CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background to the Study
Firm competitiveness is the ability of a company to dominate the market, increase customer
patronage and retention and gain a competitive edge over its competitors in the market. This
competitive edge implies offering products or services that are superior to what its competitors
offer to the market (Lopez-Fernandez, 2019). Improving market competitiveness is a necessity
for a company to remain in business and to keep up with its competitors in the market. A
company can improve its market competitiveness by satisfying its customers, increase customer
patronage and retention and gain a competitive edge over its rivals. Every company wants to gain
a competitive edge over its major competitors. Verter and Osakwe (2015) stated that a company
can gain a competitive edge over its competitors by offering products and services that exceeds
what its competitors offer to the market. When a company offers a product or service that
exceeds what its competitors’ offers, it gives the company a competitive edge over its rivals and
the company can be said to have improved its competitiveness. If the company continues to
distinguish its products or services from its competitors’ offerings both in terms of quality and
price, the company can be said to have sustained its competitiveness
Improving firm competitiveness is a sure way for companies to remain in business. Verter and
Osakwe (2015) maintained that offering quality products or services gives a company an edge
over its competitors and improve performance. In a competitive market, companies need to be
willing to improve the quality of their products or services to gain a competitive edge over its
rivals. To improve competitiveness, companies need to know who their competitors are, what are
they doing differently, the impact of what they are doing differently, and develop a better
strategy than their competitors. Chen, Su and Wu (2007) stated that a company must monitor its
1
competitors and understand how and why they are able to do certain things. When a company is
able to understand the way its competitors do certain things, such knowledge will enable the
company to develop a better marketing strategy than its competitors to dominate the market.
The desire of every company is to compete favorably in the market. When a company is able to
compete favorably in the market, it will increase its profit margin and experience business
growth (Li & Wang, 2019). Lavy (2008) posited that companies are always determined to
improve their competitiveness by selling more products than their competitors. If a company
makes more sales than its competitors consistently, such company can be said to be competing
favorably in the market. Yee et al., (2013) argued that a company can increase its
competitiveness if it satisfies its target customers better than its competitors, increase customer
patronage and sustain its market share. Lopez-Fernandez (2019), stated that a company can
improve its market competitiveness by entrepreneurial engagement. He further explains that if
companies recognize opportunities, create values for customers and act proactively they will gain
competitive advantage over competitors.
Previous research findings have suggested entrepreneurial engagement as a key ingredient for the
success of SMEs and have been found as the panacea to higher performance (Wiklund &
Shepherd, 2005). It is further argued that firms that possess higher levels of entrepreneurial
engagement will perform better than those with lower levels of entrepreneurial engagement
(Rauch, 2009).
Entrepreneurial Engagement, alternatively referred to as entrepreneurial involvement, is a
newly developed concept within the wider entrepreneurship construct. Entrepreneurial
engagement acknowledges that entrepreneurship “can be viewed as a process that includes
2
several (successive) engagement levels” (Hessels, et al., 2011). Entrepreneurial engagement
is usually presented as a categorical and dependent variable, and is defined by the
entrepreneur's stage (or level) of involvement in the entrepreneurial process. Grilo and
Thurik (2008) identified seven (7) levels of the entrepreneurial engagement variable,
namely: thinking about it; taking steps for starting up; having a young business; having an
older business; gave up; no longer being an entrepreneur; and never thought about it
(Ayanna, 2015).
Morris, Schindehutte and Laforge (2002), on the other hand, identified four (4) variables of
entrepreneurial engagement; Opportunity Recognition, value creation, pro-activeness and Risktaking.
Morris et al., (2002) the environment is defined as an opportunity horizon. While acknowledging
areas where the firm is more dependent on various external parties or vulnerable to external
phenomena, marketing efforts are proactively directed toward affecting change in the environment.
More specifically, the marketer attempts to redefine elements of the external environment in ways
that reduce environmental uncertainty, lessen the firm’s dependency and vulnerability, and/or modify
the task environment in which the firm operates. In essence, the marketer is enhancing the firm’s
level of control over its own destiny.
The duty of the entrepreneurial marketer is to discover new sources of customer value and create
unique combinations of resources to produce value. SMEs can create value by using existing
technology to serve customers in an unconditional manner (Hamel & Prahalad, 1991).
Pro-activeness reflects entrepreneurial willingness to dominate competitors through a
combination of proactive and aggressive moves, e.g., introducing new products or services ahead
3
of competition and acting in anticipation of future demand to create change and shape the
environment. Moreover, having a proactive orientation involves discovering and satisfying the
latent, unarticulated needs of customers through collecting customer- and competitor-based
information (Keh, Nguyen & Ng, 2007).
In respect to risk-taking, Morris et al., (2002) further stated that entrepreneurial engagement does
not entail reckless decision-making but rather, a reasonable awareness of the risks involved (e.g.,
financial, technical, market-related, and personal) and an attempt to manage such risk factors.
These risks are reflected in the various resource allocation decisions made by an organization, as
well as in the choice of products, services, and markets to be emphasized.
Every firm has a risk profile, although for most companies it is not explicitly formulated. This
risk profile evolves over time (Morris et al., 2002).
Thus, improving firm competitiveness through entrepreneurial engagement appears to be
possible. To this end, this study is designed to investigate the relationship between
entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness of food and beverage manufacturing SMEs
in Rivers State.
4
Statement of the Problem
The contributions of SMEs in economic development of both developed and developing nations
have always been acknowledged (Aliyu & Mahmood, 2014). But as Ediri (2014) opines, SMEs
can only maintain such a position when a good number of strategies including the formulation
and application of appropriate entrepreneurial engagement strategies are put in place at the right
time and in the right proportion to exert positive effect on performance (Hanmaikyur, 2016).
Many firms had gone out of business due to lack of creative and innovative mindset. It is
important to say that business is evolving on a daily basis and firms that are not entrepreneurial
oriented will be left out of business. The 21st century business is entrepreneurial in nature and as
such it demands more of innovative techniques and entrepreneurial strategies to outwit
competitors. SMEs are struggling to meet up with high sales because they lacked innovative
strategies. It is disheartening to observe that many SMEs have gone out of business because they
are not pro-active in identifying opportunities, customers’ needs and wants. Many SMEs in food
and beverage sector in Rivers state lack entrepreneurial engagement strategies and as such their
businesses are experiencing low sales (Amadi & Renner, 2019).
Mohammed and Obeleagu-Nzelibe (2014), submitted that the rise in the failure rate of SMEs is
of major concern. They asserted that one of the major challenges of the growth of SMEs is that
most of them do not adopt entrepreneurial approach. This is because they find it hard to think
pro-actively and also they are not customer centric.
SMEs owners and managers have been accused of being entrepreneurially myopic and lacked
foresight as regard where the company is going to in years to come. The issue is that by lacking
entrepreneurial engagement, SMEs may not achieve their intended market share, firm
5
competitiveness and growth potentials, and their life span could be at risk (Burger, O’Neil &
Mahadea, 2005; Dauda, 2007). The need for an acceptable understanding of entrepreneurial
engagement and its applicability to entrepreneurial firms has gradually become an issue of great
concern hence the need for this study to bring to the lime light the need for firms to act
entrepreneurial by recognizing opportunity, creating value, being pro-active and taking
calculated risk.
Several studies have reviewed the concept of entrepreneurial engagement and firm
competitiveness in different context and location. Mugambi, and Karugu, (2017).
Dimensionalzed
entrepreneurial
engagement
through
strategic
innovation,
innovation
orientation, market orientation, and resource leveraging, whereas Olannye, and Edward, (2016)
Dimensionalized it through entrepreneurial pro-activeness, entrepreneurial innovation and
entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. Nwaizugbo, and Anukam, (2014), looked at it from a
different perspective; entrepreneurial practices and the marketing concepts, hence the need for
this study to come up with a different concept; entrepreneurial engagement and firm
competitiveness. Nwaizugbo and Anukam (2014), analyzed their data descriptively based on
qualitative techniques; Olannye and Edward (2016), used correlation and multiple regression
analysis as major analytical tools; Muita (2013), analyzed using percentage and frequency
analysis, mean, standard deviation, bar chart, pie chart, and the SPSS version 21.0; hence, the
need of this study to use a different instrument (Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient) in order to fill in the gap.
It is on this premise that this study is designed to fill in the existing gap in content, sector
(industry), geographical and instrumentation. The study will focus on entrepreneurial
engagement and firm competitiveness of SMEs in food & beverage sector in Rivers state.
6
1.3 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study shows the linkage between the independent
(Entrepreneurial Engagement) and the dependent (Firm Competitiveness) variables. The
independent variable is dimensionalized as: Opportunity Recognition, value creation, proactiveness and Risk-taking which are in line with the study of Morris, Schindehutte and Laforge
(2002), Miller (1983), Lumpkin and Dess (1996). The dependent variable is measured as
(customer satisfaction and customer patronage) which is consistent with the studies of Hassan
(2000) and Yee, Yeung, Cheng and Lee (2013).
Entrepreneurial Engagement
Firm Competitiveness
Opportunity Recognition
Customer Satisfaction
Value Creation
Customer Patronage
Pro-Activeness
Risk-Taking
Fig.
1.1:
Conceptual Framework
Competitiveness.
of
Entrepreneurial
Engagement
and
Source: Morris, Schindehutte, & Laforge (2002); Miller (1983); Lumpkin & Dess (1996).
Hassan (2000); Yee, Yeung, Cheng & Lee (2013).
7
Firm
1.4 Aim and Objectives of the Study
The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between Entrepreneurial Engagement and
Firm Competitiveness of Food and Beverages Manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. The specific
objectives of the study are as follows:
1. to assess the extent of the relationship between opportunity recognition and firm
competitiveness of food and beverages manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
2. to determine the extent of the relationship between value creation and firm
competitiveness of food and beverages manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
3. to ascertain the extent of the relationship between pro-activeness and firm
competitiveness of food and beverages manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
4. to determine the extent of the relationship between risk-taking and firm competitiveness
of food and beverages manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
1.5 Research Questions
The following research questions were raised to guide the study:
1. To what extent does opportunity recognition relate with firm competitiveness of food
and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State?
2. To what extent does value creation relate with firm competitiveness of food and
beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State?
3. To what extent do pro-activeness relate with firm competitiveness of food and
beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State?
4. To what extent does risk-taking relate with firm competitiveness of food and
beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State?
8
1.6 Research Hypotheses
In line with the objectives and research questions, the following hypotheses were
formulated to guide this study.
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between opportunity recognition and customer
satisfaction in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between opportunity recognition and customer
patronage in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between value creation and customer
satisfaction in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Ho4: There is no significant relationship between value creation and customer patronage
in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Ho5: There is no significant relationship between pro-activeness and customer
satisfaction in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Ho6: There is no significant relationship between pro-activeness and customer patronage
in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Ho7: There is no significant relationship between risk-taking and customer satisfaction
of food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Ho8: There is no significant relationship between risk-taking and customer patronage in
food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
9
1.7 Significance of the Study
This Study is significant given that:
The study will be of immense benefit to the food and beverage firms in Port Harcourt and
Nigeria at large. It will enable them make prompt and informed decision about innovation,
opportunity recognition, and resource leveraging. Small and medium enterprises are always
keen on profit maximization. Thus, the study will help them to identify the necessary
entrepreneurial engagement to boost their performance and increase profitability. It will also
enable them to be pro-active in terms of identifying and meeting customers’ needs
effectively.
The study will be of great importance to the government because it will expose the relevance
of entrepreneurial engagement and its application. The findings of the study will be of
immense importance to government in generating new policies and revision of the existing
policies that will create enabling environment for SMEs to thrive and help to cushion the
effect of poverty in the country.
It will also be of great assistance to researchers, students (undergraduates, and postgraduates)
and the academia especially those who may be interested in carrying out further research on
entrepreneurial engagement or related area. This study will serve as a good reference material
for their study.
10
1.8 Scope of the Study
The scope of the study will be considered in three perspectives which include content scope,
geographical scope, and unit of analysis.
i.
Content Scope: the study focuses on entrepreneurial engagement and firm
competitiveness of SMEs in the food and beverage sector in Rivers state. The predictor
variable (entrepreneurial engagement) is dimensioned by opportunity recognition, value
creation, proactiveness and risk-taking while the criterion variable (firm competitiveness)
is measured by customer satisfaction and customer patronage.
ii.
Geographical Scope: the study entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness of
SMEs in the food and beverage sector is conducted in Rivers state (South-South Nigeria).
iii.
Unit of Analysis: the study involves macro level of analysis. This is because the
organizational representatives will be targeted for obtaining information relating to
entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness.
11
1.9 Operational definition of Terms
Customer patronage: The act of purchasing goods and services offered by a company.
Customer satisfaction: The extent to which customers are satisfied with the quality of services
provided by their product or service provider.
Entrepreneurship: Aruwa (2006) sees entrepreneurship as “the willingness and ability of an
individual to seek for investment opportunities, to establish and run an enterprise successfully”.
Firm competitiveness: The ability of a company to dominate the market, increase customer
patronage and retention and gain a competitive edge over its competitors in the market.
Pro-activeness: Pro-activity is a state of mind and the will largely drive by one’s consciousness,
to sustain a vision, to fulfill a mission, to attain a challenging goal and to achieve defined
objectives. It is envisioning a future towards which one device the strategic parameters for
influencing, impacting and recreating the environment within which to operate in line with that
vision. Entrepreneurial pro-activeness can also be seen as alertness of the company (Olanye and
Edward, 2016).
Risk-taking: Risk-taking involves a willingness to pursue opportunities that have a reasonable
chance of producing losses or significant performance discrepancies (Morris, 2002).
