UNIVERSITY OF GHANA DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY …

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……………………………


ii

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to Jainie Agovi Jainie.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


11


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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 &


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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).


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,


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


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.


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


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.


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,


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


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.


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.


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).


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).


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,


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


67

Figure 2: Moderation Effect of Collectivism on the Relationship between

Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation and Team innovation.


68


Team Entrepreneurial Orientation and Team innovation.


69


Team Leader Entrepreneurial Orientation and Team innovation.


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:


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.


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


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


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


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


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)


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).


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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).


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.892574

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):


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


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


http://www.scienpress.com/journal_focus.asp?main_id=55&amp%3BSub_id=IV&amp%3BIssue=253

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.


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.


http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&amp%3BPAGE=reference&amp%3BD=psyc7&amp%3BNEWS=N

http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&amp%3BPAGE=reference&amp%3BD=psyc7&amp%3BNEWS=N

http://citifmonline.com/2017/06/03/only-10-of-graduates-find-jobs-after-

Pfeffer, J., 1994. Competitive Advantage Through People. Harvard Business School

Press, Boston


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.




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),


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


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.


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


102

Appendices

Appendix 1: Ethical Clearance Certificate


103

Appendix 2: Introduction Letter from Department of Psychology


104


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


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.


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


mailto:[email protected]

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


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



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


111

Residual 8871.990 1107 8.014

Total 20251.514 1118


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


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


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


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.


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


mailto:0266554956/[email protected]

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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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



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


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


Documents

UNIVERSITY OF GHANA DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY …