Printer Friendly

Entrepreneurial competencies and the performance of small and medium enterprises: an investigation through a framework of competitiveness.

Introduction

Entrepreneurship, as exemplified by the characteristics of the entrepreneur, is considered to be central to the determinants of SME performance by some researchers (Erikson, 2002; O'Farrell and Hitchens, 1988; Roper, 1998). Such a claim was particularly popular among studies of the entrepreneurial firm, in which the entrepreneur plays a founding and dominant role in the development of the business (Daily et al., 2002; Goedhuys and Sleuwaegen, 2000; Glancey, 1998). Researchers have attempted to investigate the various entrepreneurial characteristics affecting the performance of SMEs, including the entrepreneur's background and demographic characteristics like education, age, gender and ethnic origin (Changanti and Parasuraman, 1996; Cooper, Dunkelberg and Woo, 1988; Honjo, 2004; Robb, 2002), psychological and behavioural characteristics (Barkham, 1994; Begley and Boyd, 1987; Kotey and Meredith, 1997; Sadler-Smith et al., 2003), and factors of social and human capital (Batjargal, 2005; Dyke, Fischer and Rueber, 1992; Haber and Reicheil, 2007; Lerner, Brush and Hisrich, 1997; Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986; Johannisson, 1993). More importantly, contingency factors of contextual, organizational and strategic natures are of particular importance in determining a firm's performance (Chandler and Hanks, 1994a; Chaston, 1997; Ensley, Pearce and Hmieleski, 2006; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Roper, 1998).

However, studies on the relationship between these entrepreneurial characteristics and firm performance have produced mixed and inconsistent findings (Chandler and Hanks, 1994a; Cooper, 1993; Fenwick and Strombom, 1998; Reuber and Fisher, 1994). Possible explanations for these inconclusive results are that our ability to predict a firm's success using entrepreneurial characteristics is limited by the instability of firm performance, the importance to an entrepreneur of non-economic goals, and the stochastic nature of the process (Cooper, 1993). The lack of formal structural frameworks (Roper, 1998) and of a comprehensive theory of SME development (Gibbs and Davies, 1991) are also problems.

Therefore, further research relating entrepreneurial characteristics and SME performance must take into account, first, a more fully developed theoretical framework; second, contingency relationships on different conditions and interactions; third, characteristics that deserve more attention even if they may be less easily operationalized; and fourth, the performance measures chosen, and the use of multiple performance indicators (Cooper and Gascon, 1992; Murphy, Trailer and Hill, 1996).

In response to this, Man, Lau and Chan (2002) have developed a theoretical framework making use of the concept of firm competitiveness for SMEs and the competency approach to study entrepreneurial characteristics. This framework focuses centrally on the role of entrepreneur in determining the firm's performance. It is readily applicable to firms that are smaller in size and dominated by the entrepreneur. By using this framework, we have conducted an empirical study on the relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and the performance of SMEs. In this paper, we report on the results of this study. The implications, contributions and limitations of this study, as well as directions for further research, will also be discussed.

Theoretical Framework

The framework of Man, Lau and Chan (2002) is founded upon a multi-dimensional conceptualization of the competitiveness of SMEs, including the performance dimension, potential dimension and process dimension, developed from earlier studies of competitiveness (Oral, 1986; Feurer and Chaharbaghi, 1994; Buckley, Pass and Prescott, 1988; World Competitiveness Report, 1993). In particular, the influence of the entrepreneur is considered as critical and this is addressed through the competency approach.

Entrepreneurial competencies are related to managerial competencies, articulated in the works of Boyatzis (1982). The competency approach has become an increasingly popular means of studying entrepreneurial characteristics (For example, Baum, 1994; Bird, 1995; Baron and Markman, 2003; Chandler and Jansen, 1992; Lau, Chan and Man, 1999; Martin and Staines, 1994; McGregor et al., 2000; Schmitt-Rodermund, 2004). According to Bird (1995), competencies are seen as behavioural and observable, and therefore are more closely linked to performance than are other entrepreneurial characteristics such as personality traits, intentions or motivations (Herron and Robinson, 1993; Gartner and Starr, 1993). Moreover, as with attitudes (Robinson et al., 1991), competencies are changeable and so the development of entrepreneurship becomes more feasible. In Man, Lau and Chan (2002), six major areas of entrepreneurial competencies are categorized as relating to an SME context, including opportunity, relationship, conceptual, organizing, strategic, and commitment competencies. They are supposed to play different roles in affecting an SME's performance with their direct and indirect effects.

In fact, central to the framework are the relationships between these entrepreneurial competencies and other constructs of competitiveness, including competitive scope, organizational capabilities and the performance of the firm, which together address different dimensions of SME competitiveness. These relationships are conceptualized as three principal "entrepreneurial tasks," including (1) forming the competitive scope of the firm; (2) creating the organizational capabilities; and (3) setting goals and taking action. In other words, by making appropriate use of his or her competencies, an entrepreneur can perceive a widened competitive scope such as more opportunities for innovation, business growth, and the provision of new services or products. From available resources, he or she can also develop better organizational capabilities such as the firm's innovative capability, cost-saving ability, quality and flexibility. Finally, he or she can plan and work towards a firm's long-term performance, along with the available competitive scope and organizational capabilities. These relationships are addressed through the following broad-based hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The opportunity, relationship, and conceptual competencies of the entrepreneur are positively related to the competitive scope of an SME.

Hypothesis 2: The organising, relationship and conceptual competencies of the entrepreneur are positively related to the organizational capabilities of an SME.

Hypothesis 3a: The strategic and commitment competencies of the entrepreneur are positively related to the long-term performance of an SME. This relationship is positively moderated by the competitive scope of the firm.

Hypothesis 3b: The strategic and commitment competencies of the entrepreneur are positively related to the long-term performance of an SME. This relationship is positively moderated by the organizational capabilities of the firm.

Hypotheses 3a and 3b address the interactions of entrepreneurial competencies separately with competitive scope and organizational capabilities. By taking a more contingent or configurational perspective towards a firm's performance between entrepreneurial competencies, competitive scope, and organizational capabilities (Lipparinni and Sobrero 1994; Dess, Lumpkin, and Covin 1997; Wiklund and Shepherd 2005), three-way interaction between these three kinds of variables may also be possible. Therefore, Hypothesis 4, as an alternative hypothesis to H3a and H3b, is also proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Strategic and commitment competencies, competitive scope, and organizational capabilities will positively influence the performance of an SME through their interactive effect.

The main purpose of this study, therefore, is to test the above hypotheses derived from the model of Man, Lau and Chan (2002). We shall describe and report the empirical study to achieve this purpose in the following sections.

Overall Research Design

In order to successfully test the hypotheses, it is first necessary to operationalize the concept of SME competitiveness with an instrument tailored more specifically for measuring different dimensions of SME competitiveness, particularly the aspect of entrepreneurial competencies. As a result, the subsequent hypothesis testing could have a higher level of validity.

Therefore, the empirical part of this study was designed as having two stages--instrument development and hypothesis testing. The stage of instrument development involved a qualitative study in the form of behavioural event interviews (McClelland, 1987; Spencer and Spencer, 1993), an intensive effort for modifying existing instrument using of qualitative data collected, as well as a pilot study of the preliminary instrument.

With this instrument, we were able to test the hypotheses about the relationships between different entrepreneurial competencies and the other constructs in the framework of SME competitiveness, as designated above. This part was conducted using a sample of SME owner/managers in the services sector in Hong Kong.