Value Creation: Value creation is a firm’s interpretation and response to customer requirements
with the delivery of superior product in the value offering and the extent of perceived value
customers’ receive (O’Cass & Sok, 2013).
12
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Conceptual Review
2.1.1 Concept of Entrepreneurial Engagement
Entrepreneurial engagement as a construct was coined from entrepreneurship; Covin (2006)
asserted that over the past decades, increasing attention has been paid to the concept of
entrepreneurship and its impact in the economic development of a country. A brief review of the
history of entrepreneurship will aptly help to improve our understanding of entrepreneur and
entrepreneurship. The term “entrepreneurr”, coined by Richard Cantillon through his work
‘Essaisur la Nature du Commerce en General ‘published posthumously in 1755 and 1931
(Hortovany, 2010) was derived from French verb “entreprendre” meaning to undertake various
economic endeavors (Kuratko & Hodgetts, 2001). The verb “entreprendre” and its noun form
“entreprendeur”were popularised by early scholars (e.g. Say,1830).
The word “entrepreneurship” refers to the “creation of organizations” (Gartner, 1988). The suffix
‘ship’ refers to activities of an individual who draw results from certain actions (Huang,
2011).The word itself as claimed by Culhane (2003), was “articulated” by Schumpeter (1934).
The field evolved
by drawing on many other established disciplines such as economics,
sociology, psychology as well as various branches of management sciences (Hortovany,2010).
Entrepreneurial Engagement, alternately referred to as entrepreneurial involvement, is a
newly developed concept within the wider entrepreneurship construct. Entrepreneurial
engagement acknowledges that entrepreneurship “can be viewed as a process that includes
several (successive) engagement levels” (Hessels et al., 2011). Because the concept is a
newly developed one, research on entrepreneurial engagement is both scarce and narrow in
13
scope.
When encountered in the literature, entrepreneurial engagement is usually
presented as a categorical and dependent variable, and is defined by the entrepreneur's
stage (or level) of involvement in the entrepreneurial process.
Although little has been
achieved with respect to entrepreneurial engagement research there is already much
agreement among researchers as it pertains to the number and nature of these stages or
levels of involvement, which vary only slightly. Thus, Grilo and Thurik (2008) identified
seven (7) levels of the entrepreneurial engagement variable, namely: thinking about it;
taking steps for starting up; having a young business; having an older business; gave up;
no longer being an entrepreneur; and never thought about it (Ayanna, 2015).
2.1.2 Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Engagement
Entrepreneurial engagement has often been dimensionalized in terms of three dimensions as
identified by Miller (1983) through his definition of entrepreneurial organization as “one that
engages in product-market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come
up with proactive innovations, beating competitors to the punch”. However, Lumpkin and Dess
(1996), identified two additional dimensions ‘autonomy’ and ‘competitive aggressiveness’ to
compliment the original three dimensions proposed by Miller (1983). Recently, Morris,
Schindehutte and Laforge (2002) identified four dimensions of entrepreneurial engagement:
opportunity recognition, value creation, proactiveness and risk-taking.
In line with the forgoing discourse, the current study has opted not to use all the dimensions
listed above but decided to focus on four entrepreneurial engagement dimensions: opportunity
recognition, value creation, proactiveness and risk-taking which are believed to be more
appropriate in competitiveness of firms.
14
Opportunity Recognition
Environmental engagement emphasizes on pursing opportunities regardless of available
resources. Opportunities present unnoticed market positions, that are potential for sustainable
profit potential (Gunger, et al., 2012).
Recognition and pursuit of opportunity are marketing activities critical to a firm success. Market
potential is evaluated by the degree of fit that relate to the capacities and resources of the firm. It
is the tendency of the firm identifies the right opportunity that determines success (Becherer,
Haynes, & Helms, 2008).
There is a need to choose the “right” opportunity that determines success for firms (Becherer et
al., 2008). Taking a right action at the right time might bring successfulness for firms. Being
forward looking as a key point of opportunity focus for entrepreneurs means serve unsatisfied
needs and capture new opportunities before their competitors. In this case, innovation and
creativeness might help to move companies in two steps forward than competitors. Innovation
and creativity are important tools that enable entrepreneurial firms transform opportunities into
realities (Kilenthong, 2010).
Becherer et al., (2008) argued that opportunity focus of a firm is the ability to select the right
opportunity that determines success. Alvarez and Barney (2012) asserted that opportunities are
seen as objective phenomena that exists independently of the entrepreneur and as such resides in
s stream experience external to the entrepreneur awaiting discovery and exploitation.
Successful entrepreneurs are opportunistic; they enjoy thinking about new opportunities, and
have a long-term orientation toward opportunity creation and exploitation (Hills, Hultman, &
Miles, 2008).
15
The positive link between opportunity recognition and firm competitiveness is particularly
relevant for firms in emerging economies like Nigeria. Emerging economies are characterized by
their fast changing environments, customer demands change rapidly and market competition
becomes increasingly fierce. Thus, firms who continuously seek transient business opportunities
will survive better. Beverage firms have to make better use of their opportunities seeking
behaviour in order to survive and thrive. Therefore, Beverage firms need to continuously explore
entrepreneurial opportunities because their resources can only enable them to temporary sustain
competitive advantage (Olanye & Edward, 2016).
Value Creation
The central focus of entrepreneurial engagement is innovative value creation, the task is to
discover new sources of customer value and create unique combinations of resources to produce
value. Firms can create new value by using existing technology to serve customers in an
unconventional manner either use emerging technology better satisfy customer’s needs (Hamel
& Prahalad, 1991).
The duty of the entrepreneur is to discover new sources of customer value and create unique
combinations of resources to produce value. SMEs can create value by using existing technology
to serve customers in an unconditional manner (Hamel & Prahalad, 1991).
Morris, Shindehutte and Laforge (2002) pointed out that the focal point of entrepreneurial
engagement is innovative value creation, on the assumption that value creation is a prerequisite
for transactions and relationships. The task of entrepreneur is to fine-tune untapped sources of
customer value and create unique resources to produce value.
16
It was argued that because of the superior ability to identify and exploit opportunities,
entrepreneurial engagement processes are better able to identify attractive entrepreneurial
opportunities and exploit them by leveraging innovation to enhance the offering’s benefits and /
or decrease the offering costs resulting in superior value for the customer (Miles & Darroch,
2004).
Value creation is an essential condition for exchange to occur; successful firms emphasize the
value creation activities best suited to their strategic intent within their competitive niche (Miller
& Floricel, 2004). While traditional marketing has placed more focus on the transaction and
customer relationship, entrepreneurial engagement placed emphasis on value creation to satisfy
customer’s needs and wants profitably (Morris, Shindehutte & Laforge, 2002).
Porter (1985) developed a framework of value chains which is known as Porter analysis in
creating value in organizations category. Moreover, Porter (1985) conducted value chains
analysis by studying company activities which have direct effect to the value creation, and
supporting activities so that they affect the value and eventually will affect performance. Tsaiand
Ghoshal (1998) explain that organization needs to create novel product and unique products,
needs to specific its product and reallocate resources, to combine new resources, and combine
existing resources in new market. O’Cass and Sok (2013), emphasized that value creation
concept in an organization is a determinant variable of company’s innovation activity.
Moreover, managers and employees have important roles in creating value.
Gurau (2004) opined that value creation concept is closely related with internal activities in
creating of value for the customers. The organization internal activities include design, product,
market, delivery and other activities which support the creation of a product.
17
O’cass and Ngo (2012) argued that designing a value offering that matches customers’
expectations provides the means to gain a marketplace advantage. In designing its value offering,
the entrepreneurial firm needs to give significant attention to interpreting and responding to what
value it perceives customers are looking for. By doing this better than competitors, the firm can
obtain an advantage (Slater, 1997; Woodruff, 1997) through the delivery of superior value.
Day and Wensley (1988) argue that superior performance requires a firm to achieve “positional
superiority based on the provision of superior customer value”. The key task for managers then,
is to decide how to gain such advantages (through offering specific types of value in the value
proposition), especially those that distinguish their offering from competitors (Day & Wensley,
1988; Hult & Ketchen, 2001).
Proactiveness
The entrepreneur does not take the external environment as a given or as a set of circumstances
to which the firm can only react or adjust. The environment is defined as an opportunity horizon.
While acknowledging areas where the firm is more dependent on various external parties or
vulnerable to external phenomena, marketing efforts are proactively directed toward affecting
change in the environment. More specifically, the marketer attempts to redefine elements of the
external environment in ways that reduce environmental uncertainty, lessen the firm’s
dependency and vulnerability, and/or modify the task environment in which the firm operates. In
essence, the marketer is enhancing the firm’s level of control over its own destiny (Morris,
Shindehutte & Laforge, 2002).
Pro-activeness refers to the firms’ quick and swift response to market needs or demands, as well
as generating market opportunities. A formidable proactive strategic posture provides enterprises
18
with capability to anticipate changes that may occur in the business environment or even exert
influence on the business environment to their advantage (Rosli, 2018).
The pro-activeness dimension is said to reflect top management orientation in pursuing enhanced
competiveness and includes initiative and risk taking and competitive aggressiveness and
boldness (Olanye & Edward, 2016). Pro-activeness shows a strong positive relationship with
performance (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
It is largely moved by one’s consciousness, to sustain a vision, to fulfill a mission, to attain a
difficult goal and to achieve defined objectives. It is also envisioning a future towards which one
device the strategic parameters for influencing, impacting and recreating the environment within
which to operate in line with that vision. Entrepreneurial pro-activeness can also be seen as
alertness of the company (Olanye & Edward, 2016).
Entrepreneurial pro-activeness is basically achievement oriented, emphasizing initiative,
anticipating, creating change, predicting evolution towards a critical situation and early
preparation before the occurrence of an impending uncertainty or risk (Rosemond, Edward &
Moses, 2012).
Olannye and Edward, (2016), opined that Pro-active tendency gives a firm the ability to
anticipate changes or needs in the market and be among the first to act on them and such a fast
move translate into superior performances.
Proactive firm sees the need before time, act on it firmly by putting together all the resources and
capabilities necessary for the achievement of the envisioned needs. Pro-activeness explores the
firm’s actions, which are directed on introducing new products or services ahead of competitors
19
and thus succeed on a market, and create bigger demand on the provided actions (Rezvani &
Khazaei, 2013).
Pro-activeness reflects entrepreneurial willingness to dominate competitors through a
combination of proactive and aggressive moves, e.g., introducing new products or services ahead
of competition and acting in anticipation of future demand to create change and shape the
environment. Moreover, having a proactive orientation involves discovering and satisfying the
latent, unarticulated needs of customers through collecting customer- and competitor-based
information (Keh, Nguyen & Ng, 2007).
Risk-taking
Risk taking is the predisposition of the firm to engage an abundant amount of resources in Some
uncertainly successful activities (Eggers et al., 2013).Within entrepreneurial framework, risk
taking it is not just actions which firms undertake in order to prevent breaking down, it is either
to take into consideration possible risk that might bring positive fortune for the company. Micro
and small entrepreneurs have a lower level of risk perception rather than big companies (Palich
& Bagby, 1995). Risk-taking implies willingness for committing huge resources to opportunities
which involves probability of high failure (Zahra, 1991; Wiklund& Shepherd, 2003).
Risk-taking is the tendency to take bold actions such as venturing into unknown new markets,
committing large resources into a venture with high level of uncertainty, and borrowing heavily
to invest in business with low level of predictability in uncertain environment (Lumpkin & Dess,
2001; Rauch et al. 2009). It deals with the tendency to commit large resources to a project or
investment with sketchy information (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). Mahmood and Hafani
(2013), submitted that risk-taking is knowingly devoting resources to projects with chance of
20
high returns but may also entail a possibility of high failure. Most businesses involve risk
because many variables that affect their outcome cannot be predicted with certainty. The stake
must be high in the context of entrepreneurial engagement; large resources are committed to a
course of action that has no reliable data upon which projection is made. Firms must be willing
to lose large resources in pursuant of large profit for it to be regarded as risk taking. In other
words, it implies committing large resources to projects with unknown outcome. (Arif et al.,
2013), opined that risk-taking is breaking away from tried and trusted situation to venture into
unknown. Many studies suggest that firms must summon the courage to take risk and challenge
the existing order of business to achieve better performance (Hughes & Morgan, 2007).
There are various levels of risk taking. It can be range from depositing money in a bank to
developing a new product and present it on a completely new market. According to this, the risk
that can be taken by the companies could be measured by their effective level of performance
and reputation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
2.1.3 Concept of Firm competitiveness
Firm competitiveness is the ability of an organization to gain a competitive edge over its rivals in
the market. It refers to how well a company is doing in the market in the presence of other
similar organizations (Yee et al., 2013). Hassan (2000) defined firm competitiveness as the
capacity of an organization to increase and sustain its customer base despite the competition
from other similar organizations. Porter (1990), defines competitiveness as the ability of a given
firm to successfully compete in a given business environment. Lall (2001), defines firm
competitiveness as the ability of a firm to do better than benchmark companies in terms of
profitability, sales, or market share. In the same vein, Buckley, Pass and Prescott (1988),
21
considered competitiveness to be synonymous with a firm’s long-run profit performance, its
ability to compensate employees and generate superior returns for shareholders. Lavy (2008)
posited that firm competitiveness refers to the ability of an organization to satisfy the target
customers better than its competitors and sustain its competitive advantage in the market. He
further stated that satisfaction brings about increase patronage, increase sales and market share
which are indices of market competitiveness. According to him, when a company is able to
satisfy the target customers better than its competitors, its sales and market share will increase
and the company can be said to have improved its competitiveness.
