Journal Pone 0247320
Journal Pone 0247320
Journal Pone 0247320
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Funding: “This study was supported by the Prior research suggests that, under globalization and increasing competition, SMEs having
National Statistical Research Project of China higher level of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) are likely to perform better [2]. [3] suggested
(2016LY96 to MF).”
that, due to limited resources and inadequate capabilities, SMEs must seek new opportunities,
Competing interests: The authors have declared constantly focusing on EO. [4] posited that EO is central to strategy-making and organiza-
that no competing interests exist. tional-level phenomena; therefore, to gain competitive advantage, decision-makers need to
increase EO ([5]. Previous scholarships have confirmed the positive impact of EO on firm per-
formance [6,7], but there is little understanding of this effect in emerging countries [8]. It has
also been suggested that the EO–firm-performance relationship is mediated and moderated by
diverse constructs [9,10], although research is limited on the causal mechanism of how and
why EO impacts other constructs [11]. We aim to address this gap in an emerging country
(Pakistan).
[12] proposed that to be competitive and satisfy potential customers’ needs, SMEs must
adopt new technologies such as social media (SM). Grounded on the RBV theory, EO is con-
sidered a key element for organizations competing in a digital environment [13]. Because
entrepreneurial orientation is more supportive of adopting the new technologies and proac-
tively responding to the changing trends, the more firm is entrepreneurial oriented, the more
they will be able to compete in the industry. From an innovativeness perspective, organizations
with a great extent of EO more “likely” to favor new ideas, technology adoption, and experi-
mentation [14,15]. Also, the factor of risk-taking is involved in firms’ propensity to participate
in innovative projects that have indeterminate consequences [16,17]. SM, as a new interactive
technology, requires managers and employees to act entrepreneurially and accept uncertain
outcomes [13,18].
Continuous internet advancement has played a key role in business performance [19], and
SM is particularly significant in this context in emerging countries [20]. [21] proposed that SM
use in industrial markets is growing in the hope that it may foster relationships and network
development, which support both profits- and innovation-related. [22] proved that SM use
enables supply-chain members to improve new product development. SM-generated informa-
tion also benefits industry and government business-performance policies in developing coun-
tries [23]. SM adoption has become common in business entities in developed countries and is
continuing to grow in emerging countries [24,25]. SM’s popularity and emerging trends facili-
tate firms’ online learning and information-sharing processes [26], considered effective in
achieving goals and improving business performance [27].
SM adoption and its effects on firm performance remain unexplored in SMEs located in
Pakistan. First, empirical studies devoted to the adoption and use of SM between the firms col-
laborating for innovation purposes is limited [28]. Second, while few researchers proclaim that
SM adoption and usage expedites innovation and entrepreneurial activities [29], others claim
that empirical research on SM’s benefits is insufficient [30,31]. Finally, industrial-marketing
and SMEs researchers are gradually concentrating on the conditions and context under which
SM affects SME performance [32,33].
According to RBV, firms’ capabilities are key elements in achieving firm performance and
competitive advantage [34]. [35] concluded that innovation and branding capabilities are
important in this respect. This is relevant in the SM context as it is a new technology that may
impact firms’ innovation capabilities (IC) required to react to competitive challenges and
increase firm performance. IC is considered integral to firms’ strategies and a significant
resource that may lead to superior performance [36]. The absence of IC negatively affects orga-
nizational knowledge acquisition and learning processes [37]. Thus, organizations’ ability to
innovate is vital for competitive advantage in dynamic market conditions such as SM.
Although prior work has proved significant impact of EO on firm performance, it has also
been proposed that the EO–firm-performance relationship is mediated and moderated by
2. Literature review
2.1 EO and firm performance
From the RBV perspective, EO is a distinct organizational capability or intangible resource
valuable in identifying, analyzing, and executing new opportunities in a way that cannot be
easily substituted or imitated [39]. [40] stated that EO might serve as a source of sustainable
competitive advantage and contribute to enhancing firm performance. Dynamic capability
(DC) theory explains that EO can be line up with embedded higher-ordered DC, enabling
firms to recognize the market opportunities, act in response to them, and reconfigure tangible
capabilities to maintain competitiveness and improve firm performance [41].
EO is a strategy-making-process that escorts organizations to construct constant innova-
tions, “adopt a proactive posture” in the industry, and commence risky-investments [41]. It
attracts several activities, practices, and processes that enable organizations to act entrepre-
neurially. However, EO has been measured differently, e.g., using various multifaceted mea-
sures such as risk-taking, proactiveness, innovativeness, competitive aggressiveness, and
autonomy [42]. Among these, proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk-taking have been widely
used [5], for example, used unidimensional measures of EO based on these three dimensions.
Innovativeness relates to firms’ ability to encourage and sustenance innovative ideas, exper-
imentation, and due processes and practices that lead to new products, services, or technology
[43]. Innovativeness, however, requires firms to increase investment to adopt new technology
to improve IC and performance. Proactiveness reflects a firm’s opportunity-seeking, forward-
looking behavior, or capability to take positive measures [44]. Proactive actions lead firms to
gain a competitive advantage through introducing/embracing new products or services and
new technology and processes to gain a competitive advantage. At the same time, risk-taking
relates to firms’ tendency to take risks for better gains [44]. Risk-taking can be viewed from
various perspectives because firms engage in several types of risk-taking behaviors. From the
technological ‘, it reveals firms’ willingness to invest in technological innovations or projects
with a high risk of uncertainty [45]. From a market perspective, it involves the risk of entering
uncertain new markets [46]. These behavioral tendencies are commonly called EO.