Stage I: Development of the Survey Instrument

The main focus of developing the survey instrument was on the measures of entrepreneurial competencies. While some existing instruments like those of Chandler and Jansen (1992) and Baum (1994) are currently available to measure entrepreneurial competencies, they did not fully meet the needs of this study. For example, the instrument by Chandler and Jansen (1992) included three distinctive categories of entrepreneurial, managerial, and technical competencies. Baum's (1994) measurement of competencies covered a range of instruments measuring traits, skills, experience and knowledge. While they were useful for this study, they did not address all the competencies identified in the qualitative study, and the varied forms of measurement used may cause difficulties for the respondents to answer the questionnaire. Therefore, a survey instrument taking a behavioural perspective and meeting the requirements of this study is necessary. The underlying approach in developing this survey instrument is to modify and update the existing instruments with reference to the results from the qualitative analysis so as to make them applicable to measuring the entrepreneurial competencies of the research context. The preliminary instrument was then subject to a pilot test on a small sample.

Qualitative Study: Behavioural Event Interviews

A qualitative study was first conducted with reference to the theoretical framework and the context of SMEs in Hong Kong, with the purposes of: 1) identifying entrepreneurial competencies specific to the research context, 2) exploring any new competencies that have not been identified in prior studies, and 3) generating a referencing pool of items (DeVillis, 1991) in developing a survey instrument to measure entrepreneurial competencies.

The qualitative data were collected from a sample of 19 successful owner/managers contacted through referral, using a modified form of the behavioural event interview (McClelland, 1987; Spencer and Spencer, 1993). This approach has been successfully applied to the study of entrepreneurial competencies in different contexts (Snell and Lau, 1994; Hunt, 1998; Martin and Staines, 1994; Lau, Chan and Man, 1999; Adam and Chell, 1993). Basically, the interviewees were asked to describe the process of business development since starting up, and their actions and behaviour in various incidents during the development of the business. In particular, in accordance with the suggestions of Bird (1995) who favoured the use of more rigorous and theory-based qualitative analysis instead of exploratory-qualitative approaches in studying entrepreneurial competencies, the competitiveness framework was explicitly applied in matching the behaviours identified with the prescribed competency areas for different entrepreneurial tasks. This analysis has led to a detailed coding of 192 competencies in 44 clusters in the six areas of opportunity, relationship, conceptual, organizing, strategic, and commitment competencies as in the original framework, as well as in two new competencies that do not fit into these six prescribed competency areas but seem to play supporting roles to other competencies. They were named learning competencies and personal strength competencies. As a result, the original theoretical framework has been modified. Therefore, the focus can be placed on competencies directly relevant to performance in the next stage, and on those playing an indirect or supporting role to other competencies in further studies.

These competency clusters and behavioural elements were further turned into corresponding constructs and components. This was accomplished through a detailed reviewing procedure of the competencies which led to similar competencies being combined into higher-level competencies. The result was a grouping of 70 competency components under the six constructs of opportunity, relationship, conceptual, organising, strategic, and commitment, and the two supporting competency constructs of learning and personal strength.

Development of Preliminary Instrument

These competency constructs and their components were then used in the subsequent step of selecting and developing suitable measures. Those that were concise, with higher reliability and requiring fewer modifications, were preferred. Apart from these considerations, the measures were expected to be behavioural in nature and reflect the direction of the effects of the hypothesized relationships. Based on these criteria, the measures were selected and modified from Chandler and Jansen (1992) (for opportunity, organizing and commitment competencies), Roemer (1996) (for relationship competencies), Evers and Rush (1996) (for personal strength competencies), Quinn et al. (1990) (for conceptual and personal strength competencies), William (1996) (for personal strength competencies), the Learning Skills Profiles (1993) (for strategic competencies), and the Leadership Competency Inventory (1996) (for strategic competencies). These have resulted in a 68item instrument measuring various entrepreneurial competencies. These original measurements are all multi-item with a reported coefficient alpha ranging from 0.7 to 0.82, except for the learning competencies, for which no concise measures matching the qualitative results are available. Thus, a simple six-item measure based on the qualitative results was developed.

An example of this developmental process can be demonstrated with the construct of "opportunity competencies," in which six key components of competencies were identified from the qualitative stage. These six components were compared with the existing four-item scale by Chandler and Jansen (1992) and found to be largely comparable. The exception was one dimension on "assessing potential business opportunity thoroughly," which was missing in Chandler and Jansen's (1992) scale, and added to the revised scale.

To enhance the validity of the preliminary instrument for measuring entrepreneurial competencies, five academics experienced in the development of scales were invited to evaluate its content validity. Based on the comments, some items were added, changed or removed, resulting in a modified version with 68 items.

We then combined them with existing instruments for measuring competitive scope, organizational capabilities, and firm performance. Competitive scope measures the perceived environment facing the firm from the point of view of the entrepreneur. They are adopted and modified from Zahra's (1993) and Miller's (1988) instruments for measuring opportunities for innovations, perceived industry growth, importance of new product, and market heterogeneity. Organisational capabilities comprise a firm's innovative ability, quality, cost effectiveness and flexibility, modified from Chandler and Hanks' (1994b) and Covin and Slevin's (1988) instruments. The reported coefficient alpha for the original measures for these scales ranges from 0.76 to 0.89.

To measure SME performance, the use of scales is a better alternative than using actual figures due to the unwillingness of the SME owner/managers to disclose these sensitive figures. Under the framework of SME competitiveness, measurements for performance were considered from three perspectives, including investment efficiency, business growth, and relative performance. In this study, investment efficiency was represented by return on shareholder equity, gross profit margin, net profit from operations, profit to sales ratio, and return on investment. This was extracted from Grupta and Govindarajan's (1984) instrument, which was frequently cited, adopted and modified by others in measuring SME performance (for example, Covin and Slevin 1989 and 1990; Naman and Slevin 1993). The reported coefficient alpha was as high as 0.88 (Covin and Slevin 1989). On the other hand, the measures for business growth and relative performance were modified mainly from that of Chandler and Hanks' (1993) instruments which had a coefficient alpha of 0.72. These three variables, investment efficiency, business growth, and relative performance, together shall reflect the concepts of an SME's competitiveness performance in a more complete picture as they represent performance at present, in the future and in comparison with its competitors. There are also other variables for collecting personal and firm data.

Pilot Testing

The resulting preliminary version of the survey questionnaire, translated into Chinese and then back-translated into English to ensure consistency, was applied in a pilot test on a sample of 55 owner/managers and senior business executives in SMEs in order to evaluate the performance of the items in the instrument.

In the data collected from the pilot test, some items were rephrased if their wording was not sufficiently strong to differentiate between good and poor ratings (DeVellis, 1991). Some were also selected for removal if they had (1) a low item-scale correlation, given an acceptable level of coefficient alpha (close to 0.7) could be maintained, (2) serious mis-loading or cross-loading into other variables, or (3) low loading to the original variable. A final version of the survey questionnaire was then produced, with 53 items measuring the eight competency constructs, 12 items for competitive scope, 20 items for organizational capabilities, 14 items for firm performance, and other items for the respondents' personal and firm data. For the purposes of hypothesis testing in this study, the measures for competitive scope and organisational capabilities were treated as composite scales. The items for measuring entrepreneurial competencies are shown in Appendix 1.

Stage Two: Hypothesis Testing

Sample and Data Collection

The sample used for hypothesis testing was 153 owner/managers of the SMEs, who were drawn from the services sector in Hong Kong through a postal survey. The surveyed firms were randomly drawn from latest available listings of SMEs in directories like the Dun and Bradstreet's Market Guide and the Hong Kong IT Directory during the time of the survey, provided that they met the following criteria:

1. The contact person listed in the directories is the owner/manager of the firm;

2. The firm has 50 or fewer employees (which met the definition of SMEs in the services sector in Hong Kong); and

3. The firm has been in operation for at least three years.

Although the response rate of the postal survey is not particularly high (around 7%), it is comparable to the reported response rates from 6.8% to 11.6% in a previous study of the response behaviour on postal surveys for Chinese owner/managers in Hong Kong (Siu, 1996). Siu's study employed a four-page questionnaire, as did our study. Nevertheless, we have also made a conscientious effort to ensure the data collected was representative: first, a comparison was made between the earlier batch (two-thirds of the data) and the later batch (one-third of the data) of returned questionnaires--that is, one received before and one after a reminder card had been sent after nine days, by using a ttest on the main variables and a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and t-test on the demographic and firm characteristics. These tests did not reveal significant differences between the two batches of respondents. Therefore, it could be assumed that the two batches were drawn from the same population. Moreover, a comparison was made on the key characteristics between the sample and the general population of SMEs in Hong Kong, based on the available and comparable data from the Census and Statistics Department in Hong Kong as follows.