Improving firm competitiveness is a sure way for companies to remain in business. Verter and
Osakwe (2015), maintained that a company can improve its firm competitiveness by offering
products and services whose quality exceeds those of its competitors. They further stated that
quality products or services gives a company an edge over its competitors and improve
marketing performance. In a competitive market, companies need to be open and willing to
improve the quality of their products or services to gain a competitive edge over its rivals. To
improve firm competitiveness, companies need to know who their competitors are, what are they
doing differently, the impact of what they are doing differently, and develop a better strategy
than their competitors. Chen, Su and Wu (2007) stated that a company must monitor its
competitors and understand how and why they are able to do certain things. When a company is
able to understand the way its competitors do certain things, such knowledge will enable the
company to develop a better marketing strategy than its competitors to dominate the market.
The desire of every company is to compete favorably in the market. When a company is able to
compete favorably in the market, it will increase its profit margin and experience business
22
growth (Li & Wang, 2019). Lavy (2008) posited that companies are always determined to
improve their competitiveness by selling more products than their competitors. If a company
makes more sales than its competitors consistently, such company can be said to be competing
favorably in the market. Yee, Yeung, Cheng & Lee (2013) argued that a company can increase
its competitiveness if it satisfies its target customers better than its competitors, increase
customer patronage and sustain its market share. Lopez-Fernandez (2019) stated that a company
can improve its competitiveness by investing in human and technological resources. He further
explains that the use of modern technology and technical know-how are the key drivers of
quality products and services. According to him, quality products and services is what
distinguish a company from another and gives a company a competitive edge over its rivals in
the market.
2.1.4 Measures of Firm Competitiveness
Despite the popularity of the construct ‘firm competitiveness’ in economics, marketing and
management literature, there is no consensus on how it should and could be measured. Buckley
et at., (1998), split the measures of FC into three perspectives: competitive performance,
competitive potential, and firm capabilities. Competitive performance measures the firm's past
and current performance in a market. The competitive potential of a firm relates to internal
factors that may determine a firm's current or future competitive performance. Firm capabilities
are key for translating the competitive potential into actual or future performance. However,
Ajitabh and Monaya (2004) measured FC in terms of financial and non-financial performance
which are: market share, profitability, value creation, customer satisfaction and efficiency.
Recently, Yeung, Cheng and Lee (2013), concentrated on non-financial measures which are:
customer satisfaction, customer retention and customer patronage. This study therefore adopts
23
the following non-financial measures for firm competitiveness: Customer satisfaction and
Customer patronage.
Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is defined as the extent to which customers are excited or happy with the
quality of services or products provided by a firm (Hoang, 2015). Christensen (2006) defined
customer satisfaction as a measure of degree to which customers’ expectations are being met or
exceeded. Rizan, Warokka and Listyawati (2014) posited that customer satisfaction completely
depends on how the customer rates the quality of services provided to him or her in relation to
his or her expectation. If the quality of services offered by a firm matches his or her expectations,
the customer is said to be satisfied and vice versa. Daisy (2014) agreed with this point of view
stating that a customer will be satisfied if the service rendered by a company matches his or her
expectations, and dissatisfied if the services offered falls short of his or her expectation. The
main goal for most service firms today is to satisfy their customers and ensure their loyalty
(Salman & Olota, 2014).
Customer satisfaction has traditionally been regarded as a fundamental determinant of long term
customer behaviour. Ranaweera and Prabhu (2003) stated that, the more satisfied customers are,
the greater is their retention, the positive word of mouth generated through them and the
financial benefits to the firms who serve them. It is not surprising therefore that the fundamental
aim of firms is to seek to manage and increase customer satisfaction at least in this era of
competitive global marketing. Customer satisfaction is defined as an overall evaluation of a
firm’s products or services (Ibojo, 2015). In the marketing literature, satisfaction has been
established as a major antecedent of customer retention. In the context of relationship marketing,
satisfaction is conceptualized as an element of the relationship quality concept.
24
Satisfaction is defined in different studies in different ways. Satisfaction can be obtained based
on the expectation of the receiver. If the supply of a firm were according to expectations of
customers, they would be satisfied. The amount of high or low satisfaction depends upon the
level of supply that meets the level of expectation or fall below the level of expectation (Gerpott
et al, 2001). Customer satisfaction is the necessary foundation for the company to retain the
existing customers. The customers who are unsatisfied with the received services would not be
expected to have long run relationships with the company (Lin and Wu, 2011).
Customer satisfaction can be determined if the services provided by an organization meets
customer expectations. Christensen (2006) stated that companies strive to satisfy their customers
by providing quality goods and services to them. They believe that when customers’ needs are
adequately satisfied, they (customers) will remain loyal to their services and this will increase
their revenues. Customer satisfaction has a strong positive influence on customer loyalty. It is a
valuable asset for every organization to get more customer retention and customer loyalty
(Hoang, 2015). Customer loyalty and the ability to retain customers are, therefore, highly
dependent on the customer's actual satisfaction (Rizan, 2014). Rizan et al (2014) stated that
satisfied customers are less likely to switch to a competitor. A highly satisfied customer will
exhibit the following characteristics: stays in loyal longer; buys more; talks favorably about the
company; pays less attention to competing brands and advertising and the customer will cost less
to serve than new customers (Rizan, 2014).
25
Customer Patronage
Customer patronage is a key concept in marketing. The concept has been described from the
behavioural and attitudinal point of view. For instance, Kumar (2016) defined customer
patronage behaviour as a choice behaviour of consumer which represents the preference for a
particular service provide over the others in the same industry. Jere, et al., (2014) defined
customer patronage as the result of a consumer’s assessment of one service provider being better
than others based on their experience. Kumar (2016) proposed more simplified definition of
patronage behaviour of consumer as the repeat purchase behaviour at a particular company for
either the same products or any other products. Based on the theory of planned behaviour,
customer patronage behaviour is preceded by attitudes and intentions that are formed prior to a
customer’s behaviour. Attitude refers to one’s overall positive or negative evaluation of
performing a particular behaviour. The stronger the positive attitude towards the behaviour is,
the stronger the intention and likelihood of performing the behaviour (Jere et at., 2014).
Customer patronage is the only economic and social justification for the existence of any
business and this existence is to create customer satisfaction (Gargaan & Bambale, 2016). When
customers are satisfied with their experience with an organization or its product/service, they are
more likely to consistently patronize the company again. Kumar (2016) added that other factors
influence customer patronage which includes the business location, organization’s image, and
attraction of merchandise assortment, product quality, price, pleasant atmosphere, locality and
parking.
26
2.2 Operational Framework
The operational framework Fig.2.2.1 shows the hypothesized relationship between the
dimensions of the predictor variable (entrepreneurial engagement) and the measures of the
criterion variable (firm competitiveness).
Entrepreneurial Engagement
Firm Competitiveness
Opportunity Recognition
Customer Satisfaction
Value Creation
Customer Patronage
Pro-Activeness
Risk-Taking
Fig.
2.1:
Operational Framework
Competitiveness.
of
Entrepreneurial
Engagement
and
Source: Morris, Schindehutte, & Laforge (2002); Miller (1983); Lumpkin & Dess (1996).
Hassan (2000); Yee, Yeung, Cheng & Lee (2013).
27
Firm
Opportunity Recognition and Firm Competitiveness
Successful entrepreneurs are opportunistic; they enjoy thinking about new opportunities, and
have a long-term orientation toward opportunity creation and exploitation (Hills, Hultman, &
Miles, 2008). The positive link between opportunity recognition and firm competitiveness is
particularly relevant for firms in emerging economies like Nigeria. Emerging economies are
characterized by their fast changing environments, customer demands change rapidly and market
competition becomes increasingly fierce. Thus, firms who continuously seek transient business
opportunities will survive better. Beverage firms have to make better use of their opportunities
seeking behaviour in order to survive and thrive. Therefore, Beverage firms need to continuously
explore entrepreneurial opportunities because their resources can only enable them to temporary
sustain competitive advantage (Olanye & Edward, 2016).
Lavy (2008) posited that firm competitiveness refers to the ability of an organization to satisfy
the target customers better than its competitors and sustain its competitive advantage in the
market through value creation. He further stated that satisfaction brings about increase patronage,
increase sales and market share which are indices of firm competitiveness. Elif (2016) carried
out a study to investigate the factors affecting firm competitiveness in an emerging market in
Turkey. In the paper, competitiveness was measured by firm’s financial performance
Value Creation and Firm Competitiveness
Porter (1985) developed a framework of value chains which is known as Porter analysis in
creating value in organizations category. Moreover, Porter (1985) conducted value chains
analysis by studying company activities which have direct effect to the value creation, and
supporting activities so that they affect the value and eventually will affect performance. Tsaiand
28
Ghoshal (1998) explain that organization needs to create novel product and unique products,
needs to specific its product and reallocate resources, to combine new resources, and combine
existing resources in new market. O’Cass and Sok (2013), emphasized that value creation
concept in an organization is a determinant variable of company’s innovation activity.
Moreover, managers and employees have important roles in creating value which will enhance
firms’ competitiveness.
Firm competitiveness is the ability of an organization to gain a competitive edge over its rivals in
the market. It refers to how well a company is doing in the market in the presence of other
similar organizations (Yee et al., 2013). Pass and Prescott (1988), considered competitiveness to
be synonymous with a firm’s long-run profit performance, its ability to compensate employees
and generate superior returns for shareholders. Lavy (2008) posited that firm competitiveness
refers to the ability of an organization to satisfy the target customers better than its competitors
and sustain its competitive advantage in the market through value creation. He further stated that
satisfaction brings about increase patronage, increase sales and market share which are indices of
firm competitiveness. Elif (2016) carried out a study to investigate the factors affecting firm
competitiveness in an emerging market in Turkey. In the paper, competitiveness was measured
by firm’s financial performance
Pro-activeness and Firm Competitiveness
Pro-activeness refers to the firms’ quick and swift response to market needs or demands, as well
as generating market opportunities. A formidable proactive strategic posture provides enterprises
with capability to anticipate changes that may occur in the business environment or even exert
influence on the business environment to their advantage (Rosli, 2018).
29
Proactiveness is largely moved by one’s consciousness, to sustain a vision, to fulfill a mission, to
attain a difficult goal and to achieve defined objectives. It is also envisioning a future towards
which one device the strategic parameters for influencing, impacting and recreating the
environment within which to operate in line with that vision. Entrepreneurial pro-activeness can
also be seen as alertness of the company (Olanye & Edward, 2016).
Entrepreneurial pro-activeness is basically achievement oriented, emphasizing initiative,
anticipating, creating change, predicting evolution towards a critical situation and early
preparation before the occurrence of an impending uncertainty or risk (Rosemond, Edward &
Moses, 2012).
The pro-activeness dimension is said to reflect top management orientation in pursuing enhanced
competiveness and includes initiative and risk taking and competitive aggressiveness and
boldness (Olanye & Edward, 2016). Pro-activeness shows a strong positive relationship with
firm competitiveness (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
Firm competitiveness is the ability of an organization to gain a competitive edge over its rivals in
the market. It refers to how well a company is doing in the market in the presence of other
similar organizations (Yee et al., 2013). Pass and Prescott (1988), considered competitiveness to
be synonymous with a firm’s long-run profit performance, its ability to compensate employees
and generate superior returns for shareholders. Lavy (2008) posited that firm competitiveness
refers to the ability of an organization to satisfy the target customers better than its competitors
and sustain its competitive advantage in the market through value creation. He further stated that
satisfaction brings about increase patronage, increase sales and market share which are indices of
firm competitiveness.
30
Risk-taking and Firm Competitiveness
Risk-taking is the tendency to take bold actions such as venturing into unknown new markets,
committing large resources into a venture with high level of uncertainty, and borrowing heavily
to invest in business with low level of predictability in uncertain environment (Lumpkin & Dess,
2001; Rauch et al. 2009). It deals with the tendency to commit large resources to a project or
investment with sketchy information (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). Mahmood and Hafani
(2013), submitted that risk-taking is knowingly devoting resources to projects with chance of
high returns but may also entail a possibility of high failure. Most businesses involve risk
because many variables that affect their outcome cannot be predicted with certainty. The stake
must be high in the context of entrepreneurial engagement; large resources are committed to a
course of action that has no reliable data upon which projection is made. Firms must be willing
to lose large resources in pursuant of large profit for it to be regarded as risk taking. In other
words, it implies committing large resources to projects with unknown outcome. (Arif et al.,
2013), opined that risk-taking is breaking away from tried and trusted situation to venture into
unknown. Many studies suggest that firms must summon the courage to take risk and challenge
the existing order of business to achieve competitive advantage (Hughes & Morgan, 2007).
Firm competitiveness is the ability of an organization to gain a competitive edge over its rivals in
the market. It refers to how well a company is doing in the market in the presence of other
similar organizations (Yee et al., 2013). Hassan (2000) defined firm competitiveness as the
capacity of an organization to increase and sustain its customer base despite the competition
from other similar organizations. Pass and Prescott (1988), considered competitiveness to be
synonymous with a firm’s long-run profit performance, its ability to compensate employees and
31
generate superior returns for shareholders. Lavy (2008) posited that firm competitiveness refers
to the ability of an organization to satisfy the target customers better than its competitors and
sustain its competitive advantage in the market through value creation. He further stated that
satisfaction brings about increase patronage, increase sales and market share which are indices of
firm competitiveness.
