Küçük ve Orta Ölçekli Konaklama İşletmelerinde Girişimcilik Yöneliminin İşletme Performansına Etkisi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın temel amacı; girişimcilik yönelimini oluşturan yenilikçilik, risk alma ve proaktiflik boyutlarının küçük ve orta ölçekli konaklama işletmelerinin performansı üzerindeki etkilerinin araştırılmasıdır. Performans iki boyutta ölçülmüştür: finansal performans ve finansal olmayan performans. İşletme stratejilerinin temel göstergeleri arasında yer alan uzun dönem odaklılık ve stratejik esneklik değişkenlerinin birbirleri ile olan ilişkisinin yanı sıra girişimcilik yönelimi ve performans üzerindeki etkileri de incelenmiştir. Girişimcilik yönelimi boyutları ile performans türleri arasındaki ilişkilerde çevresel belirsizliğin düzenleyici rolü de test edilmiştir. Yöntem: 334 konaklama işletmesinden 2018 yılında anket formu vasıtasıyla veri toplanmıştır. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler yapısal eşitlik modellemesi kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Bulgular: Bulgulara göre, proaktiflik ve risk alma finansal ve finansal olmayan performansı anlamlı şekilde etkilemektedir. Proaktifliğin performans türleri ile ilişkisi pozitifken, risk almanın negatif etkisi vardır. Yenilikçiliğin ise sadece finansal olmayan performansı pozitif ve anlamlı şekilde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Uzun dönem odaklılık girişimcilik yönelimin tüm boyutlarını, stratejik esnekliği ve finansal performansı olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. İlaveten, stratejik esnekliğin yüksek olduğu durumlarda risk alma, yenilikçilik ve finansal olmayan performansta pozitif yönlü değişimler saptanmıştır. Çevresel belirsizliğin düzenleyici rolü ise sadece proaktifliğin performans türleri ile arasındaki ilişki örüntülerinde gözlenmiştir. Tartışma: Girişimcilik yöneliminin ve uzun dönem odaklılık ya da esneklik gibi örgütsel stratejilerin performansa yansımalarını neden-sonuç ilişkisi perspektifinden tartışan turizm çalışmalarının sayısı yetersizdir. Bu araştırma ile söz konusu eksiklik kısmen de olsa giderilmiştir.

The Effect of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Business Performance in Small and Medium-Sized Accommodation Enterprises

Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness dimensions, generating entrepreneurial orientation, on performance of small and mediumsized accommodation enterprises. Business performance was measured in two ways: financial performance and non-financial performance. In addition to the relationship between long-term orientation and strategic flexibility, which are among the main indicators of business strategies, effects of those variables on entrepreneurial orientation and performance are also examined. The moderating role of environmental uncertainty in the relationships between entrepreneurial orientation dimensions and performance types is also tested. Design/methodology/approach: Data were collected from 334 accommodation businesses in 2018 through a survey form. Relationships between variables were tested using structural equation modeling. Findings: According to the findings, proactiveness and risk-taking significantly affect financial and nonfinancial performance. While proactiveness is positively associated with performance types, risk-taking has negative effects on both. Innovativeness only affects non-financial performance positively and significantly. Long-term orientation positively affects all dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation, strategic flexibility, and financial performance. Additionally, positive changes were detected in risktaking, innovativeness and non-financial performance when strategic flexibility is high. The moderating role of environmental uncertainty was only observed in the relationship patterns between proactiveness and performance types. Discussion: The number of tourism studies discussing the reflections of entrepreneurial orientation and organizational strategies such as long-term orientation or flexibility on performance from a cause-effect relationship perspective are insufficient in the literature. With this research, this deficiency has been remedied even if partially.