As shown in Table 1, those key characteristics of the sample were comparable to that in the population, implying that there should not be a significant non-response bias in the sample used and they should be a representative sample of the population.

Analysis

Exploratory factor analyses were first conducted to empirically determine the number of factors within each competency sub-construct, together with reliability and correlational analyses.

In the testing of the hypotheses, a hierarchical ordinary least squares regression analysis was used. The principal component factors of the areas of competency, generated from the previous factor analyses, were used as the independent variables instead of the original composite variables, to avoid the potential problems of multicollinearity arising from the high level of correlations between these competency areas. Moreover, as these principal components are standardized, problems of distortions with the interactive terms in H3a, H3b and H4 were minimized (Aiken and West, 1991). Standardized scores for competitive scope, organizational capabilities, and performance variables were also used so that the variables would be more comparable in scale to assist in the calculations of interactive effects in H3a, H3b and H4.

In testing H1 and H2, the composite measures of competitive scope and organizational capabilities were used respectively as the dependent variables. In testing H3a, H3b and H4, firm performance was regressed by using the three performance criteria separately, namely, investment efficiency, business growth, and relative performance.

In testing H4, the three-way interactive effects between competitive scope, organizational capabilities and entrepreneurial competencies were tested by using two different types of interactive terms among these variables: (1) the full multiplicative terms among competitive scope, organizational capabilities and entrepreneurial competencies, and (2) the additive-multiplicative terms between a combined measure of competitive scope and organizational capabilities with entrepreneurial competencies. This is, in effect, a less stringent interpretation of interactions than the full multiplicative interactions.

Some control variables were also introduced. For Hypotheses 1 and 2, the entrepreneur's age (current age and start-up age) is controlled because an entrepreneur can become more competent (Brockhaus and Horwitz, 1986) or, on the contrary, less entrepreneurial (Begley and Boyd, 1985) as he or she gets older. For Hypotheses 3a, 3b and 4, in addition to the entrepreneur's age, it is also necessary to consider the firm's age and size, industry sectors and stages of business development, all of which are related to a firm's performance.

Results

For these competency items, as there are only 153 cases in the sample, which is insufficiently large for conducting a single factor analysis, three separate exploratory factor analyses were conducted using varimax rotation with Kaizer normalization and principal component analysis. Together, the result was a clearer separation of factors and an ability to account for the maximum portion of the variance represented in the original set of variables (Hair et al., 1998). In all of the three factor analyses, factors were extracted when the eigenvalues were greater than one. The factors extracted in all of the three analyses explained over 70% of the total variance, as shown in Appendix 2. While there were some cross-loadings in other competency areas, in general the loading patterns corresponded with the predetermined sets of competency sub-constructs, except that the conceptual competencies were found to be better separated under two competency areas: analytical competencies and innovative competencies. Organizing competencies were better separated into two competency areas--operational competencies and human competencies-to better reflect the organizing competencies in business operations and in people management. In the end, a total of 10 factors were generated from the factor analysis for use in the subsequent analyses.

The reported Cronbach's Alpha for all multi-item variables used in the study ranged from 0.78 to 0.94, all of which are higher than the acceptable value of 0.7 suggested by Nunnally (1978). The correlations of the dependent and independent variables are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 shows a significant and substantial level of correlations among variables of the same construct. For variables in different constructs, the correlations are moderate. Such a pattern can be seen as evidence for the convergent validity for variables within a construct and the divergent validity for variables outside a construct. The significant correlations between the supporting competencies of learning and personal strength with the main competency areas may provide some indications of the relationships between these sets of competency variables. However, for the sub-constructs of entrepreneurial competencies, the significant correlations may create potential problems of multicollinearity when used as dependent variables in hypothesis testing. To solve this problem, the standardized principal components of these competency sub-constructs were used in multiple regressions when the hypotheses were tested, instead of the original numeric values on the ratings. The results of the tests of the hypotheses are shown in Table 3.

The results from the test of H1 show that there is an overall significant equation with the final [R.sup.2] of 0.210 on the final model (adjusted [R.sup.2] = 0.175). In particular, significant and positive effects were found for relationship, innovative, and opportunity competencies on a competitive scope. Therefore, the extent of the competitive scope as perceived by the entrepreneur is positively related to how competent he or she is in building relationships, innovating and identifying opportunities in the external environment. On the other hand, the insignificance of analytical competencies may imply that as a kind of more abstract conceptual ability, they are not as readily applicable to the conceptualizing of the external environment. The small change in R2 of 0.045 when introducing the control variables of current age and start-up stage of the entrepreneur into the equation indicates that the main effect from the independent variables contributed a considerable proportion of the R2 in the equation.

The results from testing H2 have shown an overall significant model with the final R2 = 0.230 (adjusted [R.sup.2] = 0.189). Significant and positive effects of relationship, innovative, and human competencies were also found on the dependent variables of the organizational capabilities of the firm. Therefore, the creation of organizational capabilities is positively related to the entrepreneur's competencies in manipulating various resources through their relationship, innovative and human competencies. However, no significant impact was found for operational competencies and analytical competencies, although positive signs were noted. The lack of significance for operational competencies may be explained by the assumption that the formation of organizational capabilities relies more on the organization of people, as demonstrated in the significance of human competencies, rather than on the organization of physical resources. For analytical competencies, its insignificant effects may also be related to the fact that it is a more abstract variable as in testing H1, and hence the respondents may find it more difficult to relate it to actual conditions. Again, the small change in R2 of 0.05 for introducing the control variables of current age and start-up stage of the entrepreneur into the equation indicates that the main effect from the independent variables played a significant role in contributing to the R2 of the equation.

Also from Table 3, the results from testing H3a and H3b have indicated that there are overall significant models with respect to all three performance criteria. The significant and positive two-way interactive effects of the competitive scope and the organizational capabilities on strategic competencies were demonstrated when investment efficiency was used as the criterion of firm performance, as shown in the values of the standardised coefficients on these interactive terms. On the other hand, no such significant effects were found for competitive scope and organizational capabilities on commitment competencies, which instead tend to have a direct effect on firm performance across various indicators.

Apart from their interactive effects, both competitive scope and organizational capabilities do not have a significant direct effect on firm performance, which may again be evidence of their role as moderators in the model. However, the two-way interactive effects for both competitive scope and organizational capabilities were not apparent when business growth and relative performance were used as the performance indicators. Apossible explanation is that the performance consequences of the interactions of strategic competencies with competitive scope and organizational capabilities are better reflected in realized and tangible gains, as in investment efficiency. As business growth and relative performance are less directly related, they are less tangible for SMEs. However, it is worth paying attention to the fact that the changes in R2 when introducing the independent variables and moderated terms into the regression equations were noticeable but not so substantial. This would mean that the control variables also made significant impacts on firm performance.

In testing H4, the results also demonstrated overall significant models with respect to all three performance criteria. As with H3a and H3b, commitment competencies have a direct and positive relationship with firm performance. For strategic competencies, a significant and positive additive-interactive effect with competitive scope and organizational capabilities on investment efficiency was noted; however, no significant three-way full interactive effect on firm performance was demonstrated. The direct effect of strategic competencies was also shown, but under the criteria of investment efficiency only. However, the impact of strategic competencies on investment efficiency was not as strong as its interactive effect, as shown by the comparison between their standardized coefficients.