EO plays a significant role in enabling organizations to achieve effectiveness; for example,
EO enhances firm performance [47]. These studies indicate the considerable part of EO and
that EO should be determined contextually since cultures vary across countries and within
organizations. Hence, it is essential to examine the link between EO and SME performance
[6,48].
Despite several studies on the EO–firm-performance link, questions remain. For example,
these studies have measured EO differently based on differing EO operationalization and
multi-dimensional measures: [6] measured EO by combining the work of [49] and [50]; and
others have employed different EO dimension-based measures [44,51,52]. It remains still
unclear which EO measures produce reliable results. The current study provides empirical evi-
dence on EO using a more recent measure [44].
Notably, scholars have defined and measured performance differently when examining the
EO–firm-performance direct link. Some have measured financial performance, while others
have used subjective measures [44,51,52]. Scholars measuring SME performance have faced a
similar problem [6,48]. [51] suggested that subjective performance measures will better enable
decision-makers to predict the future. Therefore, we propose that the present study will pro-
vide insight to scholars and practitioners regarding the EO–SME-performance relationship by
using subjective SME-performance measures. Finally, by using the time-lag approach for data
collection, we answer the call for a more comprehensive method of data collection to mitigate
response bias in studying the EO–SME-performance relationship. Thus, we hypothesize:
• H1: There is a positive relationship between EO and SME performance.
encouraged more empirical research on IC and firm performance in other cultures, the cur-
rent study investigates whether SMEs, focusing on developing countries, can cultivate IC.
Much other research [76,77]. has examined this relationship; however, the conceptualiza-
tion of IC and firm performance, measurements of these constructs, the context of research,
industrial sectors, study design, and respondents, have differed. They also suggest a further
examination of this relationship with a longitudinal approach. Thus, the present paper aims to
bring in empirical evidence employing a time lag approach to validate these empirical claims:
• H4: There is a positive relationship between IC and SME performance.
empirical investigation is required of IC’s moderating conditions based on the level of EO and
firm size.
Innovation has been recognized a critical factor in organizational performance as it moder-
ates the effect of various performance antecedents [90]. However, studies have rarely used IC
as a potential moderator. One rare example is [91], who incorporated IC as a potential moder-
ator in their study on customers in a developed country.
Drawing upon RBV, we recognize SM adoption as a resource [66] that facilitates SME per-
formance. However, to capitalize on the resource–performance link, SMEs must utilize their
abilities (such as IC) to improve performance [80,91]. Our next rationale for using IC as a
moderating variable is based on [20], who recommended that SM adoption–SME performance
should be examined holistically. We believe that incorporating IC as an intervening variable
will enable scholars and practitioners to determine whether SM adoption enhances SME per-
formance more when ICs are effectively utilized.
Finally, IC is an SME ability that helps improve work processes and outcomes [75], hence
its recognition as a potential moderator [90]. Several studies have examined the direct IC–
firm-performance link [76,77]. Thus, we believe that IC strengthens the SM-adoption–SME-
performance relationship:
• H6: IC moderates the SM-adoption–SME-performance relationship such that IC strengthens
the positive SM-adoption–SME-performance relationship.
The conceptual framework is depicted in Fig 1.
3. Methodology
3.1 Ethical Statement
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ethical Principles
of Psychologists and Code of Conduct by the American Psychological Association’s (APA). All
participants gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
The protocol was approved by the employee’s council of the participating organizations as well
as the ethics committee of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.
3.3 Measures
The study used five-point Likert scales (1 = "strongly disagree"; 5 = "strongly agree"). EO was
assessed using eight items from [44]. SM was assessed using 13 items [SM for marketing (four
items), customer relations and services (six items), and information accessibility (three items)]
adapted from [18]. IC was assessed using five items from [87]. SME performance was assessed
using seven items from [13,95].
4. Results
This study used PLS-SEM to conduct analysis [96]; as it is widely used in business manage-
ment and related disciplines and is considered the most comprehensive and fully developed
system of variance [97]. We also used mediation and moderation analysis [98]. In addition, the
present scholarship employed two-step approach (an evaluation of measurements and struc-
tural model) as suggested by [99].
below the 50.0% acceptable threshold [100]. Aside from Harman’s single factor test, the pres-
ent study also used a full collinearity approach called the variance inflation factor (VIF) to
detect CMB evidence [101]. The findings regarding CMB with this approach also ensured that
data is free from CMB since the VIFs were less than 3 acceptable thresholds [102] (Table 2).
[103] suggested the correlation-matrix procedure to detect CMB; whereby CMB is evident if
correlation among the principle constructs is greater than 0.9 [104]; however, none of the con-
structs was greater than 0.9 (Table 3). Finally, following [105], in studies examining mediation
effects, it is extremely difficult for respondents to manipulate mentally. Therefore, the potential
for CMB is low.