___

  • Albright, J. J. ve Park, H. M. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis using Amos, LISREL, Mplus, and SAS/STAT CALIS. Bloomington: Indiana University, The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing.
  • Anderson, J. C. ve Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
  • Arief, M., Thoyib, A., Sudiro, A. ve Rohman, F. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on the firm performance through strategic flexibility: A study on the SMEs cluster in Malang. Journal of Management Research, 5(3), 44.
  • Bagozzi, R. P. ve Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
  • Bagozzi, R. P. ve Yi, Y. (1989). The degree of intention formation as a moderator of the attitude- behavior relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(4), 266-279.
  • Baird, I. S. ve Thomas, H. (1985). Toward a contingency model of strategic risk taking. Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 230-243.
  • Barringer, B. R., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 421-444.
  • Brozovic, D. (2018). Strategic flexibility: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 3-31.
  • Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Benitez, J. ve Kou, G. (2017). Improving strategic flexibility with information technologies: insights for firm performance in an emerging economy. Journal of Information Technology, 32(1), 10-25.
  • Cho, Y. H. ve Lee, J. H. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial education and performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(2), 124-134.
  • Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
  • Covin, J. G. ve Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
  • Covin, J. G. ve Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-26.
  • Davis, D., Morris, M. ve Allen, J. (1991). Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on selected entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(1), 43-51.
  • Dess, G. G. ve Robinson, Jr, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately‐held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265-273.
  • Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T. ve Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677-695.
  • Domínguez-Escrig, E., Mallén-Broch, F. F., Lapiedra-Alcamí, R. ve Chiva-Gómez, R. (2019). The influence of leaders’ stewardship behavior on innovation success: the mediating effect of radical innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(3), 849-862.
  • Fiş, A. M. (2009). Unlocking the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and performance. Doktora Tezi, Sabancı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Flammer, C. ve Bansal, P. (2017). Does a long‐term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal, 38(9), 1827-1847.
  • Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement eror. Journal of Marketing, 18(1), 39-50.
  • Grewal, R. ve Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 67-80.
  • Gupta, V. K. ve Batra, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in Indian SMEs: Universal and contingency perspectives. International Small Business Journal, 34(5), 660-682.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. (7th Ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W.C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. ve Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis. (6th Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  • Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W. ve DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(4), 22-42.
  • Hoffmann, C. M., Wulf, T. ve Stubner, S. (2012, Temmuz). Family management and firm performance–The role of long-term orientation on firm performance. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 2012(1). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
  • Hunt, S. D. ve Arnett, D. B. (2006). Does marketing success lead to market success?. Journal of Business Research, 59(7), 820-828.
  • Isichei, E. E., Agbaeze, K. E., & Odiba, M. O. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation and performance in SMEs: The mediating role of structural infrastructure capability. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 15(6), 1219-1241.
  • Johnson, J. L., Lee, R. P. W., Saini, A. ve Grohmann, B. (2003). Market-focused strategic flexibility: Conceptual advances and an integrative model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 74-89.
  • Kallmuenzer, A. ve Peters, M. (2018). Entrepreneurial behaviour, firm size and financial performance: The case of rural tourism family firms. Tourism Recreation Research, 43(1), 2-14.
  • Khandwalla, P. N. (1976/77). Some top management styles, their context and performance. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 7(4), 21-51.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (3rd Ed.). New York: The Goulford Press.
  • KOSGEB (2018). Küçük ve Orta Büyüklükteki İşletmelerin Tanımı, Nitelikleri ve Sınıflandırılması Hakkında Yönetmelik. https://www.kosgeb.gov.tr/Content/Upload/Dosya/Mevzuat/KOBI%CC%87%E2%80%99lerin_Tan%C 4%B1m%C4%B1,_Nitelikleri_ve_S%C4%B1n%C4%B1fland%C4%B1r%C4%B1lmas%C4%B1_Hakk%C 4%B1nda_Yo%CC%88netmelik.pdf, Son Erişim Tarihi: 15.01.2019.
  • Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Delhi: New Age International.
  • Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., Kuratko, D. F. ve Weaver, K. M. (2013). Disaggregating entrepreneurial orientation: The non-linear impact of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking on SME performance. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 273-291.
  • Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı (2018). Tesis istatistikleri. http://yigm.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR-201131/tesisistatistikleri.html, Son Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2018.
  • Kunnan, A. J. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modelling for language assessment research. Language Testing, 15(3), 295-332.
  • Laforet, S. (2016). Effects of organisational culture on organisational innovation performance in family firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(2), 379-407.
  • Lee, T. ve Chu, W. (2017). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: Influence of family governance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 8(4), 213-223.
  • Lortie, J., Barreto, T. ve Cox, K. (2019). The implications of national and regional long-term orientation on entrepreneurial activity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(6), 1236-1258.
  • Lumpkin, G. T. ve Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
  • Lumpkin, G. T. ve Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429-451.
  • Lumpkin, G. T., Brigham, K. H. ve Moss, T. W. (2010). Long-term orientation: Implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(3-4), 241-264.
  • Maldonado-Guzmán, G., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Pinzón-Castro, S. Y. ve Kumar, V. (2019). Innovation capabilities and performance: are they truly linked in SMEs?. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(1), 48-62.
  • Memili, E., Fang, H. C., Koç, B., Yildirim-Öktem, Ö. ve Sonmez, S. (2018). Sustainability practices of family firms: The interplay between family ownership and long-term orientation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 9-28.
  • Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791.
  • Miller, D. ve Friesen, P. H. (1978). Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24(9), 921-933.
  • Miller, D. ve Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1-25.
  • Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S. ve Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodnessof-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430.
  • Nadkarni, S. ve Narayanan, V. K. (2007). Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3), 243-270.
  • Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K. ve Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 33-47.
  • Naman, J. L. ve Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 137-153.
  • Nandakumar, M. K., Jharkharia, S. ve Nair, A. (2012). Environmental uncertainty and flexibility. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(3), 121-122.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Palmer, T. B. ve Wiseman, R. M. (1999). Decoupling risk taking from income stream uncertainty: A holistic model of risk. Strategic Management Journal, 20(11), 1037-1062.
  • Pereira, R. ve Naguib, O. M. (2016). Strategic entrepreneurship and dynamic flexibility: Towards an integrative framework. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 5, 307-312.
  • Peters, M., Kallmuenzer, A. ve Buhalis, D. (2019). Hospitality entrepreneurs managing quality of life and business growth. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(16), 2014-2033.
  • Rauch, A. ve Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353-385.
  • Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Frese, M. ve Lumpkin, G. T. (2004). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: Cumulative empirical evidence. 23rd Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Glasgow.
  • Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T. ve Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-787.
  • Rezaei, J. ve Ortt, R. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The mediating role of functional performances. Management Research Review, 41(7), 878-900.
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
  • Semrau, T., Ambos, T. ve Kraus, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance across societal cultures: An international study. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1928-1932.
  • Shirokova, G., Bogatyreva, K., Beliaeva, T. ve Puffer, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in different environmental settings: contingency and configurational approaches. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(3), 703-727.
  • Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş temel ilkeler ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks.
  • Soliman, F. (2013). Does innovation drive sustainable competitive advantages?. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 9(1), 130.
  • Soper, D. S. (2019). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. Available from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc, Son Erişim Tarihi: 01.05.2019.
  • Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-67.
  • Tajeddini, K. ve Mueller, S. (2018). Moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation and financial performance. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 6(2), 1- 13.
  • Tajeddini, K., Martin, E. ve Ali, A. (2020). Enhancing hospitality business performance: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and networking ties in a dynamic environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90, 102605.
  • Voß, J. P., Smith, A. ve Grin, J. (2009). Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition management. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 275-302.
  • Wall, T. D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S. J., Sheehan, M., Clegg, C. W. ve West, M. (2004). On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 95-118.
  • Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476-487.
  • Westland, J. C. (2012). Erratum to lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(4), 445.
  • Wiklund, J. ve Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71-91.
  • Yan, J. ve Yan, L. (2017). Collective entrepreneurship, environmental uncertainty and small business performance: A contingent examination. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 26(1), 1-26.
  • Zellweger, T. (2007). Time horizon, costs of equity capital, and generic investment strategies of firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 1-15.
  • Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A. ve Memili, E. (2012). Building a family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(4), 239–250.
İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1309-0712
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2009
  • Yayıncı: Melih Topaloğlu
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Halka Açık Şirketlerin İndeks Yöntemi İle Çalışma Sermayesi Etkinlik Düzeylerinin Tespit Edilmesi

Emine KAYA, Filiz KONUK, Ömer KAYA

Organizational Silence's Mediation Impact on The Effect of Organizational Justice’s on Intention to Quit

Demet ÇAKIROĞLU

Otel İşletmelerinde Algılanan Hizmet Kalitesinin Müşteri Memnuniyeti ve Davranış Niyeti Üzerine Etkisi

Erkan GÜNEŞ, Adem KAZAN

Z Kuşağının Dijital Teknolojiye Yönelik Tutumunun Bireysel İnovasyon Yetkinliklerine Etkisinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma

Selma KILIÇ KIRILMAZ, Asena BOZTAŞ, Metin SAYGILI, Çağdaş ATEŞ

Destinasyon Pazarlamasında Bir Tanıtım Aracı Olan Web Sitelerin Analizi: Türkiye Örneği

Seda ÖZDEMİR AKGÜL, Münevver ÇİÇEKDAĞI, Betül KORKMAZ ORHAN

Tüketicilerin Akıllı Giyilebilir Nesnelerin Kullanımına Yönelik Davranış Niyetlerinin Genişletilmiş Teknoloji Kabul Modeli Aracılığıyla İncelenmesi

Leyla GÖDEKMERDAN ÖNDER, İlker TİRYAKİ

Küçük ve Orta Ölçekli Konaklama İşletmelerinde Girişimcilik Yöneliminin İşletme Performansına Etkisi

Burcu KOÇ, İrfan YAZICIOĞLU

Akademisyenlerin Çalışma Ortamında Karşılaştıkları Psikososyal Tehlikeler: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Pınar BAYKAN

Pandemi Sürecindeki Zaman Yönetimi ve Çalışan Performansı İlişkisinde İşe Adanmışlık Kavramının Aracı Rolü

İbrahim Haşim İNAL, Ali AKDEMİR

Kripto Para Teknolojileri: Kripto Para Seçimine Etki Eden Faktörlerin AHP Yöntemi İle Değerlendirilmesi

Özgür DEMİRTAŞ, Emre ARSLAN, Birsen KARSLIOĞLU, Ali YILDIRIM, Derviş BOZTOSUN