Also, as with H3a and H3b, these interactive effects were significant only when investment efficiency was used as the performance indicator, but not when growth and relative performance were used. Also, the moderators of competitive scope and organizational capabilities did not have a significant direct effect on firm performance. Rather, they tend to play a positively moderating role in the relationship between strategic competencies and firm performance, as in H3a and H3b. Again, there have been some noticeable changes in [R.sup.2] when introducing the independent variables and interactive terms into the regression equations.

From the results of testing various hypotheses, it was found that the current age of the entrepreneurs tends to have a negative impact on the hypothesized relationships, whereas their age when starting up their business has a positive impact on H1 only. These findings give supporting evidence of the need to control for the effects of the age factor in the hypothesized relationships, as entrepreneurs tend to become less entrepreneurial with age (Begley and Boyd, 1985). On the other hand, the results also show that firm size has had a positive and strong impact on firm performance, and various stages of business development are found to have different levels of positive impact on the growth of the business, with a firm in the mature stage being the strongest, followed by the growth stage and the stage of decline. Therefore, controlling for these firm factors would yield a more accurate account of the hypothesized relationships between entrepreneurial competencies and other constructs. From the results of the changes in R2 in Table 2, the independent variables in H1 and H2 have considerably higher impacts than the control variables on the respective dependent variables (competitive scope and organisational capabilities), whereas in H3a, H3b and H4, the changes which resulted from the independent variables were also noticeable but less substantial.

Taking the above factors into consideration, it was shown that, in general, H1 and H2 are partially supported with empirical evidence, with opportunity, relationship, innovation and human competencies having significant and considerable impacts on forming the competitive scope and creating the organizational capabilities of a firm respectively. On the other hand, H3a and H3b are also partially supported, with evidence for the positive impacts of the higher levels of competitive scope and organizational capabilities on the entrepreneurs' strategic actions that would, in turn, affect the long-term performance of their firms. However, it was necessary to pay attention to factors other than those.

There is also evidence for at least partial support for additive-interactive effects among competitive scope, organizational capabilities and strategic competencies on the performance of a firm. As in H4, the results can be interpreted as indicating that an entrepreneur's strategic competencies can be more effective through the presence of a favourable competitive scope, as perceived by the entrepreneur, and an abundant supply of organizational capabilities; but that there is no need for a "full alignment" among strategic competencies, competitive scope and organizational capabilities, which may be an overly stringent condition that few SMEs can achieve given the limited capabilities they possess and the extent of the competitive scope they face.

On the other hand, compared with the results from testing H3a and H3b using investment efficiency as the criterion, H4 has provided a higher level of adjusted R2, meaning that it can explain more variances in investment efficiency than H3a and H3b. It has also resulted in a higher standardized coefficient in the interactive term with competitive scope and organizational capabilities than in the separated two-way interactive effects of strategic competencies with these two variables as in H3a and H3b. This again provides evidence for the need of the entrepreneur to consider the external environment and the firm's capabilities simultaneously in order to achieve better firm performance.

Discussion and Conclusion

As an effort to investigate the relationship between individual-level entrepreneurial characteristics and firm-level performance, we have made use of a theoretical framework for SME competitiveness incorporating the competency approach for studying entrepreneurial competencies. This framework has also allowed us to study interactive relationships, and provided guidelines for the choice and operationization of the variables involved, as suggested by Cooper and Gascon (1992) and Murphy, Trailer and Hill (1996), which are necessary for further investigations of the relationships between entrepreneurial characteristics and firm-level performance. We were able to achieve an initial success, with some positive results from testing the hypotheses which provided supporting evidence of the direct or indirect effects of different competencies on a firm's long-term performance. These findings correspond to earlier research efforts demonstrating an entrepreneur's ability to become alert to and interpret environmental conditions (Keats and Bracker, 1987; Herron and Robinson, 1993; Kristiansen, 2002; Minniti, 2004), to gather and use various internal and external resources to the advantage of the firm (de Carolis and Saparito, 2006; Gartner and Starr, 1993; Ostgaard and Birley, 1994), and to plan for the long-term success of the firm (Harris and Emmanuel, 1999; Ibrahim, 1991; Kargar, 1996; Kisfalvi, 2002).

It is also worth taking note of the supportive evidence for the interactive effects, rather than the direct effects of competitive scope and organizational capabilities on firm performance, which give additional evidence for the theoretical framework. These results have also suggested that while differences in the perception of the environment or the firm's resources play a role in forming the competitive scope and creating organizational capabilities, they cannot be developed into competitive scope and organizational capabilities without the respective entrepreneurial competencies including relationship, innovative, opportunity and human competencies. Also, the strategic competencies of the entrepreneur to make use of the competitive scope and the organizational capabilities shall contribute to a firm's successful performance over the long term.

As compared with previous studies on the relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and SME performance, this study has provided an alternative means of approaching this issue by making use of a theoretical framework that links other constructs (organizational capabilities and competitive scope) with firm performance. This study also provides some empirical evidence for the role of the entrepreneur in determining the performance of an SME. Nevertheless, when evaluating the contributions of entrepreneurial competencies in firm performance, it is also important to pay attention to other factors such as firm size and stages of industry development. These influences may be particularly significant, given the small size of SMEs in the sample used, and the economic downturn of Hong Kong in the last few years which may have put these SMEs in a relatively disadvantageous position. Hence factors other than individual competencies, like the stages of industry development, may contribute even more towards firm performance in this context. We therefore recognize the need for further research work in this area.

On the other hand, a supporting role for learning competencies and personal strength competency was also observed, with empirical evidence from the qualitative analysis and the correlation analysis. However, contrary to our expectation, commitment competencies seem to exert a direct effect on firm performance rather than a moderating/interactive effect, as originally hypothesized. This result may indicate that the use of commitment competencies is not limited by the external environment or by the firm's capabilities.

More significantly, a unified survey instrument for measuring ten types of entrepreneurial competencies from a behavioural perspective has been developed. It was developed from modifying and expanding existing instruments for measuring entrepreneurial competencies, such as those of Chandler and Jansen (1992) and Quinn et al. (1990), using the results from the qualitative analysis. This instrument has been content-validated by an expert panel, construct-validated through exploratory factor analysis and correlational analysis, and criterion-validated by hypothesis testing. Moreover, the instrument has shown a high level of reliability in the variables it contains. Therefore, given further testing on larger samples, this survey instrument should have a high potential contribution in the future quantitative work on entrepreneurial competencies. For example, apart from testing with firm performance, the instrument itself may serve to identify the relative strengths of different entrepreneurial competencies in distinctive dimensions to help both practicing and potential entrepreneurs identify the competency areas in which they require further training and development. In fact, the results imply that training and developing competent entrepreneurs is as or more important than simply providing more resources and a positive environment. Moreover, distinguishing the roles of different competencies on firm performance will allow a more focused approach to be taken in providing training to entrepreneurs.

In conclusion, to address the relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and SME performance, further research can be conducted for testing the model of Man, Lau and Chan (2002) by using samples across different industries and cultures. In addition, this will also help us better understand how the requirements of different entrepreneurial competencies vary across different industries and the influence of socio-cultural contexts on the formation of entrepreneurial competencies. Also, as entrepreneurial competencies are regarded as higher-level characteristics closely linked to SME performance, it will be of interest to investigate what entrepreneurial typologies will emerge if they are used as the basis of classification. Moreover, by classifying entrepreneurs into different categories, it is possible to offer them more focused training and assistance.