2.3 Empirical Review
Elif (2016), carried out a study to investigate the factors affecting firm competitiveness in an
emerging market in Turkey. In the paper, competitiveness was measured by firm’s financial
performance. The empirical analysis is based on firms listed on Borsa Istanbul and covers the
period between 2005 and 2014. Minimum number of firms (273) was achieved in 2005 while the
maximum number of firms (408) was recorded in 2013. The final sample consisted of 359 firms
per year on average and a total of 3591 firm-years of observations. Results from a firm-level
panel data model indicate that return on assets is positively related to firm size, international
sales, liquidity and growth, and negatively related to leverage and R&D expenditures. On the
other hand, gross profit margin is positively related to size and international sales, and negatively
related to leverage and R&D expenditures. Finally, results show that Tobin’s Q ratio is higher for
firms with higher levels of debt and higher liquidity levels. The study by Elif (2016), relates to
the present study in terms of the criterion variable but differs on location and instrumentation.
Amadi and Renner (2019), carried out a study on Entrepreneurial Marketing and Sales
Performance of SME’s in Food and Beverage sector, Port Harcourt, Rivers State. The study
drawing from its conceptual and oprationalized frame-work set out to address four (4) research
questions and four (4) hypotheses. The population of the study consists of 60 senior managers of
International Breweries, Nigerian Bottling Company (NBC), Dufil Prima Food Ltd and Palm
32
Nectar Breweries. The questionnaire was structured in a five (5) point likert scale. The data
collected through primary and secondary data sources were analyzed using descriptive and
inferential statistics. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to test the hypotheses
formulated through the aid of statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) software version 21.
The result of the findings showed a significant relationship between entrepreneurial marketing
and sales performance. It was recommended that Management of Food and Beverage firms
should put into cognizance the four (4) dimensions of entrepreneurial marketing (pro-activeness,
opportunity recognition, resource leveraging and innovativeness) as these will lead to higher
sales performance. While the study of Amadi and Renner (2019), focused on entrepreneurial
marketing and sales performance of SMEs in food and beverage sector, Rivers State. The present
study is concerned about entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness of SMEs in
manufacturing sector, Rivers State. The both studies focused on SMEs in food and beverage
sector, have similar dimensions (proactiveness and opportunity recognition), they are both
correlational study but with different analytical tools.
Nwaizugbo and Anukamn (2014), carried out a study on the assessment of entrepreneurial
engagement practices among small and medium scale enterprises in Imo State, Nigeria. The
study explores with empirical evidence the event of overlap similarities and dissimilarities
between entrepreneurial practices and the marketing concepts among SMEs. A sample of twenty
(20) SMEs was studied. The data was analyzed descriptively based on qualitative techniques. It
was revealed that entrepreneurial marketing improvises, and does not seek for a perfect condition
to grow a firm but traditional marketing requires certain conditions to thrive formal planning and
theoretical structures. This study relates to the present study in terms of the predictor variable,
the focus was also same and differs in technique.
33
Olannye and Edward (2016), carried out a study on the dimension of entrepreneurial engagement
on the performance of fast food restaurants in Asaba, Nigeria. The sample objects were 160 staff
and customers of some selected fast food restaurants. A 20 item structured questionnaire was
adopted as the research instrument. The correlation and multiple regression analysis were used as
major analytical tools. The findings revealed that entrepreneurial pro-activeness, entrepreneurial
innovation and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition as indicators of entrepreneurial marketing
showed a significant positive effect on competitive advantage. It was concluded that
entrepreneurial innovation determined the development of new markets; products of processes
which help firms establish an edge over competitors. This study relates to the present study in
terms of the predictor variable and they are both correlational.
Muita (2013), empirically examined the relationship between innovation strategies and
competitive advantage in the telecommunication industry in Kenya. The researcher employed the
descriptive survey research design and used a structured questionnaire to collect data from senior
managers in four telecommunication companies in Kenya. After analyzing the data collected
using percentage and frequency analysis, mean, standard deviation, bar chart, pie chart, and the
SPSS version 21.0, the researcher discovered that most of the innovation strategies formulated
by telecommunication companies meet customers’ needs. The study also reported that
technological innovation and research significantly improved the competitiveness of telecom
companies. The study by Muita (2013), also relates to the present study in terms of the criterion
variable but differs on location and instrumentation.
Klapalová (2011), carried out a study on competitiveness of firms’ performance and customer
orientation measures. The purpose of the paper was to present results from two empirical surveys
concerning selected factors which can be connected to customer orientation, performance and
34
competitiveness of firms. The purpose of the surveys was also to reveal potential differences
between sectors arising from not only the different influences of internal but as well as external
environment. A survey instrument was developed to analyse the relationship between several
variables measuring customer orientation of surveyed firms and between these factors and level
of financial performance. Several statistical methods were applied to analyse the data,
specifically descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations), one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) with Bonferroni post-hoc test using financial performance for clustering firms and for
assessment of potential differences of customer orientation criteria evaluation and Spearman
rank correlation coefficients to assess the linear bivariate relationship between customer
orientation variables. The results of ANOVA shows that only the innovativeness is distinctive
distinguishing criteria in conformity with the indicators of financial prosperity and that there are
some differences between companies from two groups of sectors within the managers’
perception of customer orientation criteria performance. The study by Klapalová (2011), also
relates to the present study in terms of the criterion variable but differs on location and
instrumentation.
Hanmaikyur (2016), carried out a study investigated the effect of Entrepreneurial Marketing
practices on the performance of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Makurdi Metropolis
of Benue state, Nigeria. A cross-sectional survey design was put in place for the study. The unit
of analysis was organizations while the owner/managers of SMEs were the respondents.
Systematic, simple random and snowbell sampling techniques were employed to collect the
needed data for the study. A sample size of 401 SMEs covering all sectors that exist in the study
area was drawn from a population of 1101 SMEs. Descriptive and Inferential statistics were used
to empirically and statistically analyze the data collected for the study with the aid of Statistical
35
Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20. Regression analysis was used to test the
hypotheses. The findings of the study revealed that Entrepreneurial marketing practices showed a
significant positive effect on SMEs performance. It therefore recommended among others that
SMEs managers and operators should always employ appropriate marketing practices for their
firm. This study relates to the present study in terms of sector but differs in instrumentation.
Rosli and Saad (2018), carried out a study in order to assess the mediating role of organizational
capability in the relationship among pro-activeness, innovativeness and SMEs performance in
Gusau. Cluster sampling technique was adopted; the population was 3,438 manufacturing small
and medium enterprises in north central geo-political zone in Nigeria. The sample size was 519.
The (SPSS) statistical software version 23 was used for initial data analyses while SmartPLSSEM version 3.2.7 was utilized for the main data analyses. The findings revealed that
organizational capability is crucial mechanism through which pro-activeness and innovativeness
indirectly influences SME performance. The study of Rosli and Saad (2018), focused on
organizational capability in the relationship among pro-activeness, innovativeness and SMEs
performance in Gusau. The present study is concerned about entrepreneurial engagement and
firm competitiveness of SMEs in manufacturing sector, Rivers State. The both studies focused
on SMEs, have similar dimensions, they are both correlational study but with different analytical
tools.
2.3.1 Summary of Empirical Review
S/N
1
2
Author and Date
Title
Amadi and Renner Entrepreneurial
(2019)
Marketing and Sales
Performance of SME’s
in Food and Beverage
sector.
Rosli
and
Saad mediating
role
of
36
Location
Nigeria
(Rivers
State)
Nigeria
Findings
The result of the findings
showed a significant
relationship
between
entrepreneurial marketing
and sales performance.
The findings revealed
(2018)
organizational capability (Gusau)
in the relationship among
pro-activeness,
innovativeness
and
SMEs performance
3
Elif (2016)
Factors affecting firm Turkey
competitiveness in an
emerging market.
4
Hanmaikyur (2016)
Effect of Entrepreneurial Nigeria.
Marketing practices on (Benue
the performance of Small state)
and Medium Enterprises
(SMEs)
5
Olannye and Edward Dimension
of Asaba,
(2016).
entrepreneurial
Nigeria.
engagement
on
the
performance of fast food
restaurants.
6
Nwaizugbo
and Entrepreneurial
Imo
Anukamn (2014)
engagement
practices State,
among
small
and Nigeria.
medium
scale
37
that
organizational
capability
is
crucial
mechanism
through
which pro-activeness and
innovativeness indirectly
influences
SME
performance.
Results from a firm-level
panel data model indicate
that return on assets is
positively related to firm
size, international sales,
liquidity and growth, and
negatively related to
leverage
and
R&D
expenditures. On the
other hand, gross profit
margin is positively
related to size and
international sales, and
negatively related to
leverage
and
R&D
expenditures.
The findings of the study
revealed
that
Entrepreneurial
marketing
practices
showed a significant
positive effect on SMEs
performance.
The findings revealed
that entrepreneurial proactiveness,
entrepreneurial
innovation
and
entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition
as
indicators
of
entrepreneurial marketing
showed a significant
positive
effect
on
competitive advantage.
It was revealed that
entrepreneurial marketing
improvises, and does not
seek for a perfect
enterprises.
7
Muita (2013)
Innovation strategies and Kenya
competitive advantage in
the telecommunication
industry.
8
Klapalová (2011)
Competitiveness
of
firms’ performance and
customer
orientation
measures.
38
condition to grow a firm
but traditional marketing
requires
certain
conditions
to
thrive
formal planning and
theoretical structures.
The
researcher
discovered that most of
the innovation strategies
formulated
by
telecommunication
companies
meet
customers’ needs. The
study also reported that
technological innovation
and research significantly
improved
the
competitiveness
of
telecom companies.
The results of ANOVA
shows that only the
innovativeness
is
distinctive distinguishing
criteria in conformity
with the indicators of
financial prosperity and
that there are some
differences
between
companies from two
groups of sectors within
the managers’ perception
of customer orientation
criteria performance.
2.4 Theoretical Framework
The study will be underpinned by the Entrepreneurship Innovation Theory and supported by
Generic Strategy Approach theory, Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DIT) and Resource Based
View Theory.
2.4.1 Entrepreneurship Innovation Theory
This theory was propounded by Schumpeter (1939) who viewed entrepreneurship as the fourth
factor of production. He also asserted that an entrepreneur is the one who is innovative, creative
and has foresight. Innovation and enterprise are concerned mainly with producing new
combinations. It is the entrepreneur who breaks the cycle of routine activity, swimming against
the stream to discover new markets explores new sources of raw material and rearrange markets
(Mugambi & Karagu, 2017).
Technological innovations are the most visible form of innovation. Innovations are not
continuously distributed in time, but proceeds by leaps which upset the existing equilibrium and
generate (irregular) economic performance. He saw the innovative transformation of routine
behaviour as a relatively slow and conflict-ridden process and distinguished innovation as the
function of entrepreneur that is separate from the administrative function of the manager. This
reinterpretation helped him outline his theory of economic business cycle as reflecting the waveform process of economic evolution under Capitalism. Schumpeter regards technological
uncertainty as neither a sufficient nor a necessary determinant of fluctuations but postulates that
fluctuations are caused by supply shifts based on uneven technological changes.
Schumpeter (1939) argued that entrepreneurs create radical innovations in the face of
competition. Looking at Schumpeter writings (1934, 1939, & 1942) as a whole; it is possible to
distinguish two (2) different types of processes underlying innovation by firms. Creative
39
destruction creates economic discontinuities and in doing so, an entrepreneurial environment for
introduction of innovation, and earning profits is created (Mugambi & Karagu, 2017).
The entrepreneurial innovation theory is relevant in explaining the relationship between
entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness in the food and beverage sector because
the theory stated that if a firm is innovative, creative and has foresight in the industry, it will
enhance its firm competitiveness by increasing customer patronage, customer satisfaction and
customer retention.
2.4.2 Generic Strategy Approach
The generic strategy approach explains that firms can gain a competitive advantage by adopting
any of these three competitive strategies namely; cost leadership, differentiation (which is the
focus of this study) or focus strategy. Valipour et al., (2012) cost leadership strategy denotes that
a firm can gain a competitive advantage in the market by producing goods at the lowest possible
costs than its competitors. Porter explains that a company that enjoys the advantage by producing
goods at a lower cost than its competitors would end up selling its products at a cheaper price
and this will not only increase sales turnover and market share of the company, but would also
enhance its profit margin.
In Porter’s second strategy of differentiation, Porter explains that a company can gain a
competitive advantage by differentiating its product from competitors’ offerings i.e. on the basis
of quality, attributes, features, packaging or price. According to Porter, once a company is able to
differentiate itself from competitors by offering product with unique features, it will attract more
customers and this will increase sales, market share and profit margin of the company. In
Porter’s third strategy (focus strategy), Porter explains that a company can gain a competitive
40
advantage by focusing on a geographical segment of the market and offers products that will
meet the needs of that segment. The motive here is to better serve the chosen segment or niche
market by offering unique products that will meeting the needs of the defined segment far better
than anyone else (Pulaj, Kume & Cipi,2015).
The three generic strategies developed by Porter reflect the ideology of the SWOT (strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats) approach. From a technical point of view, a firm who
compete on the basis of cost leadership and differentiation recognizes its strength on these areas
and take advantage of the opportunities to gain a competitive advantage in these areas which
posed a threat and weakness to its competitors who are disadvantage in these areas. The low cost,
differentiation and focus are suitable competitive strategies that can helps a firm gain
competitive advantage over its rivals in the same industry.
The Porter’s generic strategies are very relevant in explaining the relationship between
entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness in the food and beverage sector. The
approach supports the notion that if a firm in the food and beverage sector differentiates its
products from competitors’ own through entrepreneurial engagement, it will enhance its
competitiveness by increasing customer patronage and customer satisfaction.
Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DIT)
Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DIT) explains the process by which innovations are adopted by
users. According to Rogers (1995), diffusion is the process by which new ideas are
communicated to members of a social system over a period of time through different channels.