4.2.2 Assessment of the measurement model. This research used reflective-formative
approach for SM adoption construct. Therefore, we have assessed the proposed model using
the first-order and second-order. [106], suggested assessing the measurement model using
individual item reliability (factor loadings), internal consistency, and validity (i.e., content,
convergent, and discriminant). Table 4 shows the constructs, item code, and descriptive
statistics.
Individual item reliability was measured by factor loading associated with a particular
dimension [107]. [108] suggested that factor loading value should be between retained 0.40
and 0.70, whereas [109] proposed a value should be �0.7; therefore, CR2 (0.695) was removed,
while all other values were retained (Table 2). According to [110], proposition Cronbach’s
alpha values should be greater 0.7 (Table 2). Regarding the internal consistency [111] stated
that the requires composite reliability (CR) value should be �0.7; all the values were retained
(Table 2). Releated to convergent validity, [112] proposed that the average variance extracted
(AVE) requires to be �0.5 (Table 2). Releated to discriminant validity, [112], stated that the
AVE’s square root for each variable needs to be greater than the inter-correlations of the vari-
ables with other model variables (Table 3).
4.2.3 Assessment of the structural model. This study employed bootstrapping technique
with 5,000 bootstraps [109] and 423 cases to generate path values and their significance level as
proposed by [113]. Figs 2 and 3 present the assessment of the structural model. [114], proposed
that the structural model must evaluate the linear regression effects of used constructs. An
Notes: Values on the diagonal (bold) are square root of the AVE while the off-diagonals are correlations.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247320.t003
evaluation of structural model assessed using path-co-efficient, t-value, p-value, and coeffi-
cients of determination (R2) [102]. According to [115], recommended that R2 values of 0.19,
0.33, and 0.60 are considered weak, moderate, and substantial. The R2 value of 0.371 indicates
that 37.1% of SM adoption changes occurred due to EO, while 32.4% of firm performance
occurred due to EO, SM adoption, and IC (Table 5). All hypotheses of the proposed model
were supported (Table 6).
Aside from the above, this study also used cross-validated-redundancy-measure or effect
sizes (f2) and (q2) to assess the proposed model and validate results [116]. [115] also suggested
that 0.35, 0.15, and 0.02 values reveal that an exogenous variable has a large, medium, and
small predictive relevance for a particular endogenous variable. Predictive relevance is consid-
ered a supplementary evaluation due to the goodness of fit index not being appropriate for
model authentication as it cannot differentiate between invalid and valid models [117,118].
However, [113] recommended that q2>0 demonstrate that the proposed framework has pre-
dictive relevance. This study evidenced that the proposed model has medium and considerable
predictive relevance (Table 5). Regarding the moderation results, the constructs had small
effects, on an individual basis, and the moderation effect was small (with 0.022 effect size
value) (Table 5). In addition, SRMR is widely used as an absolute measure of fit: a value of zero
indicates perfect fit and a value less than 0.08 is considered a good fit [119]. Table 5 illustrates
that the present research has adequate goodness of fit [120].
4.2.4 Mediation analysis. To assess the mediating role of SM adoption,’ this study
employed [108] method. Following [121], rule Z mediates the link between X and Y if the
direct path between X to Z and Z to Y is significant. The results reveal that the direct path from
the EO to SM adoption (β = 0.609, p = 0.001) and from SM adoption to firm performance (β =
0.382, p = 0.001) were positive and statistically significant. Accordingly [98], proposed that if
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247320.t005
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247320.t006
the indirect impact is significant while the direct impact is not significant, full mediation has
occurred; if both direct and indirect effects are substantial, partial mediation has occurred. SM
adoption partially mediated the EO–firm-performance relationship (Table 6).
4.2.5 Testing the moderation effect. To assess the moderating role of IC, this study used
a product-indicator-method (PIM) using PLS-SEM [122]. We used PIM because the suggested
moderating construct was continuous [123]. [115] rules were used to assess the moderating
effects. Regarding H6 (IC moderates the SM-adoption–firm-performance relationship), the
interaction terms (β = 0.103, p = 0.016) were significant (Table 6, Fig 4). Hence, H6 was sup-
ported. The slope for the link between SM adoption and firm performance moderated by IC
showed that the relationship became stronger when there was high IC (Fig 4). More specifi-
cally, as illustrated in Fig 4, when IC is high, the impact of SM adoption on SMEs performance
tends to be stronger.
5. Discussion
This study used a quantitative approach to test the EO-SM adoption and SM adoption-SMEs
performance relationship. Besides, the mediating role of SM adoption and the moderating role
of IC in SMEs context. The study outcomes were found interesting, given that higher EO leads
to greater SM adoption; RBV theory supports the assumption that gaining competitive advan-
tage is based on the application of organizations’ bundles of productive resources [66].
The EO–SME-performance relationship was positive (p = 0.001), supporting H1. Results
showed that two concepts are relevant, supporting that EO is crucial in enhancing SME perfor-
mance. To support SME’s performance, EO is the essential element that accelerates the organi-
zation’s SM adoption process. According to RBV, EO is an intangible resource considered the
main source of competitive advantage to improve firm performance [40]. Our findings are
consistent with [124], who studied SMEs in developing countries, arguing that EO is a signifi-
cant factor for firm performance.