Appendix 1:

Items Measuring Entrepreneurial Competencies

1. Identify goods or services customers want.

2. Perceive unmet consumer needs.

3. Actively look for products or services that provide real benefit to customers.

4. Seize high-quality business opportunities.

5. Develop long-term trusting relationships with others.

6. Negotiate with others.

7. Interact with others.

8. Maintain a personal network of work contacts.

9. Understand what others mean by their words and actions.

10. Communicate with others effectively.

11. Apply ideas, issues, and observations to alternative contexts.

12. Integrate ideas, issues, and observations into more general contexts.

13. Take reasonable job-related risks.

14. Monitor progress toward objectives in risky actions.

15. Look at old problems in new ways.

16. Explore new ideas.

17. Treat new problems as opportunities.

18. Plan the operations of the business.

19. Plan the organisation of different resources.

20. Keep the organization run smoothly.

21. Organize resources.

22. Coordinate tasks.

23. Supervise subordinates.

24. Lead subordinates.

25. Organize people.

26. Motivate people.

27. Delegate effectively.

28. Determine long-term issues, problems, or opportunities.

29. Aware of the projected directions of the industry and how changes might impact the firm.

30. Prioritize work in alignment with business goals.

31. Redesign the department and/or organization to better meet long-term objectives and changes.

32. Align current actions with strategic goals.

33. Assess and link short-term, day-to-day tasks in the context of long-term direction.

34. Monitor progress toward strategic goals.

35. Evaluate results against strategic goals.

36. Determine strategic actions by weighing costs and benefits.

37. Dedicate to make the venture work whenever possible.

38. Refuse to let the venture fail whenever appropriate.

39. Possess an extremely strong internal drive.

40. Commit to long-term business goals.

41. Learn from a variety of means.

42. Learn proactively.

43. Learn as much as I can in my field.

44. Keep up to date in my field.

45. Apply learned skills and knowledge into actual practices.

46. Maintain a high energy level.

47. Motivate self to function at optimum level of performance.

48. Respond to constructive criticism.

49. Maintain a positive attitude.

50. Prioritize tasks to manage my time.

51. Identify my own strengths and weaknesses and match them with opportunities and threats.

52. Manage my own career development.

53. Recognize and work on my own shortcomings.

Note: All items are anchored on a seven-point Likert scale seeking the respondent's agreement on how competent they are as described on in the items. Items 41 to 53 were related to two supporting competencies of learning and personal strength which were not put into hypothesis testing.

Acknowledgements

This study has been partially funded by the Central Research Grant of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University under project number G-V502.

References

Adam, E. and E. Chell. 1993. "The Successful International Entrepreneur: AProfile." Paper presented at the 23rd European Small Business Seminar, Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Aiken, L.S. and S.G. West. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication Inc.

Aldrich, H. and C. Zimmer. 1986. "Entrepreneurship through Social Networks." Pp. 2-23 in D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smilor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.

Barkham, R.J. 1994. "Entrepreneurial Characteristics and the Size of the New Firm: A Model and an Econometric Test," Small Business Economics 6, no. 2: 117-25.

Baron, R.A. and G.D. Markman. 2003. "Beyond Social Capital: The Role of Entrepreneurs' Social Competence in Their Financial Success," Journal of Business Venturing 18, no. 1: 41-60.

Batjargal, B. 2005. "Entrepreneurial Versatility, Resources and Firm Performance in Russia: A Panel Study," International Journal of Entrepreneurial and Innovation Management 6, nos. 3/4: 284-97.

Baum, J.R. 1994. "The Relationship of Traits, Competencies, Motivation, Strategy and Structure to Venture Growth" (PhD dissertation, University of Maryland).

Begley, T.M. and D.P. Boyd. 1985. "Company and Chief Executive Officer Characteristics Related to Financial Performance in Smaller Business." Pp. 146-65 in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson College.

--. 1987. "Psychological Characteristics Associated with Performance in Entrepreneurial Firms and Smaller Businesses," Journal of Business Venturing 2, no. 1: 79-93.

Bird, B. 1995. "Towards a Theory of Entrepreneurial Competency," Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth 2: 51-72.

Boyatzis, R.E. 1982. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York: Wiley.

Boyatzis, R.E. and D.A. Kolb. 1993. Learning Skills Profile. Boston, MA: Hay/McBer and Company.

Brockhaus, R.H., Sr. and P.S. Horwitz. 1986. "The Psychology of the Entrepreneur." Pp. 25-48 in D.L. Sexton, and R.W. Smilor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Buckley, P.J., C.L. Pass and K. Prescott. 1988. "Measures of International Competitiveness: A Critical Survey," Journal of Marketing Management 4, no. 2: 175-200.

Census and Statistics Department. 2000. General Household Survey. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

--. 2002. Annual Digest of Statistics. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

Chandler, G.N. and S.H. Hanks. 1993. "Measuring the Performance of Emerging Business: AValidation Study," Journal of Business Venturing 8, no. 5: 391-408.

--. 1994a. "Founder Competence, the Environment, and Venture Performance," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18, no. 3: 77-89.

--. 1994b. "Market Attractiveness, Resource-based Capabilities, Venture Strategies, and Venture Performance," Journal of Business Venturing 9, no. 4: 331-49.

Chandler, G.N. and E. Jansen. 1992) "The Founder's Self-assessed Competence and Venture Performance," Journal of Business Venturing 7, no. 3: 223-36.

Changanti, R. and S. Parasuraman. 1996. "A Study of the Impacts of Gender on Business Performance and Management Patterns in Small Businesses," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 21, no. 2: 73-75.

Chaston, I. 1997. "Small Firm Performance: Assessing the Interaction between Entrepreneurial Style and Organizational Structure," European Journal of Marketing 31, nos. 11/12: 814-31.

Cooper, A.C. 1993. "Challenges in Predicting New Firm Performance," Journal of Business Venturing 8, no. 3: 241-53.

Cooper, A.C., W.C. Dunkelberg and C.Y. Woo. 1988. "Survival and Failure: A Longitudinal Study," Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1988: 225-37.

Cooper, A.C. and F.J.G. Gascon. 1992. "Entrepreneurs, Processes of Founding, and New-firm Performance." Pp. 301-40 in D.L. Sexton and J.D. Kasarda (eds.), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship. Boston: PLOSKENT Publishing Company.

Covin, J.G. and D.P. Slevin. 1988. "The Influence of Organization Structure on the Utility of an Entrepreneurial Top Management Style," Journal of Management Studies 25, no. 3: 217-34.

--. 1989. "The Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments," Strategic Management Journal 10, no. 1: 75-87.

--. 1990. "Competitive Aggressiveness, Environment Context and Small Firm Performance," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14, no. 4: 35-50.

Daily, C.M., P.M. Patricia, J.G. Covin and D.R. Dalton. 2002. "Governance and Strategic Leadership in Entrepreneurial Firms," Journal of Management 28, no. 3: 387-412.

De Carolis, D.M. and P. Sapartio. 2006. "Social Capital, Cognition, and Entrepreneurial Opportunities: A Theoretical Framework," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30, no. 1: 41-56.

Dess, G.G., G.T. Lumpkin and J.G. Covin. 1997. "Entrepreneurial Strategy Making and Firm Performance: Tests of Contingency and Configurational Models," Strategic Management Journal 18, no. 9: 677-95.

DeVellis, R.F. 1991. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Dun and Bradstreet. 2000. D&B Hong Kong Market Guide: Small and Medium Enterprises. Hong Kong.

Dyke, L.S., E.M. Fischer and A.R. Reuber. 1992. "An Inter-Industry Examination of the Impact of Owner Experience on Firm Performance," Journal of Small Business Management 30, no. 4: 72-87.

Ensley, M.D., C.L. Pearce and K.M. Hmieleski. 2006. "The Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism on the Relationship between Entrepreneur Leadership Behavior and New Venture Performance," Journal of Business Venturing 21, no. 2: 243-63.