41
Diffusion of Innovations theory (Rogers, 1995) assumes that the consumer moves through five
stages before arriving at the decision to purchase or to reject a new idea or product. These stages
include: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption (rejection) of the new idea (Schiffman
& Kanuk, 2007; Armstrong & Kotler, 2003). Awareness stage demonstrates the time the
consumer gets to know of the innovation but lacks sufficient information about it. Awareness
often takes place through exposure to the innovation through various channels of
communication. Upon trying out the innovation on limited basis and evaluating its performance
against expectations, the consumer makes a lasting decision of either adopting or rejecting the
innovation altogether.
Schiffman and Kanuk (2010) posited that innovations do not always have equal potential for
consumer acceptance; some innovations are readily accepted, others take longer while yet still
some are rejected altogether thus have no chance of adoption. Diffusion process introduces five
characteristics that help in consumer approval of innovations including relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability (Rogers, 1995; Schiffman & Kanuk,
2010; Armstrong & Kotler, 2003). Relative advantage relates to how prospective customers feel
an innovation is outstanding compared to alternatives. Compatibility relates to how prospective
consumers recognize an innovation as coherent with their desires, beliefs and principle.
Complexity is how an innovation is difficult to understand or use. Trialability relates to how
innovation can be tested in small bits while observability is the easiness with which a product’s
values and characteristics can be perceived, visualized or expressed to prospective consumers
(Olgha et al., 2017).
The diffusion innovation theory denotes individuals’ or business intention to adopt a technology
as a modality to perform a traditional activity (Simon & Senaji, 2016). The motivating factor that
42
drives individuals’ or business entity’s intention to adopt modern technology to perform
traditional activities is relative advantage which is expected to be gain. This theory is more
concerned about the manner in which technological idea is put to use. It explains how individuals
and business organizations intend to use modern technology to perform their operations.
Olannyei, Dedekumai & Ndugbei (2017) stated that innovation diffusion theory tends to describe
the manner in which individuals and corporate organizations accept technology as a modality to
perform their traditional operations. It is all about the intention of the individuals or organization
to embrace modern technology to perform their activities efficiently.
The Diffusion of Innovations theory is very relevant in explaining the relationship between
entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness in the food and beverage sector. The
approach supports the notion that if a firm in the food and beverage sector comes up with
innovative product packaging and designs, that it will enhance its competitiveness by increasing
customer patronage and customer satisfaction.
Resources Based view theory (RBV)
The resource based view theory was propounded by Penrose in 1959. Penrose first provided a
logical explanation to the performance rate of the firm by clarifying the causal relationships
among firm resources, production capability and performance. Her concern was mainly on
efficient and innovative use of resources. She claimed that bundles of productive resources
controlled by firms could vary significantly by firm that, firms in this sense are in the same
industry (Barney & Clark, 2007).
The resources based theory equally asserts that entrepreneurial firm can achieve sustainable
competitive advantage and success through the acquisition and deployment of appropriate
43
resources and capabilities in a sustainable manner over a long term. It also asserts that with a
good understanding of the resource potentials theory good vision, intuition and creative act, an
entrepreneur will be able to choose a particular industry where his/her resources are valuable,
rare, hard to copy (inimitable). With such non-substitutable resources, the entrepreneur will not
only succeed but will also enjoy long term competitive advantage and economic success (Agwu,
2012).
Ganotakis and Love (2010 as cited in Mugambi and Karugu, 2017) used the Resource Based
Theory (RBT) to explain the importance of human capital to entrepreneurship. According to
RBT, human capital is considered to be a source of performance for entrepreneurial firms. This
leads to idiosyncratic endowments of proprietary resources. According to RBT, sustainable
competitive advantage results from resources that are inimitable, not substitutable, tacit in nature,
and synergistic (Barney, 1991 as cited in Mugambi and Karugu, 2017). Therefore, managers
need to be able to identify the key resources and drivers of performance and value in their
organizations. The RBT also states that a company’s performance is derived from the company’s
ability to assemble and exploit an appropriate combination of resources; Such resources can be
tangible or intangible, and represent the inputs into a firm production process; such as capital,
equipment, the skills of individual employees, patents, financing, and talented managers
(Mugambi & Karugu, 2017).
2.5 Gap in Literature
Mugambi, and Karugu, (2017). Dimensionalzed entrepreneurial engagement through strategic
innovation, innovation orientation, market orientation, and resource leveraging, whereas
Olannye, and Edward, (2016) Dimensionalized it through entrepreneurial pro-activeness,
entrepreneurial innovation and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. Nwaizugbo, and
44
Anukam, (2014), looked at it from a different perspective; entrepreneurial practices and the
marketing concepts, hence the need for this study to come up with a different concept;
entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness.
Nwaizugbo and Anukam (2014), the data was analyzed descriptively based on qualitative
techniques; Olannye and Edward (2016), correlation and multiple regression analysis were used
as major analytical tools; Muita (2013), the data collected was analyzed using percentage and
frequency analysis, mean, standard deviation, bar chart, pie chart, and the SPSS version 21.0;
hence, the need of this study to use a different instrument (Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient) in order to fill in the gap.
2.6 Summary of Literature
This section presented a review of related literature to the research topic under investigation. The
section started with the conceptual review where various definitions in respect to entrepreneurial
engagement, opportunity recognition, value creation, pro-activeness, and risk-taking, firm
competitiveness, customer satisfaction and customer patronage were reviewed. This was
followed by the theoretical framework which allows the researcher to back up his work with
relevant theories related to the study. Empirical studies were reviewed; this enables the
researcher to review works done by other scholars in respect to the topic under investigation. It
was followed by gap in literature, and summary of literature.
The review of literature for this work provided a vivid documentation of the authenticity,
quantity and variety of work already done. The section provided a pre-condition that enables the
researcher identify the strengths, pitfalls, and the weaknesses in earlier studies reported.
45
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the method and procedures used in conducting the study. It focuses on the
research design, population of the study, sample and sampling technique, instrumentation,
validity of the instrument, reliability of the instrument, administration of the instrument, and
methods of data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
A research design is a plan or blue print which specifies how data relating to a given problem
should be collected and analyzed. It constitutes a blue print for the collection, measurement and
analysis of data (Onyeizugbe, 2013).
This study adopted the descriptive survey design. Anyanwu (2016) asserted that, “descriptive
survey describes the characteristics of the variables of interest in a study”. Giving that the study
focuses on Entrepreneurial Engagement and Firm Competitiveness of SMEs, the descriptive
survey is considered more appropriate in achieving the goals of the study.
3.2 Population of the Study
Onyeizugbe, (2013), opined that the population is the totality of items which the researcher is
interested in. It is the universe of item under study. The population of this study consists of 140
SMEs in the food and beverage sector gotten through the Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Rivers State.
46
3.3 Sample and Sampling Technique
A sample is a small group of elements or subjects drawn through a definite procedure from a
specified population while sampling technique refers to the statistical and research means used to
arrive at the sample size (Onyeizugbe, 2013). A sample size of 103 was derived using Krejcie
and Morgan sampling technique 1970. See Appendix II
3.4 Sources of Data
Both primary and secondary data sources were used in this study. The primary data was obtained
through the administration of questionnaires to the respondents, while the secondary data were
collected from published materials such as journals, articles, seminar papers, textbooks,
periodicals and the like.
3.5Method of Data Collection / Instrumentation
The Structured questionnaire was employed as data collection instrument. The questionnaire was
structured using the 5 point Likert scale of strongly agreed (SA), agreed (A), moderately agreed
(MA), strongly disagreed (SA) and disagreed (D).
Onyeizugbe, (2013) defined “questionnaire as a list of questions drawn in such a way that the
questions are related to the objectives of the study being conducted, and the responses to the
questions will be analyzed to provide solution to the problems”.
3.6 Validity of the Instrument
The validity of the research instrument was determined by the researcher’s supervisor and two
other research experts in the Department of Marketing, School of Graduate Studies, Ignatius
Ajuru University of Education. These experts were requested to scrutinize the instrument with
respect to its relevance to the study variables as well as the language used in developing the
47
instrument or items. The suggestions made by these experts were effected to improve the content
of the instrument. After this, the instrument was subjected to reliability test.
3.7 Reliability of the Instrument
A measuring instrument is ‘reliable’ if it provides consistent results. Reliability of a test
instrument is the consistency of the test in measuring whatever it purports to measure. Other
words used to describe reliability are stability and dependability (Onyeizugbe, 2013). A good
reliability should minimize errors and biases and demonstrate operations that data collection
procedures under similar conditions can be repeated by achieving the same results (Neuman,
2006).
Shehu and Mahmood, (2014) opined that the most popular test of inter-item consistency and
reliability in any research study is the Cronbach's (1951) coefficient alpha. The reliability of the
instrument was tested through Cronbach’s Alpha and it stood at 0.98 higher than Nunnally's
(1978), benchmark of 0.7
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.976
8
SPSS Output, 2021.
48
3.7 Methods of Data Analysis
The data collected through the questionnaire was analyzed using graphs, mean, and the Pearson
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. A criterion mean of 3.00 was set for any item to be
accepted. This means that for any item in the questionnaire to be accepted, it must have a mean
response of 3.00or above. Anything less than 3.000 was rejected. Spearman Rank Order
Correlation Coefficient technique was employed to test the various hypotheses formulated
through the aid of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
49
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
In this chapter, the data collected in the questionnaire were presented and analyzed. The essence
of this was to reduce the data to an interpretable form so that the variables of the study can be
understood. The analysis focused on the study variables which were captured in the research
questions and hypotheses. The results of the analysis were interpreted and findings of the study
were discussed and compared with those of previous studies. Answers were provided to the
research questions and hypotheses based on the results of the analysis carried out.
4.1 Presentation of Data (descriptive statistics)
Questionnaire Distribution and Retrieval
120
103
100
85
80
80
60
40
20
5
0
Issued
Retrieved
Useful
Not useful
Questionnaire Distribution
Source; survey Data, 2021
The table above shows the questionnaire distribution and retrieval. The researcher issued 103
questionnaires and from consistent visit, he retrieved 85, 80 were useful and 5 were not useful.
This represent 78% response rate and it was considered significant for the study.
50
4.1.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
This section presents the demography of the respondents and the selected demography
considered in the process of this research are; gender, age bracket and marital status of
respondents.
Gender of Respondents
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Gender of Respondents
Male
Female
48
32
Source: Survey Data 2021
The above chart shows the gender of respondents as a means of ensuring that both male &
female are represented in the study 48(61%) of the respondents are male and 32 (39%) are
female. This shows that majority of the respondents are male.
51
Age of Respondents
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
25-30
31-40
41-50
51 and
above
14
20
28
18
Age of Respondents
Source: Survey Data 2021
The clustered chart above shows the age distribution of respondents 14(17.5%) of the
respondents are between the ages of 25-30, 20 (25%) of the respondents are between the ages of
31-40, 28(35%) of the respondents are between the ages of 41-50 and 18(22.5%) of the
respondents are between the ages of 51 and above.
Marital Status
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Marital Status
Single
Married
Single
Parent/Widow
Source: Field Survey, 2021.
52
The above chart shows marital status of the respondents. Those who are single have a frequency
of 22 comprising of 27.0% of the respondents while the married ones has a frequency of 38
making up 48%, while those that are either single parent/ widowed has a frequency of 20 making
up 25%. This shows that views expressed in this study reflect more of the married people.
4.1.2 Univariate Analysis
Analysis of the research questions were based on descriptive statistics showing the minimum
and maximum statistic. The responses were captured using the Likert Scale of strongly agreed to
strongly dis-agree. Criterion mean of 3.00 was used as the benchmark in determining response
rate.
Table 4.1 Descriptive outcome on Opportunity Recognition on the Studied Organization
S/N
SA(5)
A(4)
MA(3) D(2)
SD(1) 𝑋
Question Items
1
Recognizing
opportunity
increase market share.
can 26(130) 25(100) 18(54)
7(14)
4(4)
3.8
2
Entrepreneurial
firms
serve 28(140) 21(105) 18(54)
unsatisfied
needs
through
opportunity recognition.
6(12)
7(7)
3.7
3
Innovation and creativity are 30(150) 28(112) 11(33)
important tools that enable
entrepreneurial firms transform
opportunity into reality.
7(14)
4(4)
3.9
4
Grabbing new opportunity can lead 23(115) 25(100) 20(60)
to high market share.
7(14)
5(5)
3.6
5
Opportunity well harnessed leads 15(75)
to high competitiveness.
36(108) 8(16)
5(5)
3.3
16(64)
Source, Survey Data 2021.
The table above shows the outcome of respondents on opportunity recognition. Question item (1)
shows that 26 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 25 agreed, 18 moderately agreed,
53
7 disagreed and 4 strongly disagreed. Question item (2) shows that 28 respondents favoured the
strongly agreed option, 21 agreed, 18 moderately agreed, 6 disagreed and 7 strongly disagreed.
Question item (3) shows that 30 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 28 agreed, 11
moderately agreed, 7 disagreed and 4 strongly disagreed. Question item (4) shows that 23
respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 25 agreed, 20 moderately agreed, 7 disagreed
and 5strongly disagreed. Question item (5) shows that 15 respondents favoured the strongly
agreed option,16 agreed, 36 moderately agreed, 8 disagreed and 5 strongly disagreed.
Table 4.2 Descriptive outcome on Value Creation on the Studied Organization
S/N
SA(5)
A(4)
MA(3) D(2)
SD(1)
Question Items
𝑋
1
Creating value for customers 25(125) 25(100) 20(60)
improves firm competitiveness.
6(12)
4(4)
3.8
2
Value creation is an essential 22(110) 23(92)
condition for exchange to occur.
28(84)
4(8)
3(3)
3.7
3
Creating of
novel
products 30(150) 25(100) 18(54)
influences customer patronage.