Regarding the EO–SM-adoption relationship, EO had a significant association with SM
adoption (p = 0.007), supporting H2. These findings are possible due to fear of losing ground
to competitors, SMEs in emerging countries like Pakistan are acting entrepreneurially regard-
ing SM adoption. Given increasing SM usage (paradigm and customer shift from offline to
online), firms’ EO plays a critical role in SM adoption. Our results are consistent with [44] but
inconsistent with [18], potentially due to organizations’ characteristics, employees’, managers’,
and owners’ education, and the risk and costs incurred to encourage staff to adopt SM.
Regarding the effects of SM adoption on SME performance (p = 0.001), H3 was supported.
Results showed the robust effect of SM adoption, suggesting that SMEs in emerging countries
benefit from investment in SM. This finding is inconsistent with [68], who noted no significant
SM-adoption–business-performance relationship among UAE SMEs, but consistent with
[13,57], who found the positive effects of SM on firm performance in terms of improved cus-
tomer relations, cost reduction, and improved information accessibility. These study findings
are beneficial for managers, especially in Pakistan, because most of the SMEs do not consider
SM as their strategic partner. Still, this study will help them to involve SM to increase firm per-
formance. In this way, they can achieve a competitive advantage in the market. These findings
are significant because SM usage by Pakistani firms is uncommon. Firms mainly use SM to
market products or services rather than to gain a competitive advantage. SM can enable firms
to reduce marketing costs and improve access to information and customer relationships.
IC positively affected firm performance (p = 0.001), supporting H4. This reflects that IC
produces new ideas related to products/services, processes, and marketing activities that
improve firm performance. This means that firms will be more proactive in changing trends
and will always come up with new and innovative ideas for products and services. The results
support [125,126] who found a positive IC–firm-performance relationship. DC theory pre-
sumes that competitive advantage enables firms to enhance their capacity to keep up with,
respond to, and initiate technological changes. Thus, IC relates not only to firms’ propensity to
adopt ideas but also a willingness to forgo old habits and engage in the experimental execution
of untested ideas. Our findings reveal that Pakistani firms are highly motivated to be innova-
tive and develop IC.
SM adoption partially mediated the EO–SME performance relationship (p = 0.001), sup-
porting H5. This is consistent with [56], who argued that SM could be adopted to generate
innovative ideas, leading to creative performance and greater effectiveness. The result also
found consistent with recent studies of [78,79] who proved the mediating role of SM adoption
in the SMEs in developing countries.
Regarding the moderation effect of IC (p = 0.001); H6 was supported. Our findings suggest
that, if SMEs have low IC, SM will have little influence on performance, and vice versa. To
summarize, the effects of SM adoption on firm performance are greater when SMEs engage in
IC. When a firm is more proactive towards innovation, then they more likely to adopt the SM
quickly and increase the firm performance. Because SM adoption has a positive relationship
with the SME’s performance, and IC plays the role of moderator in their relationship. This is
consistent with [70], who found positive moderating effects of IC. Our findings also reflect
that IC not only directly influences SME performance but also plays a moderator role in the
SM-adoption–SME-performance relationship.
Supporting information
S1 File. Questionare.
(DOCX)
S1 Data.
(CSV)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Sikandar Ali Qalati, Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan, Syed Mir
Muhammad Shah, Raza Saleem Khan.
Data curation: Sikandar Ali Qalati, Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan, Syed Mir Muhammad
Shah, Raza Saleem Khan.
Formal analysis: Mingyue Fan, Sikandar Ali Qalati, Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan, Syed
Mir Muhammad Shah, Muhammad Ramzan, Raza Saleem Khan.
Investigation: Sikandar Ali Qalati, Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan.
Methodology: Mingyue Fan, Sikandar Ali Qalati, Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan, Muham-
mad Ramzan, Raza Saleem Khan.
Project administration: Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan.
Software: Sikandar Ali Qalati, Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan, Muhammad Ramzan.
Supervision: Mingyue Fan, Sikandar Ali Qalati, Syed Mir Muhammad Shah.
Validation: Raza Saleem Khan.
Writing – original draft: Sikandar Ali Qalati, Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan.
Writing – review & editing: Mingyue Fan, Syed Mir Muhammad Shah, Muhammad Ramzan,
Raza Saleem Khan.
References
1. Margalina V-M, Carrasco LVM, Molina EMC. The Quality of Relationships When Business Association
Is a Prerequisite to Obtain Benefits From Public Institutions: Evidence From the Apparel Industry of
Tungurahua, Ecuador. Management and Inter/Intra Organizational Relationships in the Textile and
Apparel Industry: IGI Global; 2020. p. 54–77.
2. Fatima T, Bilal AR. Achieving SME performance through individual entrepreneurial orientation. Journal
of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. 2019.
3. Semrau T, Ambos T, Kraus S. Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance across societal cul-
tures: An international study. Journal of Business Research. 2016; 69(5):1928–32.
4. Covin JG, Slevin DP. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship the-
ory and practice. 1991; 16(1):7–26.
5. Miller D. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management science. 1983; 29
(7):770–91.