Erikson, T. 2002. "Entrepreneurial Capital: The Emerging Venture's Most Important Asset and Competitive Advantage," Journal of Business Venturing 17, no. 3: 275-90.

Evers, F.T. and J.C. Rush. 1996. "The Bases of Competence: Skill Development During the Transition from University to Work," Management Learning 27, no. 3: 275-300.

Fenwick, G..D. and M. Strombom. 1998. "The Determinants of Franchisee Performance: An Empirical Investigation," International Small Business Journal 16, no. 3: 28-45.

Feurer, R. and K. Chaharbaghi. 1994. "Defining Competitiveness: A Holistic Approach," Management Decision 32, no. 2: 49-58.

Gartner, W.B. and J.A. Starr. 1993. "The Nature of Entrepreneurial Work." Pp. 35-67 in S. Birley and I.C. MacMillan (eds.), Entrepreneurship Research: Global Perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Gibb, A. and L. Davies. 1991. "In Pursuit of Frameworks for the Development of Growth Models of the Small Busines," International Small Business Journal 9, no. 1: 15-31.

Glancey, K. 1998. "Determinants of Growth and Profitability in Small Entrepreneurial Firm," International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 4, no. 1: 18-27.

Goedhuys, M. and L. Sleuwaegen. 2000. "Entrepreneurship and Growth of Entrepreneurial Firm in Cote d'Ivoire," Journal of Development Studies 36, no. 3: 123-44.

Grupta, A.K. and V. Govindarajan. 1984. "Business Unit Strategy, Managerial Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy Implementation," Academy of Management Journal 27, no. 1: 25-41.

Haber, S. and Reicheil, A. 2007. "The Cumulative Nature of the Entrepreneurial Process: The Contribution of Human Capital, Planning and Environment Resources to Small Venture Performance," Journal of Business Venturing 22, no. 1: 119-45.

Hair, J.F., Jr., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham and W.C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Harris, L.C. and E. Ogbonna. 1999. "The Strategic Legacy of Company Founders," Long Range Planning 32, no. 3: 333-43.

Herron, L. and R.B. Robinson. 1993. "A Structural Model of the Effects of Entrepreneurial Characteristics on Venture Performance," Journal of Business Venturing 8, no. 3: 281-94. Hong Kong Productivity Council. 1999. Hong Kong IT Directory.

Honjo, Y. 2004. "Growth of New Start-up Firms: Evidence from the Japanese Manufacturing Industry," Applied Economics 36, no. 4: 343-55.

Hunt, J.M. 1998. "Toward the Development of a Competency Model of Family Firm Leadership." Paper presented at the 12th Annual National Conference, United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Clearwater, FL (January 15-18).

Ibrahim, A.B. 1991. "Strategy Types and Small Firms' Performance: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Small Business Strategy 4, no. 1: 13-22.

Institute of Management Development and World Economic Forum. 1993. The World Competitiveness Report.

Johannisson, B. 1993. "To Grow or Not to Grow--On the External Growth of Small Firms." Pp. 266-86 in L.G. Davies and A.A. Gibb (eds.), Recent Research in Entrepreneurship. Avebury, Aldershot: The Third International EIASM Workshop.

Kargar, J. 1996. "Strategic Planning System Characteristics and Planning Effectiveness in Small Mature Firms," The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business 32, no. 1: 19-34.

Keats, B.W. and J.S. Bracker. 1987. "Towards a Theory of Small Firm Performance: A Conceptual Model," American Journal of Small Business 12, no. 4: 41-58.

Kelner, S.P. 1996. Leadership Competency Inventory. Boston, MA: Hay/McBer and Company.

Kisfalvi, V. 2002. "The Entrepreneur's Character, Life Issues, and Strategy Making: A Field Study," Journal of Business Venturing 17, no. 5: 489-518.

Kotey, B. and G.G. Meredith. 1997. "Relationships Among Owner/Manager Personal Values, Business Strategies, and Enterprise Performance," Journal of Small Business Management 35, no. 2: 37-64.

Kristainsen, S. 2002. "Individual Perception of Business Contexts: The Case of Small-Scale Entrepreneurs in Tanzania," Journal of Development Entrepreneurship 7, no. 3: 283-304.

Lau, T., K.F. Chan and T.W.Y. Man. 1999. "Entrepreneurial and Managerial Competencies: Small Business Owner-Managers in Hong Kong." In P. Fosh, W. Chan, E. Snape and R. Westwood (eds.), Hong Kong Management and Labour: Change and Continuity. London: Routledge.

Lerner, M., C. Brush and R. Hisrich. 1997. "Israeli Women Entrepreneurs: An Examination of Factors Affecting Performance," Journal of Business Venturing 12, no. 4: 315-39.

Lipparini, A. and M. Sobrero. 1994. "The Glue and the Pieces: Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Small-Firm Network," Journal of Business Venturing 9, no. 2: 125-49.

Lumpkin, G.T. and G.G. Dess. 1996. "Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance," Academy of Management Review 21, no. 1: 135-72.

Man, T.W.Y., T. Lau and K.F. Chan. 2002. "The Competitiveness of Small and Medium Enterprises: A Conceptualization with Focus on Entrepreneurial Competencies," Journal of Business Venturing 17, no. 2: 123-42.

Martin, G. and H. Staines. 1994. "Managerial Competencies in Small Firms," Journal of Management Development 13, no. 7: 23-34.

McClelland, D.C. 1987. "Characteristics of Successful Entrepreneurs," Journal of Creative Behaviour 21, no. 1: 18-21.

McGregor, J., D. Tweed, D. Kolb and J. Henley-King. 2000. "Gender and Managerial Competence: A Comparative Study of Male and Female Manufacturers." Paper submitted to the British Academy of Management, The Management School, the University of Edinburgh, September 13-15.

Miller, D. 1988. "Relating Porter's Business Strategies to Environment and Structure: Analysis and Performance Implications," Academy of Management Journal 31, no. 2: 280-308.

Minniti, M. 2004. "Entrepreneurial Alertness and Asymmetric Information in a Spin-Glass Model," Journal of Business Venturing 19, no. 5: 637-58.

Murphy, G.B., J.W. Trailer and R.C. Hill. 1996. "Measuring Performance in Entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Research 36, no. 1: 15-23.

Naman, J.L. and D.P. Slevin. 1993. "Entrepreneurship and the Concept of Fit: a Model and Empirical Tests," Strategic Management Journal 14, no. 2: 137-53.

Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. O'Farrell, P.N. and D.M.W.N. Hitchens. 1988. "The Relative Competitiveness and Performance of Small

Manufacturing Firms in Scotland and the Mid-West of Ireland: An Analysis of Matched Pairs," Regional Studies 25, no. 5: 399-416.

Oral, M. 1986. "An Industrial Competitiveness Model," IIE Transactions 18, no. 2: 148-57.

Ostgaard, T.A. and S. Birley. 1994. "Personal Networks and Firm Competitive Strategy--A Strategic or Coincidental Match?," Journal of Business Venturing 9, no. 4: 281-305.

Quinn, R.E., S.R. Faerman, M.P. Thompson and M.R. McGrath. 1990. Becoming a Master Manager: A Competency Framework. New York: Wiley.

Reuber, A.R. and E.M. Fischer. 1994. "Entrepreneurs' Experience, Expertise, and the Performance of Technology-Based Firms," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 41, no. 4: 365-74.

Robb, A.M. 2002. "Entrepreneurial Performance by Women and Minorities: The Case of New Firms," Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 7, no. 4: 383-97.

Robinson, R.B., D.V. Stimpson, J.C. Huefner and H.K. Hunt. 1991. "An Attitude Approach to the Prediction of Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15, no. 4: 13-31.

Roemer, L. 1996. "Hospital Middle Managers' Perceptions of Their Work and Competence," Hospital and Health Services Administration 41, no. 2: 210-35.