4(8)
5(5)
3.9
4
Superior performance
superior customer value.
17(68)
30(90)
10(20) 2(2)
3.3
5
Value creation distinguishes your 20(100) 22(88)
product from competitors.
30(90)
5(10)
3.6
requires 15(75)
2(2)
Source, Survey Data 2021.
Table 4.2 above shows the outcome of respondents on value creation. Question item (1) shows
that 25 respondents favoured the strongly agreed and agreed option, 20 moderately agreed, 6
disagreed and 4 strongly disagreed. Question item (2) shows that 22 respondents favoured the
strongly agreed option, 23 agreed, 28 moderately agreed, 4 disagreed and 3 strongly disagreed.
Question item (3) shows that 30 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 25 agreed, 18
moderately agreed, 4 disagreed and 5 strongly disagreed. Question item (4) shows that 15
respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 17 agreed, 30 moderately agreed, 10 disagreed
54
and 8 strongly disagreed. Question item (5) shows that 20 respondents favoured the strongly
agreed option, 22 agreed, 30 moderately agreed, 5 disagreed and 2 strongly disagreed.
Table 4.3 Descriptive outcome on Pro-activeness on the Studied Organization
S/N
SA(5)
A(4)
MA(3) D(2)
SD(1)
Question Items
𝑋
1
Pro-activeness enables your firm 25(125) 20(80)
to dominate competitors.
20(60)
9(18)
6(6)
3.6
2
Pro-activeness reflects in the 29(145) 24(96)
firm’s ability to anticipate
changes.
19(57)
5(10)
3(3)
3.9
3
Pro-activeness enhances customer 21(105) 28(112) 19(57)
satisfaction.
7(14)
5(5)
3.7
4
Pro-activeness leads to increase 16(80)
market share
16(64)
25(75)
12(24) 11(11) 3.1
5
Pro-activeness helps to reduce 18(90)
uncertainty
20(80)
30(90)
10(20) 2(2)
3.5
Source, Survey Data 2021.
Table 4.3 above shows the outcome of respondents on value creation. Question item (1) shows
that 25 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 20 agreed, 20 moderately agreed,
9disagreed and 6 strongly disagreed. Question item (2) shows that 29 respondents favoured the
strongly agreed option, 24 agreed, 19 moderately agreed, 5 disagreed and 3 strongly disagreed.
Question item (3) shows that 21 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 28 agreed, 19
moderately agreed, 7 disagreed and 5 strongly disagreed. Question item (4) shows that 16
respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 16 agreed, 25 moderately agreed, 12 disagreed
and 11 strongly disagreed. Question item (5) shows that 18 respondents favoured the strongly
agreed option, 20 agreed, 30 moderately agreed, 10 disagreed and 2 strongly disagreed.
55
Table 4.4 Descriptive outcome on Risk-taking on the Studied Organization
S/N
SA(5)
A(4)
MA(3) D(2)
Question Items
SD(1)
𝑋
1
Calculated risk taking enhances 28(140) 25(100) 19(57)
firms’ performance.
5(10)
3(3)
3.8
2
Your firm is predisposed to taking 25(125) 30(120) 18(54)
on risky ventures.
5(10)
4(4)
3.9
3
Entrepreneurs
are
individuals
who
pursue their goals.
optimistic 21(105) 23(92)
consciously
31(93)
3(6)
2(2)
3.7
4
Risk taking provides opportunity 23(115) 20(80)
for your firm to expand.
18(54)
10(20) 9(9)
3.5
5
Careful risk taking enhances firms’ 17(85)
sales growth.
25(75)
12(24) 9(9)
3.3
17(68)
Source, Survey Data 2021.
Table 4.4 above shows the outcome of respondents on risk-taking. Question item (1) shows that
28 respondents favoured the strongly agreed and 25 agreed option, 19 moderately agreed, 5
disagreed and 3 strongly disagreed. Question item (2) shows that 25 respondents favoured the
strongly agreed option, 30 agreed, 18 moderately agreed, 5 disagreed and 4 strongly disagreed.
Question item (3) shows that 21 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 23 agreed, 31
moderately agreed, 3 disagreed and 2 strongly disagreed. Question item (4) shows that 23
respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 20 agreed, 18 moderately agreed, 10 disagreed
and 9 strongly disagreed. Question item (5) shows that 17 respondents favoured the strongly
agreed option, 17 agreed, 25 moderately agreed, 12 disagreed and 9 strongly disagreed.
56
Table 4.5 Descriptive outcome on Customer satisfaction on the Studied Organization
S/N
SA(5)
A(4)
MA(3) D(2)
SD(1)
Question Items
improves 20(100) 22(88)
𝑋
1
Customer satisfaction
firm competitiveness.
30(90)
5(10)
2(2)
3.6
2
Customer satisfaction is an overall 21(105) 28(112) 19(57)
evaluation of a firm’s products or
services.
7(14)
5(5)
3.7
3
Being proactive in meeting 24(124) 25(100) 22(66)
customers’ needs leads to customer
satisfaction.
5(10)
4(4)
3.8
4
Value creation for customers’ helps 23(115) 20(80)
in customer satisfaction.
18(54)
10(20) 9(9)
3.5
5
When customers are satisfied, they 16(80)
will refer others.
35(105) 9(18)
15(60)
5(5)
3.4
Source, Survey Data 2021.
Table 4.5 above shows the outcome of respondents on customer satisfaction. Question item (1)
shows that 25 respondents favoured the strongly agreed and agreed option, 20 moderately
agreed, 6 disagreed and 4 strongly disagreed. Question item (2) shows that 21 respondents
favoured the strongly agreed option, 28 agreed, 19 moderately agreed, 7 disagreed and 5 strongly
disagreed. Question item (3) shows that 24 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 25
agreed, 22 moderately agreed, 5 disagreed and 4 strongly disagreed. Question item (4) shows
that 23 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 20 agreed, 18 moderately agreed, 10
disagreed and 9 strongly disagreed. Question item (5) shows that 16 respondents favoured the
strongly agreed option, 15 agreed, 35 moderately agreed, 9 disagreed and 5 strongly disagreed.
57
Table 4.6 Descriptive outcome of customer patronage on the Studied Organization
S/N
Question Items
SA(5)
always 18(19)
A(4)
MA(3) D(2)
SD(1)
𝑋
4(8)
4(4)
3.7
1
Satisfied
customers
patronize us.
2
Continuous customers’ patronage 29(145) 21(84)
improves firm’s competitiveness.
18(54)
7(14)
7(7)
3.8
3
Meeting customers’ needs creates 29(145) 28(112) 11(33)
room for customers’ patronage.
7(14)
5(5)
3.9
4
Offering product of value leads to 25(105) 23(92)
customer patronage.
20(60)
6(12)
5(5)
3.6
5
Our level of customer patronage has 17(85)
increased significantly since the
introduction of our new ways of
rendering services.
25(75)
12(24) 9(9)
3.3
35(140) 19(57)
17(68)
Source, Survey Data 2021.
Table 4.6 above shows the outcome of respondents on customer patronage. Question item (1)
shows that 18 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 35 agreed option, 19 moderately
agreed, 4 disagreed and 4 strongly disagreed. Question item (2) shows that 29 respondents
favoured the strongly agreed option, 21 agreed, 18 moderately agreed, 7 disagreed and 7 strongly
disagreed. Question item (3) shows that 29 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 28
agreed, 11 moderately agreed, 7 disagreed and 5 strongly disagreed. Question item (4) shows
that 25 respondents favoured the strongly agreed option, 23 agreed, 20 moderately agreed, 6
disagreed and 5 strongly disagreed. Question item (5) shows that 17 respondents favoured the
strongly agreed option, 17 agreed, 25 moderately agreed, 12 disagreed and 9 strongly disagreed.
58
4.1.3 Bivariate Analysis
The bivariate analysis shows the result of the relationship that exists between the predictor and
criterion variables of the study. The predictor variable is entrepreneurial engagement
(opportunity recognition, value creation, proactiveness and risk taking.) while the criterion
variable is firm competitiveness (customer satisfaction and customer patronage).
Test of Hypothesis One (1)
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between opportunity recognition and customer
satisfaction in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Correlations
Opportunity
Recognition
Opportunity
Recognition
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
customer
satisfaction
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Source, Survey Data 2021.
Spearman's rho
customer
satisfaction
1.000
.738*
.
.037
8
8
.738*
1.000
.037
8
.
8
The output analyzed the extent to which opportunity recognition relate with customer satisfaction
in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. Spearman’s correlation co-efficient
indicates a strong association between the two variables (Rs=0.738).The test of significance
indicates that with P < 0.05 we can reject the null hypothesis which states that there is no
significant relationship between opportunity recognition and customer satisfaction in food and
beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. Thus, we can say that higher levels of
59
opportunity recognition were associated with higher levels of customer satisfaction in food and
beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Test of Hypothesis Two (2)
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between opportunity recognition and customer
patronage in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Correlations
opportunity
recognition
opportunity
recognition
Spearman's rho
customer
patronage
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
customer
patronage
1.000
.857**
.
8
.007
8
.857**
1.000
.007
8
.
8
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source, Survey Data 2021.
The output analyzed the extent to which opportunity recognition relate with customer patronage
in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. Spearman’s correlation co-efficient
indicates a strong association between the two variables (Rs=0.857).The test of significance
indicates that with P.007 < 0.01 we can reject the null hypothesis which states that there is no
significant relationship between opportunity recognition and customer patronage in food and
beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. Thus, we can say that higher levels of
opportunity recognition were associated with higher levels of customer patronage in food and
beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
60
Test of Hypothesis Three (3)
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between value creation and customer satisfaction in
food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Correlations
value
creation
value creation
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
Correlation
Coefficient
customer
satisfaction
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source, Survey Data 2021.
customer
satisfaction
1.000
.922**
.
8
.001
8
.922**
1.000
.001
8
.
8
The output analyzed the extent to which value creation relate with customer satisfaction in food
and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. Spearman’s correlation co-efficient indicates
a strong association between the two variables (Rs=0.922).The test of significance indicates that
with P.001 < 0.01 we can reject the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant
relationship between value creation and customer satisfaction in food and beverage
manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. Thus, we can say that higher levels of value creation were
associated with higher levels of customer satisfaction in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs
in Rivers State.
61
Test of Hypothesis Four (4)
Ho4: There is no significant relationship between value creation and customer patronage in
food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Correlations
value
creation
value creation
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
Correlation
Coefficient
customer
patronage
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source, Survey Data 2021.
customer patronage
1.000
.905**
.
8
.002
8
.905**
1.000
.002
8
.
8
The output analyzed the extent to which value creation relate with customer patronage in food
and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. Spearman’s correlation co-efficient indicates
a strong association between the two variables (Rs=0.905).The test of significance indicates that
with P.002 < 0.01 we can reject the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant
relationship between value creation and customer patronage in food and beverage manufacturing
SMEs in Rivers State. Thus, we can say that higher levels of value creation were associated with
higher levels of customer patronage in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
62
Test of Hypothesis Five (5)
Ho5: There is no significant relationship between pro-activeness and customer satisfaction in
food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Correlations
pro-activeness
Correlation
Coefficient
pro-activeness
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
Correlation
Coefficient
customer satisfaction
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Source, Survey Data 2021.
customer
satisfaction
1.000
.778*
.
80
.023
80
.778*
1.000
.023
80
.
80
The table above presents the result of correlation analysis between pro-activeness and customer
satisfaction in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. The result indicates that
there is a strong correlation between pro-activeness and customer satisfaction (rho = .778*) and
this correlation is significant at 0.05 level as indicated by the symbol *. Based on this result, the
null hypothesis (Ho5) is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted. This means that there is
significant relationship between pro-activeness and customer satisfaction in food and beverage
manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
63
Test of Hypothesis Six (6)
Ho6: There is no significant relationship between pro-activeness and customer patronage in food
and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Correlations
pro-activeness
Correlation
Coefficient
pro-activeness
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
Correlation
Coefficient
customer patronage
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Source, Survey Data 2021.
customer
patronage
1.000
.802*
.
80
.017
80
.802*
1.000
.017
80
.
80
The table above presents the result of correlation analysis between pro-activeness and customer
patronage in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. The result indicates that
there is a strong correlation between pro-activeness and customer patronage (rho = .802*) and
this correlation is significant at 0.05 level as indicated by the symbol *. Based on this result, the
null hypothesis (Ho6) is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted. This means that there is
significant relationship between pro-activeness and customer patronage in food and beverage
manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
64
Test of Hypothesis Seven (7)
Ho7: There is no significant relationship between risk-taking and customer satisfaction of
food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Correlations
risk-taking
risk-taking
Spearman's rho
customer satisfaction
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1.000
customer
satisfaction
.700
.
80
.700
.188
80
1.000
.188
80
.
80
Source, Survey Data 2021.
The table above presents the result of correlation analysis between risk-taking and customer
satisfaction of food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. The result indicates that
there is a strong correlation between risk-taking and customer satisfaction of food and beverage
manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State (.700). Based on this result, the null hypothesis (Ho7) is
rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted.
65
Test of Hypothesis Eight (8)
Ho8: There is no significant relationship between risk-taking and customer patronage in food and
beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
Correlations
risk-taking
Correlation
Coefficient
risk-taking
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
Correlation
Coefficient
customer patronage
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Source, Survey Data 2021.
customer
patronage
1.000
.802*
.
80
.017
80
.802*
1.000
.017
80
.
80
The table above presents the result of correlation analysis between risk-taking and customer
patronage in food and beverage manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State. The result indicates that
there is a strong correlation between risk-taking and customer patronage (rho = .802*) and this
correlation is significant at 0.05 level as indicated by the symbol *. Based on this result, the null
hypothesis (Ho8) is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted. This means that there is
significant relationship between risk-taking and customer patronage in food and beverage
manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State.