6. Keh HT, Nguyen TTM, Ng HP. The effects of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing information on
the performance of SMEs. Journal of business venturing. 2007; 22(4):592–611.
7. Cuevas-Vargas H, Parga-Montoya N, Fernández-Escobedo R. Effects of entrepreneurial orientation
on business performance: The mediating role of customer satisfaction—A formative–Reflective model
analysis. SAGE Open. 2019; 9(2):2158244019859088.
8. Qureshi MS, Aziz N, Mian SA. How marketing capabilities shape entrepreneurial firm’s performance?
Evidence from new technology based firms in turkey. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research.
2017; 7(1):15.
9. Escribá-Esteve A, Sánchez-Peinado L, Sánchez-Peinado E. Moderating influences on the firm’s stra-
tegic orientation-performance relationship. International Small Business Journal. 2008; 26(4):463–89.
10. Lechner C, Gudmundsson SV. Entrepreneurial orientation, firm strategy and small firm performance.
International Small Business Journal. 2014; 32(1):36–60.
11. Wales WJ, Gupta VK, Mousa F-T. Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment
and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal. 2013; 31(4):357–83.
12. Al Mamun A, Mohiuddin M, Fazal SA, Ahmad GB. Effect of entrepreneurial and market orientation on
consumer engagement and performance of manufacturing SMEs. Management Research Review.
2018.
13. Parveen F, Jaafar NI, Ainin S. Social media’s impact on organizational performance and entrepreneur-
ial orientation in organizations. Management Decision. 2016.
14. Gupta VK, Niranjan S, Goktan BA, Eriskon J. Individual entrepreneurial orientation role in shaping
reactions to new technologies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2016; 12
(4):935–61.
15. McKenny AF, Short JC, Ketchen DJ Jr, Payne GT, Moss TW. Strategic entrepreneurial orientation:
Configurations, performance, and the effects of industry and time. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal.
2018; 12(4):504–21.
16. Merino Diaz de Cerio J, Bello-Pintado A, Kaufmann R. Firms’ entrepreneurial orientation and the adop-
tion of quality management practices. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 2018;
35(9):1734–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-05-2017-0089
17. Lumpkin GT, Dess GG. Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It To Perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Review. 1996; 21(1):135–72. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.
9602161568
18. Tajudeen FP, Jaafar NI, Ainin S. Understanding the impact of social media usage among organiza-
tions. Information & Management. 2018; 55(3):308–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.08.004
19. Foltean FS, Trif SM, Tuleu DL. Customer relationship management capabilities and social media tech-
nology use: Consequences on firm performance. Journal of Business Research. 2019; 104:563–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.047
20. Olanrewaju A-ST, Hossain MA, Whiteside N, Mercieca P. Social media and entrepreneurship
research: A literature review. International Journal of Information Management. 2020; 50:90–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.011
21. Richey M, Ravishankar M. The role of frames and cultural toolkits in establishing new connections for
social media innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2019; 144:325–33.
22. Cheng CC, Krumwiede D. Enhancing the performance of supplier involvement in new product devel-
opment: the enabling roles of social media and firm capabilities. Supply Chain Management: An Inter-
national Journal. 2018.
23. Li X, He X, Zhang Y. The impact of social media on the business performance of small firms in China.
Information Technology for Development. 2019:1–23.
24. Poushter J, Bishop C, Chwe H. Social media use continues to rise in developing countries but plateaus
across developed ones. Pew Research Center. 2018; 22.
25. Medjani F, Rutter R, Nadeau J. Social media management, objectification and measurement in
an emerging market. International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets. 2019; 11(3):288–
311.
26. Lin X, Li Y, Wang X. Social commerce research: Definition, research themes and the trends. Interna-
tional Journal of Information Management. 2017; 37(3):190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.
2016.06.006
27. Rialp-Criado A, Rialp-Criado J. Examining the impact of managerial involvement with social media on
exporting firm performance. International Business Review. 2018; 27(2):355–66.
28. Hardwick J, Anderson AR. Supplier-customer engagement for collaborative innovation using video
conferencing: A study of SMEs. Industrial Marketing Management. 2019.
29. de Zubielqui GC, Fryges H, Jones J. Social media, open innovation & HRM: Implications for perfor-
mance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2019; 144:334–47.
30. Chuang S-H. Co-creating social media agility to build strong customer-firm relationships. Industrial
Marketing Management. 2019.
31. Francia PL. Free media and Twitter in the 2016 presidential election: The unconventional campaign of
Donald Trump. Social Science Computer Review. 2018; 36(4):440–55.
32. Ballon P, Van Hoed M, Schuurman D. The effectiveness of involving users in digital innovation: Mea-
suring the impact of living labs. Telematics and Informatics. 2018; 35(5):1201–14.
33. Ribeiro-Soriano D. Small business and entrepreneurship: their role in economic and social develop-
ment. Routledge; 2017.
34. Wong CY, Karia N. Explaining the competitive advantage of logistics service providers: A resource-
based view approach. International Journal of Production Economics. 2010; 128(1):51–67.
35. Hogan SJ, Coote LV. Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model.
Journal of Business Research. 2014; 67(8):1609–21.
36. Perna A, Baraldi E, Waluszewski A. Is the value created necessarily associated with money? On the
connections between an innovation process and its monetary dimension: The case of Solibro’s thin-
film solar cells. Industrial Marketing Management. 2015; 46:108–21.
37. Najafi-Tavani S, Najafi-Tavani Z, Naudé P, Oghazi P, Zeynaloo E. How collaborative innovation net-
works affect new product performance: Product innovation capability, process innovation capability,
and absorptive capacity. Industrial Marketing Management. 2018; 73:193–205.
38. Karami M, Tang J. Entrepreneurial orientation and SME international performance: The mediating role
of networking capability and experiential learning. International Small Business Journal. 2019; 37
(2):105–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242618807275
39. Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management. 1991; 17
(1):99–120.
40. Wiklund J, Shepherd DA. Where to from here? EO-as-experimentation, failure, and distribution of out-
comes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2011; 35(5):925–46.
41. Bogatyreva K, Beliaeva T, Shirokova G, Puffer SM. As different as chalk and cheese? The relationship
between entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs’ growth: Evidence from Russia and Finland. Journal of
East-West Business. 2017; 23(4):337–66.
42. Sok P, Snell L, Lee WJT, Sok KM. Linking entrepreneurial orientation and small service firm perfor-
mance through marketing resources and marketing capability. Journal of Service Theory and Practice.
2017.
43. Rezaei J, Ortt R. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the mediating role of functional per-
formances. Management Research Review. 2018.
44. Dutot V, Bergeron F. From strategic orientation to social media orientation: Improving SMEs’ perfor-
mance on social media. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2016; 23(4):1165–
90. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-11-2015-0160
45. Wiklund J, Shepherd D. Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the perfor-
mance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic management journal. 2003; 24(13):1307–14.
46. Lyon DW, Lumpkin GT, Dess GG. Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation research: Operationalizing
and measuring a key strategic decision making process. Journal of management. 2000; 26(5):1055–
85.
47. Mole KF, Adomako S, Tang J, Yu A. Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance: The Enabling
Effect of Entrepreneurial Alertness. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2019; 2019(1):11480.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.11480abstract
48. Sulistyo H, Ayuni S. Competitive advantages of SMEs: The roles of innovation capability, entrepre-
neurial orientation, and social capital. Contadurı́a y administración. 2020; 65(1):1–18. https://doi.org/
10.22201/fca.24488410e.2020.1983
49. Covin JG, Slevin DP. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strate-
gic management journal. 1989; 10(1):75–87.
50. Miller D, Friesen PH. Structural change and performance: Quantum versus piecemeal-incremental
approaches. Academy of management Journal. 1982; 25(4):867–92.
51. Umrani Waheed A, Kura Kabiru M, Ahmed U. Corporate entrepreneurship and business performance:
The moderating role of organizational culture in selected banks in Pakistan. PSU Research Review.
2018; 2(1):59–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/PRR-12-2016-0011
52. Sok P, Snell L, Lee Wai J, Sok Keo M. Linking entrepreneurial orientation and small service firm perfor-
mance through marketing resources and marketing capability: A moderated mediation model. Journal
of Service Theory and Practice. 2017; 27(1):231–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-01-2016-0001
53. Colton DA, Roth MS, Bearden WO. Drivers of international e-tail performance: the complexities of ori-
entations and resources. Journal of International Marketing. 2010; 18(1):1–22.
54. Zahra SA. Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms: The wellspring of the regenerative capability.
Family Business Review. 2018; 31(2):216–26.
55. Tajudeen FP, Jaafar NI, Sulaiman A. Role of social media on information accessibility. Pacific Asia
Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2017; 8(4).
56. Sahaym A, Datta AA, Brooks S. Crowdfunding success through social media: Going beyond entrepre-
neurial orientation in the context of small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Business
Research. 2019.
57. Tajvidi R, Karami A. The effect of social media on firm performance. Computers in Human Behavior.
2017:105174.
58. Bernoff J, Li C. Harnessing the power of the oh-so-social web. MIT Sloan management review. 2008;
49(3):36.
59. Ainin S, Parveen F, Moghavvemi S, Jaafar NI, Shuib NLM. Factors influencing the use of social media
by SMEs and its performance outcomes. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 2015.
60. Solis B. Engage: The complete guide for brands and businesses to build, cultivate, and measure suc-
cess in the new web: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
61. Zhang M, Guo L, Hu M, Liu W. Influence of customer engagement with company social networks on
stickiness: Mediating effect of customer value creation. International Journal of Information Manage-
ment. 2017; 37(3):229–40.
62. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media.
Business horizons. 2010; 53(1):59–68.
63. Aichner T, Jacob F. Measuring the degree of corporate social media use. International Journal of Mar-
ket Research. 2015; 57(2):257–76.
64. Trainor KJ, Andzulis JM, Rapp A, Agnihotri R. Social media technology usage and customer relation-
ship performance: A capabilities-based examination of social CRM. Journal of Business Research.
2014; 67(6):1201–8.
65. Barney JB. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the
resource-based view. Journal of management. 2001; 27(6):643–50.
66. Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal. 1984; 5(2):171–80.
67. Fraj E, Matute J, Melero I. Environmental strategies and organizational competitiveness in the hotel
industry: The role of learning and innovation as determinants of environmental success. Tourism Man-
agement. 2015; 46:30–42.