Roper, S. 1998. "Entrepreneurial Characteristics, Strategic Choice and Small Business Performance," Small Business Economics 11, no. 1: 11-24.

Sadler-Smith, E., Y. Hampson, I. Chaston and B. Badger. 2003. "Management Behavior, Entrepreneurial Style, and Small Firm Performance," Journal of Small Business Management 41, no. 1: 47-67.

Schmitt-Rodermund, E. 2004. "Pathways to Successful Entrepreneurship: Parenting, Personality, Early Entrepreneurial Competence, and Interests," Journal of Vocational Behavior 65, no. 3: 498-518.

Siu, W.S. 1996. "An Innovative Approach to Designing a Mail Survey for Small Firms," Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 13, no. 3: 86-95.

Snell, R. and A. Lau. 1994. "Exploring Local Competences Salient for Expanding Small Businesses," Journal of Management Development 13, no. 4: 4-15.

Spencer, L.M. and S.M. Spencer. 1993. Competence at Work: Model for Superior Performance. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Wiklund, J. and D. Shepherd. 2005. "Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small Business Performance: a Configurational Approach," Journal of Business Venturing 20, no. 1: 71-91.

William, C. 1996. "Management Competence and the Management Education Needs of Science Graduates," Management Learning 27, no. 3: 301-22.

Zahra, S.A. 1993. "Environment, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Financial Performance: A Taxonomic Approach," Journal of Business Venturing 8, no. 4: 319-40.

Contact Information

For further information on this article, contact:

Thomas W.Y. Man, Department of Mathematics, Science, Social Sciences and Technology, The

Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong

Tel: (852) 2948 7300/Fax: (852) 2948 7726

Email: wyman@ied.edu.hk

Thomas W.Y. Man, Department of Mathematics, Science, Social Sciences and Technology, The Hong Kong Institute of Education

Theresa Lau, Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Ed Snape, Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Appendix 2:

Rotated Component Matrix for Items of Entrepreneurial Competencies

Exploratory Factor Analysis 1--Items 1 to 17

Factor:           1. Relationship   2. Innovative

1
2
3                                   .507
4                 .521
5                 .731 *
6                 .799 *
7                 .796 *
8                 .757 *
9                 .331 *
10                .507 *
11
12
13                                  .575
14                                  .548
15                                  .784 *
16                                  .785 *
17                                  .797 *
Eigenvalue        8.292             1.621
% of Variance     48.774            9.537

Factor:           3. Analytical     4. Opportunity

1                                   .738 *
2                                   .801 *
3                                   .528 *
4                                   .415 *
5
6
7
8
9                 .717
10                .658
11                .596 *
12                .594 *
13                .588 *
14                .617 *
15
16
17
Eigenvalue        1.152             1.008
% of Variance     6.774             5.932

Exploratory Factor Analysis 2--Items 18 to 40

Factor:           1. Strategic      2. Human

18                .510
19
20
21
22
23                                  .777 *
24                                  .800 *
25                                  .804 *
26                                  .738 *
27                                  .670 *
28                .638 *
29                .640 *
30                .656 *
31                .691 *
32                .752 *
33                .735 *
34                .748 *
35                .715 *
36                .648 *
37
38
39
40
Eigenvalue        12.583            1.704
% of variance     54.709            7.410

Factor:           3. Operational    4. Commitment

18                .533 *
19                .731 *
20                .777 *
21                .796 *
22                .681 *
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37                                  .709 *
38                                  .731 *
39                                  .711 *
40                                  .694 *
Eigenvalue        1.632             1.024
% of variance     7.096             4.452

Exploratory Factor Analysis 3--Items 41 to 53

                  1. Personal
Factor:           Strength          2. Learning

41                                  .808 *
42                                  .901 *
43                                  .886 *
44                                  .883 *
45                                  .697 *
46                .470 *            .554 *
47                .680 *
48                .791 *
49                .816 *
50                .716 *
51                .797 *
52                .831 *
53                .734 *
Eigenvalue        7.433             1.721
% of variance     57.179            13.239

Remarks:

(1.) Only the factor loadings equal to or greater than 0.5 are shown.

(2.) * Bold type indicates items for the competency area prior to
the factor analyses.

Table 1. Comparison of Key Characteristics between Sample and
Population

                          Sample                 Population *

Age of owner/manager      89.5% between 28 to    89% between 30 to
                          56 and 3.3% below 28   59 and 4% under 29

Gender of owner/manager   20:80                  15:85
(female to male ratio)

Firm Size                 Mean: 11.5/Medium: 7   Half of SMEs (under
(number of employees)                            50 employees) with
                                                 less than 10
                                                 employees

* Data obtained from the General Household Survey (2000) and Annual
Digest of Statistics (2002) published by the Census and Statistics
Department of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.

Table 2. Correlations of Variables

                                       Mean     S.D.     1

1. Competitive Scope                   4.54     1.26
2. Organizational Capability           4.55      .82   .42 **
3. Opportunity Competencies            5.09      .81   .27 **
4. Relationship Competencies           5.50      .76   .22 **
5. Analytical Competencies             5.01      .90   .30 **
6. Innovative Competencies             4.95      .98   .38 **
7. Operational Competencies            4.87      .89   .33 **
8. Human Competencies                  4.73     1.09   .29 **
9. Strategic Competencies              4.70      .92   .43 **
10. Commitment Competencies            5.31      .89   .28 **
11. Learning Competencies              5.24     1.05   .36 **
12. Personal Strength Competencies     5.25      .88   .22 **
13. Investment Efficiency             11.08     4.15   .19 *
14. Business Growth                    2.55     1.14   .26 **
15. Relative Performance               2.82      .85   .20 *

                                       2        3        4

1. Competitive Scope
2. Organizational Capability
3. Opportunity Competencies          .39 **
4. Relationship Competencies         .33 **   .66 **
5. Analytical Competencies           .35 **   .59 **   .65 **
6. Innovative Competencies           .43 **   .57 **   .49 **
7. Operational Competencies          .32 **   .58 **   .50 **
8. Human Competencies                .35 **   .61 **   .48 **
9. Strategic Competencies            .32 **   .59 **   .44 **
10. Commitment Competencies          .32 **   .63 **   .62 **
11. Learning Competencies            .37 **   .47 **   .43 **
12. Personal Strength Competencies   .32 **   .58 **   .57 **
13. Investment Efficiency            .23 **   .30 **   .28 **
14. Business Growth                  .16      .28 **   .23 **
15. Relative Performance             .22 **   .22 **   .08

                                       5        6        7

1. Competitive Scope
2. Organizational Capability
3. Opportunity Competencies
4. Relationship Competencies
5. Analytical Competencies
6. Innovative Competencies           .63 **
7. Operational Competencies          .55 **   .50 **
8. Human Competencies                .50 **   .50 **   .69 **
9. Strategic Competencies            .58 **   .61 **   .68 **
10. Commitment Competencies          .59 **   .55 **   .63 **
11. Learning Competencies            .52 **   .56 **   .45 **
12. Personal Strength Competencies   .58 **   .53 **   .56 **
13. Investment Efficiency            .30 **   .23 **   .33 **
14. Business Growth                  .28 **   .23 **   .30 **
15. Relative Performance             .19 *    .18 *    .27 **

                                       8        9        10

1. Competitive Scope
2. Organizational Capability
3. Opportunity Competencies
4. Relationship Competencies
5. Analytical Competencies
6. Innovative Competencies
7. Operational Competencies
8. Human Competencies
9. Strategic Competencies            .73 **
10. Commitment Competencies          .56 **   .69 **
11. Learning Competencies            .40 **   .57 **   .60 **
12. Personal Strength Competencies   .52 **   .60 **   .74 **
13. Investment Efficiency            .26 **   .26 **   .26 **
14. Business Growth                  .37 **   .35 **   .30 **
15. Relative Performance             .20 *    .23 **   .22 **

                                      11       12

1. Competitive Scope
2. Organizational Capability
3. Opportunity Competencies
4. Relationship Competencies
5. Analytical Competencies
6. Innovative Competencies
7. Operational Competencies
8. Human Competencies
9. Strategic Competencies
10. Commitment Competencies
11. Learning Competencies
12. Personal Strength Competencies   .65 **
13. Investment Efficiency            .17 *    .14
14. Business Growth                  .20 *    .18 *
15. Relative Performance             .05      .09

                                      13       14

1. Competitive Scope
2. Organizational Capability
3. Opportunity Competencies
4. Relationship Competencies
5. Analytical Competencies
6. Innovative Competencies
7. Operational Competencies
8. Human Competencies
9. Strategic Competencies
10. Commitment Competencies
11. Learning Competencies
12. Personal Strength Competencies
13. Investment Efficiency
14. Business Growth                  .44 **
15. Relative Performance             .48 **   .48 **

** Significant at .01 level, * Significant at .05 level.

Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regressions

                           H1           H2

Dependent               Comp.       Organ.
variables               Scope       Capab.