66
4.3 Summary of Findings
Based on the data analysis, the following findings were discovered:
1. The findings revealed that opportunity recognition showed a strong and significant
relationship with customer satisfaction of SMEs in Food and Beverage sector Rivers
state. (Rs=0.738).
2. The findings revealed that opportunity recognition showed a strong and significant
relationship with customer patronage of SMEs in Food and Beverage sector Rivers state
(Rs=0.857).
3. The findings revealed that value creation has a strong positive relationship with customer
satisfaction of SMEs in Food and Beverage sector Rivers state (Rs=0.922).
4. The findings revealed that value creation has a strong positive relationship with customer
patronage of SMEs in Food and Beverage sector Rivers state (Rs=0.905).
5. The findings revealed that pro-activeness has a strong positive relationship with customer
satisfaction of SMEs in Food and Beverage sector Rivers state (rho = .778).
6. The findings revealed that pro-activeness has a strong positive relationship with customer
patronage of SMEs in Food and Beverage sector Rivers state. (rho = .802).
7. The findings revealed that risk-taking has a strong positive relationship with customer
satisfaction of SMEs in Food and Beverage sector Rivers state (rho= .700).
8. The findings revealed that risk-taking has a strong positive relationship with customer
patronage of SMEs in Food and Beverage sector Rivers state (rho = .802).
67
4.4 Discussion of Findings
The result from the inferential analysis revealed that entrepreneurial marketing strategies have a
strong positive relationship with sales performance of SMEs in food and beverage sector in
Rivers state.
Opportunity Recognition and Customer Satisfaction
Opportunity recognition showed a strong positive relationship with customer satisfaction
(Rs=0.738).We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. This
finding is in line with the study of Simon (2007) who submitted that there is a positive link
between opportunity recognition and performance in emerging economies like Nigeria.
Opportunity Recognition and Customer Patronage
Opportunity recognition showed a strong positive relationship with customer patronage
(Rs=0.857).We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. This
finding is in line with the study of Olanye and Edward (2016) who submitted that firms who
continuously seek transient business opportunities will survive better. Beverage firms have to
make better use of their opportunities seeking behaviour in order to survive and thrive.
Therefore, Beverage firms need to continuously explore entrepreneurial opportunities because
their resources can only enable them to temporary sustain competitive advantage.
Value Creation and Customer Satisfaction
Value creation showed a strong positive relationship with customer satisfaction (Rs=0.922). We
therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. This finding is in line
with the study of O’cass and Ngo (2012), they submitted that value co-creation enhances the
performance of business to business firms. The finding of the study was equally supported by the
findings of Becherer, Helms, and McDonald (2012). They submitted that value creation
68
positively influence outcomes of SMEs. It affects not only financial performance but also
growth, customer success, and generally building a strong sustainable company.
Value Creation and Customer Patronage
Value creation showed a strong positive relationship with customer patronage (Rs=0.905).We
therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. This finding is in line
with the study of O’cass and Ngo (2012), they submitted that value co-creation enhances the
performance of business to business firms. The finding of the study was equally supported by the
findings of Becherer, Helms, and McDonald (2012). They submitted that value creation
positively influence outcomes of SMEs. It affects not only financial performance but also
growth, customer success, and generally building a strong sustainable company.
Pro-activeness and Customer Satisfaction
Pro-activeness equally showed a strong positive relationship with customer satisfaction (rho =
.778). We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. The result of
the finding is in line with the study of Olannye and Edward (2016). They carried out a study on
the dimensions of entrepreneurial on the performance of fast food restaurant in Asaba, Nigeria.
They submitted that pro-activeness showed a positive effect on performance of fast food and on
competitive advantage. The result of the finding is in line with the study of Mehran and Morteza
(2013). They submitted that pro-activeness influences the performance higher education
institution.
Pro-activeness and Customer Patronage
Pro-activeness equally showed a strong positive relationship with customer patronage (rho =
.802). We therefore reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. The result of
69
the finding is in line with the study of Olannye and Edward (2016). They carried out a study on
the dimensions of entrepreneurial on the performance of fast food restaurant in Asaba, Nigeria.
They submitted that pro-activeness showed a positive effect on performance of fast food and on
competitive advantage. The result of the finding is also in line with the study of Mehran and
Morteza (2013). They submitted that pro-activeness influences the performance higher education
institution.
Risk-taking and Customer Satisfaction
Risk-taking as a dimension of entrepreneurial engagement also showed a strong positive
relationship with firm competitiveness (rho= .700).We therefore reject the null hypothesis and
accept the alternate hypothesis. The finding of this dimension is in line with the study of
Becherer, Helms and McDonald (2012). They submitted that risk-taking has a significant and
positive impact on outcome of goals in SMEs (financial success). The finding of the study was
also supported by the study of Meran and Morteza (2013). They submitted that risk-taking as a
dimension of entrepreneurial engagement has the highest weight and priority among managers of
higher education.
Risk-taking and Customer Patronage
Risk-taking as a dimension of entrepreneurial engagement also showed a strong positive
relationship with firm competitiveness (rho = .802).We therefore reject the null hypothesis and
accept the alternate hypothesis. The finding of this dimension is in line with the study of
Becherer, Helms and McDonald (2012). They submitted that risk-taking has a significant and
positive impact on outcome of goals in SMEs (financial success).
70
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOLARSHIP
5.1 Summary
This study sought to examine the relationship between entrepreneurial engagement and firm
competitiveness of small and medium scale enterprises in food and beverage sector in Rivers
state. The study had eight (8) objectives, eight (8) research question and eight (8) hypotheses that
were analyzed base on the responses provided by the respondents.
The study reviewed various literature related to the study. The dimensions of entrepreneurial
engagement (opportunity recognition, value creation, pro-activeness and risk-taking) and the
variables of firm competitiveness (customer satisfaction and customer patronage) were discussed
elaborately. The study was underpinned by four theories (entrepreneur innovation theory, generic
strategic theory, diffusion innovation theory and resource base theory).
The study adopted the descriptive research survey to describe the characteristics of respondents.
The population of the study consists of 140 SMEs in food and beverage firms in Rivers state.
The questionnaire was structured in the five (5) point likert scale of strongly agreed, agreed,
disagreed, and strongly disagreed.
Reliability and validity tests were conducted on all the variables for the purpose of assessing the
internal consistency of the measures through Cronbach‘s alpha with the aid of SPSS. The output
confirmed that all the items tested were okay since they all have good internal consistency. The
reliability of the instrument was tested through Cronbach’s Alpha and it stood at 0.98 higher than
Nunnally's (1978), benchmark of 0.7
71
The data gathered for the study were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics through
the aid of SPSS. The Spearman rank-order correlation was adopted to test the strength of the
relationship between entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness.
The findings of the study revealed that the various dimensions of entrepreneurial engagement
showed a strong positive relationship with firm competitiveness of SMEs in food and beverage
sector, Rivers state. The study therefore rejected all the null hypotheses and accepted the
alternate hypotheses.
5.2 Conclusions
From the analysis of the study, we observed that entrepreneurial engagement significantly relate
with firm competitiveness of SMEs in food and beverage sector in Rivers state.
5.2.1The research study revealed that opportunity recognition showed a positive and significant
relationship with firm competitiveness. Therefore, Beverage firms need to continuously explore
entrepreneurial opportunities because their resources can only enable them to temporary sustain
competitive advantage. Thus, we can say that higher levels of opportunity recognition will lead
to higher levels of firm competitiveness.
5.2.2The analysis also revealed that value creation showed a positive and significant relationship
with firm competitiveness. After a holistic analysis, value creation was found to have its Rs = 92
with double asterisk. Thus, we can say that higher levels of value creation will lead to higher
levels of firm competitiveness.
5.2.3The research study further revealed that pro-activeness showed a positive and significant
relationship with firm competitiveness. This means that firms that are proactive in meeting
72
customers’ needs will tend to have higher firm competitiveness. Thus, we can say that higher
levels of pro-activeness will lead to higher levels of sales performance.
5.2.5The research study also revealed that risk-taking showed a positive and significant
relationship with firm competitiveness. This means that firms that are willing to make calculated
risk tend to influence their performance. Risk-taking was found to have its Rs = 80 with a single
asterisk. Thus, we can say that higher levels of risk-taking will lead to higher levels of sales
performance.
5.3 Recommendations
In view of the findings and conclusions of the study, the followings are recommended:
1. That, entrepreneurial managers’ should always recognize opportunities as they come.
2. That, entrepreneurial managers’ should always learn to discover new sources of customer
value and create unique combinations of resources to produce value. SMEs managers
should always fine-tune untapped sources of customer value and create superior value for
customers.
3. That SMEs manager should imbibe the attitude of pro-activeness. It was revealed in the
study that pro-activeness has the strongest relationship with sales performance. SMEs
managers should be quick and swift in responding to market needs or demands.
4. That, firms’ in the food and beverage sector should have higher level of risk perception.
They should involve in calculated, rational and measured risks. The willingness to take
chance on an opportunity; it is the ability of the organization to use calculated actions to
mitigate the risk inherent in opportunity pursuit. SMEs managers should not be gamblers
but they should take calculated risk.
73
5.4 Contribution to Scholarship
It is clear that this research study has made sacrosanct contributions to theory, methodology, and
practice and has presented a good number of recommendations. A good number of previous
studies have also shown mixed findings on the relationship between entrepreneurial engagements
and firm competitiveness of SMEs. While some findings conclude that entrepreneurial
engagement have no positive effect on Sales performance, others agree that they have positive
effect on sales performance. The findings of this study revealed that all the dimensions used in
this study showed a strong, positive and significant relationship with firm competitiveness. It is
clear therefore that this study has contributed by extending the body of knowledge especially by
employing entrepreneurial engagement in the food and beverage sector.
Previous studies carried out within this domain used correlation (Pearson product moment),
multiple regression analysis; ANOVA analysis; multivariate analysis based on partial least
square. This study in order to contribute to scholarship used Spearman rank-order correlation
coefficient.
5.5 Limitations of the Study
The following limitations were geographical, content and unit of analysis.
Geographical limitation: To study was conducted in Rivers State. It did not cover places
outside the State. All the primary data were sourced within the State.
Content limitation: The study limited is content to few dimensions for both the independent
variable and dependent variable for easy analysis.
74
Unit of analysis: The Study adopted a macro unit of analysis.
Challenges:
In the course of the study the researcher encountered some challenges which included
Respondents’ reluctance:
Some respondents were reluctant to give out some information
concerning their enterprise which they considered secret or classified.
The nature of Data used in the study: this study was conducted using primary data. Thus, the
findings were influenced by inherent problems with the use of primary data such as negative
attitude of the respondents which culminated in poor response rate from respondents, loss of
questionnaires and insincere responses from the respondents. However, the research was able to
overcome these challenges by printing and issuing the questionnaires slightly above the
determined sample size for the study.
75
5.6 Heuristic Model
ENTREPRENEURIAL
ENGAGEMENT
Opportunity
Recognition
FIRM
COMPETITIVENESS
0.738
. 0.857
0.922
Customer
Satisfaction
Value Creation
0.905
0.778
Proactiveness
0.802
0.700
Customer
Patronage
0.802
Risk-taking
Fig. 5.1: Heuristic model of entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness
KEY
Very Strong
Strong
Moderate
76
Figure 5.1 presents the heuristic model of the relationship between entrepreneurial engagement
and firm competitiveness of food and beverage firms. The model shows the summary results of
the bivariate analyses. The thicker arrow indicates a very strong positive and significant
relationship between value creation and customer satisfaction. The relationship between value
creation and customer patronage was also found to be very strong, positive and significant as
indicated by the thicker arrow. Opportunity recognition was reported to have a strong positive
and significant relationship with customer patronage as depicted by the arrow. The relationship
between opportunity recognition and customer patronage was moderate as depicted by the arrow.
Proactiveness was reported to have a strong positive and significant relationship with customer
patronage as depicted by the arrow. The relationship between Proactiveness and customer
satisfaction was found to be moderate as indicated by the arrow. Risk-taking was reported to
have a strong positive and significant relationship with customer patronage as depicted by the
arrow. The relationship between risk-taking and customer satisfaction was found to be moderate
as indicated by the arrow.
77
REFERENCES
Abdul, F. A., Salman, A. & Olota, O.O. (2014).Impact of customer satisfaction on mobile
telecommunication service provider. JORIND, 12 (2), 139-152
Aliyu, M.S. & Rosli, M. (2014). An empirical analysis of market orientation and business
performance relationship in the context of developing economy. International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social. 3(2), 103-134.
Ambad, S. N. A. and Wahab, K. A. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation among large firms in
Malaysia: contingent effects of hostile environments. International Journal of Business
and Social Science,4 (16), 96-107.
Arief, M. Thoyib, A. and Sudiro, A, (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on the firm
performance through strategic flexibility: A study on SMEs cluster in Malang. Journal of
Management Research, 5 (3), 44-62.
Becherer, R. C Helms, M. M., & McDonald, J. P (2012). The effect of entrepreneurial
marketing on outcome goals in SMEs. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 15
(1) 1-11
Becherer, R. C., Haynes, P. J., & Helms, M. M. (2008). An exploratory investigation of
entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 44-64.
Boohene, R. Marfo-Yiadom & Yeboah (2012). An empirical analysis of the effect of
entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance of auto artisans in the cape coast
metropolis. Developing Country Studies, 2(9), 77-86.
Buckley, P.J., Pass, C.L., & Prescott, K. (1988). Measures of international competitiveness: A
critical survey. Journal of Marking Management 4, 175–200
Chen, C.J.P., Su, X. & Wu, X. (2007). Market competitiveness and big 5 pricing: Evidence from
China’s binary market. The International Journal of Accounting, 42 (1), 1-24.
Christensen, V. (2006). Customer experience: customer satisfaction vs. customer loyalty.
http://www.tmcnet.com/channels/customer-experience-management/articles/936customer-experience-customer-satisfaction-vs-customer-loyalty.htm.
Covin, J., Green, K.M., & Slevin, D.P. (2006).Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation-sales
growth rate relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 6, 29-39.
Culhane, J. M. H (2003). The entrepreneurial orientation-performance linkage in high
technology firm: An international comparative study. PhD Thesis, University of
Massachusetts Amherst.
78
Daisy, D. (2014).The effect of service innovation on customer satisfaction. Institute of Creative
Industries Design, National Cheng Kung University
Dess, G., Lumpkin, T., & McFarlin, D. (2005).The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective
corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 147-156.
Eggers, F., Kraus, S., Hughes, M., Laraway, & Snycerski S. (2013). Implications of customer
and entrepreneurial orientations for SMEs growth. Management Decision, 51 (3),
524-546.
Garga, E. & Bambale, A. (2016). The impact of service quality on customer patronage:
Mediating effects of switching cost and customer satisfaction. International Journal of
Global Business, 9(1), 39-58.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American small business
Journal, 14, 11 – 31.
Gerpott, T.J, Rams, W. & Schinder, A. (2001). Customer retention, loyalty and satisfaction in the
German mobile cellular telecommunications market. Telecommunications policy., 25,
249-269.
Grilo, I &Thurik, R (2008). “Determinants of entrepreneurial engagement levels in Europe and
the US”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(6), 1113-1145
Gunger, H.Sclim, S. E. Sule, E.& Hale C. (2012). The effect of entrepreneurial marketing on
firm’s innovative performance in Turkish SMEs. Procedia. Journal of
Science and
Behavioural Sciences. 58, 811 – 878.
Hanmaikyur, T.J. (2016). Effect of entrepreneurial marketing practices on the performance of
small and medium scale entreprises in markurdi metropolis, Benue State. A PhD
Dissertation, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria.
Hassan, S.S. (2000). Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable
tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 4 (1), 211-221.
Hessels, J, Grilo, I, Thurik, R & van der Zwan, P (2011). “Entrepreneurial exit and
entrepreneurial engagement”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21, 447-471
Hills, G., Hultman, C. & Miles, M. (2008).The evolution and development of entrepreneurial
marketing. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 99-112.
Hoang, D. (2015). The impact of relationship marketing on customer loyalty in the Airline
industry: Case Study Finnair. B.Sc. Project, Centria University of Applied Sciences.
79
Hortovanyi, L. (2010). Entrepreneurial management in Hungarian SMEs.PhD Thesis, University
of Buda Pest.
Hughes, M. and Morgan, R. E. (2007).Deconstruction the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial
Marketing Management, 36(5), 651-661.
Hult G.T.M., Hurley, R.F., & Knight, G.A. (2004).Innovativeness, it antecedents and impact on
business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429-438.
Ibojo, B.O (2015). Impact of customer satisfaction on customer retention: A case study of a
reputable bank in Oyo, Oyo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Managerial Studies
and Research (IJMSR) 3(2)42-53
Jere, M. G., Aderele, B. A. & Jere, A. (2014).Exploring factors that influence store patronage
amongstlow-income consumers in Cape Town, South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of
Social Sciences, 5(20), 152-162.
Jones, R. (2010). Entrepreneurial marketing in small businesses. A conceptual exploration.
International Small Business Journal, 26 (3), 340-357.
Keh, H. T.; Nguyen, TH.&Ng, H. P. (2007). The effects of entrepreneurial orientation and
marketing information on the performance of SMEs, Journal of Business Venturing, 2(2),
592–611.
Kim, H., & Park, Y. (2010). The effects of open innovation activity on performance of SMEs:
the case of Korea. International Journal of Technology Management,52 (3-4), 236-256.
Kumar, P. (2016). Store decision criteria and patronage behaviour of retail consumers.
International Journal of Management Research & Review, 6 (12), 1692-1702.
Lall, S. (2001). Competitiveness, Technology and Skills; Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lawrence, A & Renner, B. A (2019). Entrepreneurial marketing and sales performance of
SME’S in Port Harcourt: African Journal of Innovations in Marketing Research and
Management, 8 (2), 46-58
Lavy, V. (2008). Gender differences in market competitiveness in a real workplace: Evidence
from performance-based pay tournaments among teachers. NBER Working Paper,
September.
80
Li, L. & Wang, Z. (2019). How does capital structure change product-market competitiveness?
Evidence from Chinese firms. Plos One, 14 (2), 45-57.
Lopez-Fernandez, A.M. (2019). Business leadership and market competitiveness. Palgrave Pivot.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to
firm performance: The moderating role of environment and lifecycle. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16, 429-451.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G.,(1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct
and linking it to Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1) 135-172.
Mahmood, R., & Hanafi, N. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance of
women owned small and medium enterprises in Malaysia: competitive advantage as a
mediator. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4 (1), 82-90.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Journal of
Management Science, 24 (9), 921-933
Morris, M. H., Schindehutte, M., & LaForge, R. W. (2002). Entrepreneurial marketing: a
Construct for Integrating Emerging Entrepreneurship and Marketing Perspectives,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 10 (40), 1-19.
Mostafa, R. H. A., Wheeler. C,& Jones M. V. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, commitment
to the internet and export performance in small and medium sized exporting firms.
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 3 (1), 291-302.
Mugambi, E. N. & Karugu, W. N. (2017). Effect of entrepreneurial marketing on performance
of real estate enterprises: A case of Optiven Limited in Nairobi, Kenya. Journal of
Sustainable Development in Africa, 13 (1), 358 –373.
Muriithi, C.M., (2015). Effect of consumer centric marketing on performance of hotels in
Rwanda. A M.Sc. Thesis, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agricultural and Technology.
Nwaizugbo, I. C1 & Anukam, A. I (2014), Assessment of entrepreneurial marketing practices
among small and medium scale enterprises in Imo State Nigeria: Prospects and
challenges. Review of Contemporary Business Research, 3(1), 77-9814(4): 287-293
O’Cass, A. & P. Sok. (2013). Exploring innovation driven value creation in B2B service firms:
The roles of the manager, employees, and customers in value creation. Journal of
Business Research, 66 (8),1074-1084
Olannye, A. & Eromafuru, E (2016). The dimension of entrepreneurial marketing on the
performance of fast food restaurants in Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of
Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 7 (3),137-146.
81
Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk
taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of business venturing,10 (6), 425-438
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. Free Press.
Porter, M.E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations; Free Press.
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.
Ranaweera,C. & Prabhu, J. (2003) “The influence of satisfaction, trust and switching barriers on
customer retention in a continuous purchasing setting”. International journal of service
industry management, 14, 37-95.
Rosli & Saad (2018). Pro-activeness, Innovativeness and firm performance: the mediating Role
of Organizational Capability. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 17 (5), 1-14
Rizan, M., Warokka, A. & Listyawati, D. (2014). Relationship marketing and customer loyalty:
Do customer satisfaction and customer trust really serve as intervening variables?
Journal of Marketing Research and Case Studies, 24 (4), 237-248.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital,
credit, interest, and the business cycle. Oxford University Press.
Swiersczek, F. W., & Ha, T. T. (2003). Entrepreneurial orientation, uncertainty avoidance and
firm performance: An Analysis of Thai and Vietnamese SMEs. Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, 46-58.
Verter, N. & Osakwe, N. (2015). Market competitiveness of the Czech economy in the era of
globalization: Some new empirical insights. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6
(1), 45-56.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd D. (2008). Portfolio entrepreneurship: Habitual and novice founders,
new entry, and mode of organizing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32, (4),
701-725.
Yee, R., Yeung, A., Cheng, T.C.E. & Lee, P. (2013). Market competitiveness and quality
performance in high-contact service industries. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
13 (4), 573-588.
82
APPENDIX 1
Letter to the Respondents
Department of Marketing,
Faculty of Business Studies,
Post Graduate School,
Ignatius Ajuru University of Education,
Port Harcourt.
10th September, 2020.
Dear Sir/Ma,
I am a post graduate student of Ignatius Ajuru University of Education. I am required to carry out
a research on “entrepreneurial engagement and firm competitiveness of food and beverages
manufacturing SMEs in Rivers State”. This study is conducted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of Masters of Science (M.Sc.) in Marketing. Therefore, kindly
respond to the attached questionnaire as it is designed for academic purpose. All information
provided would be treated confidentially.
Thanks for your anticipated co-operation.
Yours faithfully,
Researcher
Boma Rowlands
83
Appendix II
Research Questionnaire
Section A
1)
Name of Company…………………………………….…………………….
2)
Position ……………………………………………………………………
3)
Gender
4)
Age
Male
Female
25-30
31- 40
41- 50
51 & above
SECTION B
S/N
Opportunity Recognition
SA
5
Recognizing opportunity can increase market
share.
6
Entrepreneurial firms serve unsatisfied needs
through opportunity recognition.
7
Innovation and creativity are important tools
that enable entrepreneurial firms transform
opportunity into reality.
8
Grabbing new opportunity can lead to high
market share.
9
Opportunity well harnessed leads to high
competitiveness.
Value Creation
10
Creating value for customers improves firm
competitiveness.
11
Value creation is an essential condition for
84
A
MA
D
SD
exchange to occur.
12
Creating of novel products influences customer
patronage.
13
Superior performance
customer value.
14
Value creation distinguishes your product from
competitors.
requires
superior
Pro-activeness
15
Pro-activeness enables your firm to dominate
competitors.
16
Pro-activeness reflects in the firm’s ability to
anticipate changes.
17
Pro-activeness enhances customer satisfaction.
18
Pro-activeness leads to increase market share
19
Pro-activeness helps to reduce uncertainty
Risk-taking
20
Calculated risk
performance.
taking
enhances
firms’
21
Your firm is predisposed to taking on risky
ventures.
22
Entrepreneurs are optimistic individuals who
consciously pursue their goals.
23
Risk taking provides opportunity for your firm
to expand.
24
Careful risk taking enhances firms’ sales
growth.
Customer Satisfaction
25
Customer
satisfaction
competitiveness.
improves
firm
26
Customer satisfaction is an overall evaluation
of a firm’s products or services.
85
27
Being proactive in meeting customers’ needs
leads to customer satisfaction.
28
Value creation for customers’ helps in
customer satisfaction.
29
When customers are satisfied, they will refer
others.
Customer Patronage
30
Satisfied customers always patronize us.
31
Continuous customers’ patronage improves
firm’s competitiveness.
32
Meeting customers’ needs creates room for
customers’ patronage.
33
Offering product of value leads to customer
patronage.
34
Our level of customer patronage has increased
significantly since the introduction of our new
ways of rendering services.
Key Ratings:
SA:
Strongly Agreed
A:
Agreed
MA:
Moderately Agreed
D:
Disagreed
SD:
Strongly Disagreed
86
APPENDIX 11I
Krejcie and Morgan Sampling Table
87
Appendix III
SPSS Output
GET
FILE='C:\Users\user\Documents\BOMA.sav'.
DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.
NONPAR CORR
/VARIABLES= ENTREPRENURIAL ENGAGEMENT AND FIRM COMPETITIVENESS
/PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Opportunity
customer
Recognition
satisfaction
Opportunity
Recognition
Spearman's rho
customer
satisfaction
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Source, Survey Data 2021
1.000
.738*
.
8
.037
8
.738*
1.000
.037
.
8
8
NONPAR CORR
/VARIABLES=
/PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
opportunity
recognition
opportunity
recognition
Spearman's rho
customer
patronage
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
88
customer
patronage
1.000
.857**
.
8
.007
8
.857**
1.000
.007
.
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
8
8
NONPAR CORR
/VARIABLES=
/PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
value
creation
Correlation
Coefficient
value creation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
Correlation
Coefficient
customer
satisfaction
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
customer
satisfaction
1.000
.922**
.
8
.001
8
.922**
1.000
.001
8
.
8
NONPAR CORR
/VARIABLES=
/PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
value
creation
value creation
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
Correlation
Coefficient
customer
patronage
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
NONPAR CORR
89
customer patronage
1.000
.905**
.
8
.002
8
.905**
1.000
.002
8
.
8
/VARIABLES=
/PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
pro-activeness
Correlation
Coefficient
pro-activeness
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
Correlation
Coefficient
customer satisfaction
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
customer
satisfaction
1.000
.778*
.
80
.023
80
.778*
1.000
.023
80
.
80
NONPAR CORR
/VARIABLES=
/PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
pro-activeness
Correlation
Coefficient
pro-activeness
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
Correlation
Coefficient
customer patronage
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Source, Survey Data 2021
NONPAR CORR
/VARIABLES=
/PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
90
customer
patronage
1.000
.802*
.
80
.017
80
.802*
1.000
.017
80
.
80
Correlations
risk-taking
risk-taking
Spearman's rho
customer satisfaction
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Correlation
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1.000
customer
satisfaction
.700
.
80
.700
.188
80
1.000
.188
80
.
80
risk-taking
customer
patronage
Source, Survey Data 2021
NONPAR CORR
/VARIABLES=
/PRINT=SPEARMAN TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Correlation
Coefficient
risk-taking
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
Correlation
Coefficient
customer patronage
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Source, Survey Data 2021
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.976
8
SPSS Output, 2021.
91
1.000
.802*
.
80
.017
80
.802*
1.000
.017
80
.
80