68. Ahmad SZ, Bakar ARA, Ahmad N. Social media adoption and its impact on firm performance: the case
of the UAE. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 2019.
69. Ali QS, Wenyuan LI, Galvan VE, Ali BUX, Belem B, Muhammad HA. Effects of Technological,
Organizational, and Environmental Factors on Social Media Adoption. The Journal of Asian Finance,
Economics, and Business. 2020; 7(10):989–98. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO10.
989
70. Yang C-C. Assessing the moderating effect of innovation capability on the relationship between logis-
tics service capability and firm performance for ocean freight forwarders. International Journal of Logis-
tics Research and Applications. 2012; 15(1):53–69.
71. Camisón C, Villar-López A. Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capa-
bilities and firm performance. Journal of business research. 2014; 67(1):2891–902.
72. Grant RM. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic management journal. 1996; 17
(S2):109–22.
73. Antoncic B, Prodan I. Alliances, corporate technological entrepreneurship and firm performance: Test-
ing a model on manufacturing firms. Technovation. 2008; 28(5):257–65.
74. Calantone RJ, Cavusgil ST, Zhao Y. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm perfor-
mance. Industrial marketing management. 2002; 31(6):515–24.
75. Lawson B, Samson D. Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic capabilities
approach. International journal of innovation management. 2001; 5(03):377–400. https://doi.org/10.
1142/S1363919601000427
76. Garcia-Morales Victor J, Martı́n-Rojas R, Lardón-López Marı́a E. Influence of social media technolo-
gies on organizational performance through knowledge and innovation. Baltic Journal of Management.
2018; 13(3):345–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-04-2017-0123
77. Soomro Bahadur A, Shah N, Mangi S. Factors affecting the entrepreneurial leadership in small- and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) of Pakistan: An empirical evidence. World Journal of Entrepreneur-
ship, Management and Sustainable Development. 2019; 15(1):31–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/
WJEMSD-05-2018-0054
78. Qalati SA, Yuan LW, Khan MAS, Anwar F. A mediated model on the adoption of social media and
SMEs’ performance in developing countries. Technology in Society. 2021; 64:101513. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101513
79. Qalati SA, Vela EG, Li W, Dakhan SA, Hong Thuy TT, Merani SH. Effects of perceived service quality,
website quality, and reputation on purchase intention: The mediating and moderating roles of trust and
perceived risk in online shopping. Cogent Business & Management. 2021; 8(1):1869363. https://doi.
org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1869363
80. Day GS. Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of marketing. 2011; 75(4):183–95.
81. Kang W. The early stage performance of successful SMEs and a desirable policy for SMEs. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship. 2014; 9(3):1–11.
82. Ramanathan U, Ramanathan R. Investigating the impact of resource capabilities on customer loyalty:
a structural equation approach for the UK hotels using online ratings. Journal of Services Marketing.
2013.
83. Altinay L, Madanoglu M, De Vita G, Arasli H, Ekinci Y. The interface between organizational learning
capability, entrepreneurial orientation, and SME growth. Journal of Small Business Management.
2016; 54(3):871–91.
84. Kang J, Gwon S-H, Kim S, Cho K. Determinants of successful technology commercialization: implica-
tion for Korean Government-sponsored SMEs. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation. 2013; 21
(1):72–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2013.810947
85. Ali Qalati S, Li W, Ahmed N, Ali Mirani M, Khan A. Examining the Factors Affecting SME Performance:
The Mediating Role of Social Media Adoption. Sustainability. 2021; 13(1):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13010075
86. Teece DJ. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enter-
prise performance. Strategic management journal. 2007; 28(13):1319–50.
87. Odoom R, Mensah P. Brand orientation and brand performance in SMEs. Management Research
Review. 2019.
88. Trainor KJ. Relating social media technologies to performance: A capabilities-based perspective. Jour-
nal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. 2012; 32(3):317–31.
89. Urry J. The complexity turn. Theory, culture & society. 2005; 22(5):1–14.
90. Alegre J, Chiva R. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation
performance: An empirical test. Technovation. 2008; 28(6):315–26.
91. Menguc B, Auh S, Yannopoulos P. Customer and supplier involvement in design: The moderating role
of incremental and radical innovation capability. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2014; 31
(2):313–28.
92. Zieba M, Bolisani E, Scarso E. Emergent approach to knowledge management by small companies:
multiple case-study research. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2016; 20(2):292–307. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JKM-07-2015-0271
93. Li W, Qalati SA, Khan MAS, Kwabena GY, Erusalkina D, Anwar F. Value Co-creation and Growth of
Social Enterprises in Developing Countries: Moderating Role of Environmental Dynamics. Entre-
preneurship Research Journal. 2020;(0):20190359. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2019-0359
94. Khan MAS, Jianguo D, Usman M, Ahmad MI. Moderated Mediation Model of Interrelations between
Workplace Romance, Wellbeing, and Employee Performance. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017; 8
(2158). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02158 PMID: 29312042
95. Cao Y, Ajjan H, Hong P, Le T. Using social media for competitive business outcomes: An empirical
study of companies in China. Journal of Advances in Management Research. 2018; 15(2):211–35.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-05-2017-0060
96. Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. 2015.
97. McDonald RP. Path analysis with composite variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1996; 31
(2):239–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3102_5 PMID: 26801458
98. MATTHEWS L, Hair J, MATTHEWS R. PLS-SEM: THE HOLY GRAIL FOR ADVANCED ANALYSIS.
Marketing Management Journal. 2018; 28(1).
99. Becker S, Bryman A, Ferguson H. Understanding research for social policy and social work: themes,
methods and approaches: Policy Press; 2012.
100. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology.
2003; 88(5):879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 PMID: 14516251
101. Kock N, Hadaya P. Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and
gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal. 2018; 28(1):227–61.
102. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and
Practice. 2011; 19(2):139–52.
103. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative
science quarterly. 1991:421–58.
104. TEHSEEN S, QURESHI ZH, JOHARA F, RAMAYAH T. ASSESSING DIMENSIONS OF ENTREPRE-
NEURIAL COMPETENCIES: A TYPE II (REFLECTIVE-FORMATIVE) MEASUREMENT
APPROACH USING PLS-SEM. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management. 2020; 15(2):108–
45.
105. Jibril AB, Kwarteng MA, Pilik M, Botha E, Osakwe CN. Towards Understanding the Initial Adoption of
Online Retail Stores in a Low Internet Penetration Context: An Exploratory Work in Ghana. Sustain-
ability. 2020; 12(3):854.
106. Roldán JL, Sánchez-Franco MJ. Variance-based structural equation modeling: Guidelines for using
partial least squares in information systems research. Research methodologies, innovations and phi-
losophies in software systems engineering and information systems: IGI Global; 2012. p. 193–221.
107. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Pieper TM, Ringle CM. The use of partial least squares structural equation model-
ing in strategic management research: a review of past practices and recommendations for future
applications. Long range planning. 2012; 45(5–6):320–40.
108. Hair JF Jr, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage publications; 2016.
109. Hair JF Jr, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Gudergan SP. Advanced issues in partial least squares structural
equation modeling: saGe publications; 2017.
110. Nunnally J. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
111. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of market-
ing science. 1988; 16(1):74–94.
112. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
surement error. Journal of marketing research. 1981; 18(1):39–50.
113. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international
marketing. New challenges to international marketing: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2009. p.
277–319.
114. Wong KK-K. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using
SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin. 2013; 24(1):1–32.
115. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, xxi. Hillsdale, NJ: L Erlbaum asso-
ciates; 1998.
116. Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Straub D. A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quar-
terly (MISQ). 2012; 36(1).
117. Henseler J, Sarstedt M. Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Computational
Statistics. 2013; 28(2):565–80.
118. Umrani WA, Kura KM, Ahmed U. Corporate entrepreneurship and business performance. PSU
Research Review. 2018.
119. Lt Hu, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 1999; 6(1):1–55.
120. Errassafi M, Abbar H, Benabbou Z. The mediating effect of internal integration on the relationship
between supply chain integration and operational performance: Evidence from Moroccan manufactur-
ing companies. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. 2019; 12(2):254–73.
121. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, Sheets V. A comparison of methods to test
mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological methods. 2002; 7(1):83. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83 PMID: 11928892
122. Chin WW. How to write up and report PLS analyses. Handbook of partial least squares: Springer;
2010. p. 655–90.
123. Rigdon EE, Schumacker RE, Wothke W. A comparative review of interaction and nonlinear modeling.
Interaction and nonlinear effects in structural equation modeling. 1998:1–16.
124. Sahoo S, Yadav S. Entrepreneurial orientation of SMEs, total quality management and firm perfor-
mance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. 2017.
125. Singh SK, Del Giudice M, Tarba SY, De Bernardi P. Top management team shared leadership, mar-
ket-oriented culture, innovation capability, and firm performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management. 2019.
126. Kim M-K, Park J-H, Paik J-H. Factors influencing innovation capability of small and medium-sized
enterprises in Korean manufacturing sector: facilitators, barriers and moderators. International Journal
of Technology Management. 2018; 76(3–4):214–35.
127. Chen Y-YK, Jaw Y-L, Wu B-L. Effect of digital transformation on organisational performance of SMEs.
Internet Research. 2016.
128. Odoom R, Mensah P. Brand orientation and brand performance in SMEs: The moderating effects of
social media and innovation capabilities. 2018.
129. Dahnil MI, Marzuki KM, Langgat J, Fabeil NF. Factors influencing SMEs adoption of social media mar-
keting. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences. 2014; 148:119–26.
130. Jones P, Packham G, Beckinsale M, Durkin M, McGowan P, McKeown N. Exploring social media
adoption in small to medium-sized enterprises in Ireland. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development. 2013.
131. Low C, Chen Y, Wu M. Understanding the determinants of cloud computing adoption. Industrial Man-
agement & Data Systems. 2011; 111(7):1006–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111161262
132. Batikas M, Bavel Rv, Martin A, Maghiros I. Use of social media by European SMEs. Luxembourg:
European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology. 2013; 10:3344.
133. McCann M, Barlow A. Use and measurement of social media for SMEs. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development. 2015; 22(2):273–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-08-2012-0096