Independent variables

Opportunity              .136 +
Relationship             .147 +       .208 **
Analytical               .063         .030
Innovative               .321 **      .298 **
Operational                           .032
Human                                 .216 **
Strategic
Commitment
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]

Moderators

Comp. Scope
Organ. Capab.
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]

Interactions

2-way interactions:
Strategic x
  Comp. Scope
Commitment x
  Comp. Scope
Strategic x
  Organ. Capab.
Commitment x
  Organ. Capab.
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]

3-way interactions:

Strategic x
  (Comp. Scope +
  Organ. Capab.)
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]
Strategic x
  Comp. Scope x
  Organ. Capab.
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]

Control variables

Current age             -.221 *      -.047
Start-up age             .206 *      -.039
Firm size
Firm age
Industry
Dev. stage
  (growth)
Dev. stage
  (maturity)
Dev. stage
  (decline)
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]        .045         .005
[R.sup.2]                .210         .230
Adjusted [R.sup.2]       .175         .189
F                       6.009 **     5.514 **

                                      H3a

Dependent                Invest.      Bus.     Relative
variables               Efficient.   Growth    Perform.

Independent variables

Opportunity
Relationship
Analytical
Innovative
Operational
Human
Strategic                  .151       .076       .087
Commitment                 .171 *     .182 *     .166 +
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]          .048       .037       .022

Moderators

Comp. Scope                .114       .040       .049
Organ. Capab.
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]          .004       .001      -.005

Interactions

2-way interactions:
Strategic x                .224 *     .003       .070
  Comp. Scope
Commitment x              -.026      -.021      -.058
  Comp. Scope
Strategic x
  Organ. Capab.
Commitment x
  Organ. Capab.
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]          .038          0      -.005

3-way interactions:

Strategic x
  (Comp. Scope +
  Organ. Capab.)
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]
Strategic x
  Comp. Scope x
  Organ. Capab.
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]

Control variables

Current age               -.211      -.140      -.283 +
Start-up age               .127       .181       .124
Firm size                  .161 +     .217 *     .123
Firm age                   .113      -.008       .070
Industry                   .057       .050       .106
Dev. stage                 .442 **    .164       .227
  (growth)
Dev. stage                 .519 *     .079       .162
  (maturity)
Dev. stage                 .357 +    -.076      -.068
  (decline)
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]
[R.sup.2]                  .232       .270       .277
Adjusted [R.sup.2]         .139       .140       .135
F                         2.502 **   2.069 *    1.949 *

                                       H3b

Dependent                Invest.       Bus.      Relative
variables               Efficient.    Growth     Perform.

Independent variables

Opportunity
Relationship
Analytical
Innovative
Operational
Human
Strategic                  .126        .072        .076
Commitment                 .139        .147        .162 +
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]          .046        .031        .029

Moderators

Comp. Scope
Organ. Capab.              .135        .065        .115
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]          .010        .003        .004

Interactions

2-way interactions:
Strategic x
  Comp. Scope
Commitment x
  Comp. Scope
Strategic x                .174 +      .099       -.032
  Organ. Capab.
Commitment x              -.029       -.063       -.003
  Organ. Capab.
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]          .023        .009        .015

3-way interactions:

Strategic x
  (Comp. Scope +
  Organ. Capab.)
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]
Strategic x
  Comp. Scope x
  Organ. Capab.
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]

Control variables

Current age               -.202       -.165       -.250
Start-up age               .142        .189        .145
Firm size                  .136        .185 +      .112
Firm age                   .106       -.027        .090
Industry                   .051        .007        .094
Dev. stage                 .408 *      .159        .209
  (growth)
Dev. stage                 .464 *      .123        .156
  (maturity)
Dev. stage                 .320       -.047       -.041
  (decline)
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]
[R.sup.2]                  .222        .276        .277
Adjusted [R.sup.2]         .129        .146        .135
F                         2.371 **    2.129 **    1.954 *

                                      H4

Dependent                Invest.      Bus.     Relative
variables               Efficient.   Growth    Perform.

Independent variables

Opportunity
Relationship
Analytical
Innovative
Operational
Human
Strategic                  .202 *      .093      .054
Commitment                 .138        .156      .159 +
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]          .049        .033      .034

Moderators

Comp. Scope                .060        .047     -.008
Organ. Capab.              .139        .056      .105
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]          .012        .003      .009

Interactions

2-way interactions:
Strategic x
  Comp. Scope
Commitment x
  Comp. Scope
Strategic x
  Organ. Capab.
Commitment x
  Organ. Capab.
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]

3-way interactions:

Strategic x
  (Comp. Scope +           .237 *      .067      .027
  Organ. Capab.)
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]          .039        .003      .000
Strategic x
  Comp. Scope x           -.104       -.046     -.040
  Organ. Capab.
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]          .007        .001      .001

Control variables

Current age                -210       -.147     -.288 +
Start-up age               .111        .167      .167
Firm size                  .135        .188 +    .112
Firm age                   .075       -.043      .079
Industry                   .058        .015      .096
Dev. stage                 .443 **     .170      .218
  (growth)
Dev. stage                 .505 *      .143      .178
  (maturity)
Dev. stage                 .388 +     -.013     -.040
  (decline)
[DELTA] [R.sup.2]
[R.sup.2]                  .248        .265      .279
Adjusted [R.sup.2]         .148        .123      .127
F                         2.485 **    1.861 *   1.830 *

** Significant at .01 level, * Significant at .05 level,
+ Significant at .10 level

(1.) The 3-way additive-interactive and the 3-way
full-interactive terms are put under the same model
in H4, as the correlation between them is insignificant.

(2.) As the variable commitment competencies variable was
shown to have a direct effect on firm performance in H3a
and H3b, it was not entered as one of the interactive terms
in H4.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Canadian Council for Small Business and Entrepreneurship
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Man, Thomas W.Y.; Lau, Theresa; Snape, Ed
Publication:Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 22, 2008
Words:10308
Previous Article:Scaling up small firms' access to finance in developing economies: evidence from Tanzania.
Next Article:Business strategies of independent retailers: effects of environmental hostility.
Topics:


Related Articles
The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in China.
Institutional analysis of strategic choice of micro, small, and medium enterprises: development of a conceptual framework.
pounds 1m to inspire new entrepreneurs.
An entrepreneur and a leader!: A framework conceptualizing the influence of leadership style on a firm's entrepreneurial orientation--performance...
The relationship between stress and business performance among men and women entrepreneurs.
Don't give them the fish, show them how to fish: framework of market-driven entrepreneurship in Thailand.
Modelling owner experience: linking theory and practice.
The emotional intelligence of entrepreneurs.
Measuring the ethical quotient of corporations: the case of small and medium enterprises in India.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters