supports a proper balance between
1
3
5
7
patience and tolerance for autonomous groups and the
forbearance to reduce or eliminate initiatives that are not
succeeding
13. Our team leader implements the necessary structural
1
3
5
7 changes to stimulate new ideas
14.Our team leader fosters the necessary culture, rewards and 1
3
5
7 processes to support product and service champions
(SECTION 2B) Firm’s entrepreneurial orientation
strongly
D
slightly slightly
A
strongly
disagr. disagr. agree agree
1.My firm typically initiates action to which competitors then 1 3 5 7
respond
2.My firm is the first to introduce new products or services, 1 3 5 7
techniques, etc.
3.My firm always tries to take the initiative in every situation 1 3 5 7
4.My firm is inclined towards high-risk projects with a chance 1 3 5 7
of very high returns
5.Due to the nature of the business environment in which we 1 3 5 7
operate, it is best to take bold, wide-ranging actions to achieve
the firm’s objectives
6. When confronted with decisions involving uncertainty, the 1 3 5 7
firm typically adopts a bold posture
7.My firm places a strong emphasis on innovation, 1 3 5 7
technological leadership and research and development
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
117
10.In the last three years, my firm has extensively generated 1 3 5 7
profits through innovative products and/or services
11.In the last three years, changes in products or services have 1 3 5 7 been usually quite dramatic
12.My firm considers developing independent work units such 1 3 5 7
as “skunkworks” to enhance creative thinking.
Skunkworks =a small team given responsibility to come out
with something in a short time with minimal managerial
constraints
13.When using autonomous work units, my firm ensures 1 3 5 7
adequate coordination to minimize inefficiencies and
duplication of efforts
14. My firm has a proper balance between patience and 1 3 5 7
tolerance for autonomous groups and the forbearance to reduce
or eliminate initiatives that are not succeeding
15. My firm implements necessary structural changes such as 1 3 5 7
small, autonomous groups to stimulate new ideas
16. My firm fosters the necessary culture, rewards, and 1 3 5 7
processes to support product or service champions
(SECTION2C) Team’s entrepreneurial orientation
strongly
D
slightly slightly
A
strongly
disagr. disagr. agree agree
1. My team initiates actions to which other teams respond 1 3 5 7
2. My team excels at identifying opportunities 1 3 5 7
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
118
3. My team always tries to take the initiative in every situation 1 3 5 7
(e.g., against competitors, in projects and when working with
others)
4. People in our team are encouraged to take calculated risk 1 3 5 7
with new ideas
5. Our team emphasizes both exploration and experimentation 1 3 5 7
for opportunities and take bold, wild-ranging actions to achieve
the set objectives
6. When confronted with decisions involving uncertainties, my 1 3 5 7
team typically adopts a bold posture
7. Our team places strong emphasis on innovative and creative 1 3 5 7
ideas in its methods of operation
8. Our team is often the first in coming up with new ideas 1 3 5 7
related to new products, services, in-company processes,
methods or other innovative improvements related to our
business
9. In the last three years, our team actively introduced 1 3 5 7
improvements and innovations that have been usually quite
dramatic
10. In our team working independently is considered to 1 3 5 7
enhance creative thinking
11. While working autonomously, we as a team ensure 1 3 5 7
adequate coordination to minimize inefficiencies and
duplication of efforts
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
119
12. In our team we have a proper balance between patience and 1 3 5 7
tolerance for autonomous groups and the forbearance to reduce
or eliminate initiatives that are not succeeding
13. We as a team implement the necessary structural changes 1 3 5 7
to stimulate new ideas
14.We as team fosters the necessary culture, rewards and 1 3 5 7
processes to support product and service champions
(SECTION 2D) Individual’s entrepreneurial orientation
strongly
D
slightly slightly
A
strongly
disagr. disagr. agree agree
1. I usually act in anticipation of future problems, needs or 1 3 5 7
changes and initiate actions to which others respond
2. I excel at identifying opportunities and tend to plan ahead on 1 3 5 7
projects
3. I prefer to “step-up” and get things going on projects, always 1 3 5 7
trying to take the initiative in every situation rather than sit and
wait for someone else to do it
4. I like to take bold action by venturing into the unknown and 1 3 5 7
encouraged to take calculated risks with new ideas
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
120
5. I am willing to invest a lot of time and/or money on 1 3 5 7
something that might yield return, taking bold and wide-
ranging actions to achieve my objectives
6. When confronted with decisions involving uncertainties, I 1 3 5 7
tend to act “boldly” in situations where risk is involved
7. I often like to try new and unusual activities that are not 1 3 5 7
typical and place strong emphasis on innovative and creative
ideas
8. I am often the first to come up with new ideas related to new 1 3 5 7
products, services, in-company processes, methods or other
innovative improvements related to our business
9. In general, I prefer a strong emphasis in projects on unique, 1 3 5 7
one-of-a kind approaches rather than visiting the tried and true
approached used before
10. I prefer to try my own unique way when learning new 1 3 5 7
things rather than doing it like everyone else does
11. I favour experimentation and original approaches to 1 3 5 7
problem solving rather than using methods others generally use
for solving their problems
12. In the last three years, I actively introduced improvements 1 3 5 7
and innovations that have been usually quite dramatic
13. I consider working independently to enhance creative 1 3 5 7
thinking
14.While working autonomously, I ensure adequate 1 3 5 7
coordination with others to minimize inefficiencies and
duplication of efforts
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
121
15. I am careful about a proper balance between patience and 1 3 5 7
tolerance while working autonomously
16. While working autonomously I am able to stimulate ideas 1 3 5 7
17. I feel that I can act autonomously at work while the 1 3 5 7
necessary culture, rewards and processes to support product
and service champion is fostered
SECTION 3. Please read the following statements and indicate to what extent you agree or disagree
with each statement by ticking the number that applies to you. 1=Strongly Disagree (SD) 2=Disagree
(D) 3= Neutral (N) 4=Agree (A) 5=Strongly Agree (SA)
Team Innovation
SSD DD NN AA SSA
1. Team members often produce new services, 1 2 3 4 5
methods or procedures
2. This team gives full consideration to new and 1 2 3 4 5
alternative methods and procedures for doing
their work
3. Team members often implement new ideas to 1 2 3 4 5
improve the quality of our products and
services
4. This team seeks out and acquires information 1 2 3 4 5
that may be useful in developing multiple
solutions to problems
5. Using skills they already possess, this team 1 2 3 4 5
learns new ways to apply these skills to develop
new products that can help attract and serve
new markets
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
122
6. Overall, this is an innovative team 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION 4 (S4). Please read the following statements and indicate to what extent
you agree or disagree with each statement by ticking the number that applies to you.
1=Strongly Disagree (SD) 2=Disagree (D) 3=Neutral (N)
4=Agree (A) 5=Strongly Agree (SA)
Cultural Orientation
SD
D
N
A SA
1. Individuals should sacrifice self-interest for the group.
2. Individuals should stick with the group even through difficulties
3. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards
4. Group success is more important than individual success.
5. Individuals should only pursue their goals after considering
the welfare of the group
6. Group loyalty should be encouraged even if individual goals Suffer
7. People in higher positions should make most decisions without consulting people in lower positions
8. People in higher positions should not ask the opinions of people in lower positions too frequently
9.People in higher positions should avoid social interaction with people in lower positions
10. People in lower positions should not disagree with decisions by people in higher positions
11. People in higher positions should not delegate important tasks to people in lower positions
University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh