Entrepreneurial orientation during adversity: differences across ownership categories

Abstract

PurposeThis study seeks to highlight the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) by investigating how firms respond to adversity, i.e. performance below aspiration levels through pertinent changes in EO, and if some of these changes can be accounted for based on the ownership of the firm.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopts a multiple regression using an ordinary least square methodology on a sample of 13,333 Indian firms within the period 2005–2016 to test its hypothesis.FindingsThis research sheds light on performance feedback as an antecedent to EO as also on the effect of ownership moderating this relationship, with diversity in resource configuration and governance arrangement being the key drivers.Research limitations/implicationsThis is a single country study; hence, there is a possibility of a country-specific bias. This study uses a secondary measure of EO and thus is unable to capture the entrepreneurial intentions and opinions of managers.Practical implicationsThe study establishes a nuanced understanding of how ownership impacts the entrepreneurial behaviour of firms during times of adversity.Social implicationsThis study may help policymakers draft appropriate policy interventions for firms at the time of adversity, so that they can improve their entrepreneurial spree.Originality/valueThis rare study from an emerging market establishes performance feedback as an important antecedent of EO. It further highlights the vital role of ownership in supporting/constraining EO.

Entrepreneurial orientation far beyond opportunity: the influence of the necessity for innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking

“…, 2017; Floris et al. , 2020; Luu and Ngo, 2019; Mondal and Chakrabarti, 2021; Pearce et al. , 2010; Randerson, 2016; Rodrigo-Alarcón et al.…”

“…EO characterizes an entrepreneur who, searching for opportunities, is able to use various fundamental attributes (Rodrigo-Alarc on et al, 2018). Three attributes are currently highlighted in the literature: innovativeness; proactiveness; and risk-taking (Adel and Habib, 2018;Floris et al, 2020;Luu and Ngo, 2019;Mondal and Chakrabarti, 2021;Pearce et al, 2010;Randerson, 2016;Rodrigo-Alarc on et al, 2018;Song et al, 2017;Wales et al, 2013).…”

“…EO is a set of individual or organizational behaviors comprising several fundamental attributes. Scholars have emphasized three of these: innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking (Bull and Whittam, 2020; Martins and Perez, 2020; Mondal and Chakrabarti, 2021; Montiel Campos, 2017; Wu et al. , 2020).…”

“…EO is a set of individual or organizational behaviors comprising several fundamental attributes. Scholars have emphasized three of these: innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking (Bull and Whittam, 2020;Martins and Perez, 2020;Mondal and Chakrabarti, 2021;Montiel Campos, 2017;Wu et al, 2020). The very definition of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking highlights the relevance of opportunity specifically in the EO context.…”

Effect of environmental dynamism on entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: the moderating role of informal institutions

“…In EO literature, there have also been calls for context-specific research as this would generate more fine-grained and more empirically valid knowledge for both practitioners and scholars (Miller, 2011). In addition, there have been calls for multi-country research (Mondal and Chakrabarti, 2021), inclusion of contextual variables (Alrubaishi et al ., 2021) and more governance dimensions (Chakrabarti and Mondal, 2018) in explaining EO. Although adopting an aggregate index of EO is a common practice (e.g.…”