The Service Industries Journal, 2013

Vol. 33, No. 5, 427 –444, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.622373

The role of entrepreneurial orientation in service firms: empirical

evidence from Austria
Sascha Krausa,b∗
a
Utrecht University School of Economics (USE), P.O. Box 80125, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The
Netherlands; bUniversity of Liechtenstein, Fürst-Franz-Josef-Strasse, 9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein
(Received 18 August 2011; final version received 7 September 2011)

Entrepreneurial behaviour is becoming increasingly important for all firms, regardless

of size, age, or industry sector. It is increasingly seen as one of the most important
drivers for economic growth and corporate success. Nevertheless, no empirical
research has so far concentrated on the role of entrepreneurial behaviour in service
firms, although the service sector has become the most important (and the only
growing) industry sector. This article therefore investigates the relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and corporate performance on the basis of an
empirical survey of 310 service firms in Austria. Here, a significant positive
relationship between EO and corporate performance could be identified, with a clear
emphasis on innovative behaviour as the most important sub-dimension.

Keywords: entrepreneurial orientation; innovative behavior; performance

Introduction
Research has long recognized that ‘entrepreneurial’ firms act as a major engine of economic
growth (Henderson & Weiler, 2010). Understanding the factors behind growth has a broad
economic and policy relevance, above all because growth-oriented enterprises are an impor-
tant source of job creation and revenue generation in market economies (Ackelsberg &
Arlow, 1985; Parker, 2004; Valliere, 2006). In entrepreneurship research, firm growth
has thus become the major indicator for overall corporate performance (Carton & Hofer,
2006). Current literature reviews and statistical meta-analyses (such as the one by Rauch,
Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009 with 51 empirical studies on a total of 14,259 analysed
firms) almost unanimously confirm a positive relationship between an ‘entrepreneurial
orientation’ (EO) and firm growth. Although this EO has already been investigated en
detail in cross-sectoral studies, almost no research on this topic has been carried out so
far specifically in service industries (Hosman, 2009).
There appears to be uncertainty regarding the dimensions of entrepreneurship and their
role in the service sector (Sundbo, 2007). Davidsson, Delmer, and Wiklund (2006) as well
as Dobón and Soriano (2008) even conclude that there is a general lack of entrepreneurship
literature that specifically concentrates on the service sector. The size and importance of
the service sector are certainly not the reason for this lack of attention. After all, it consti-
tutes 76.9% of the US’ economy (figure taken from 2007), 67.1% in Austria, and 40% in
China, the world’s great manufacturer (figures taken from 2008). In the OECD countries,
the service sector is responsible for just about all employment growth, with constantly
rising numbers (Jansen, Curseu, Vermeulen, Geurts, & Gibcus, 2011). Even many of

∗
Email: s.kraus@uu.nl

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

428 S. Kraus

the countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union now have a considerable
service sector in terms of GDP percentage, and a total employment that is nearing the
levels of OECD countries (OECD, 2008; World Bank, 2006). Nevertheless, defining the
service sector is somewhat difficult and usually involves a mere summary of different
industries. The OECD solves this issue by categorizing the service industry in the follow-
ing way: ‘Simply defined, services are a diverse group of economic activities not directly
associated with the manufacture of goods, mining or agriculture’ (OECD, 2008, p. 7).
It could accordingly be concluded that if, on the one hand, entrepreneurship has an
important role for corporate performance and growth, and on the other hand the service
sector plays a decisive role in economic development, their interplay should also be at
the top of the research agendas of scholars from both fields. On the contrary, however,
the importance of entrepreneurial behaviour in service firms has been explicitly noted
only by Dobón and Soriano (2008) in their special issue of this journal, with the title
Exploring alternative approaches in service industries: The role of entrepreneurship. The
few existing studies on entrepreneurship in service firms discuss, e.g. higher innovation
activity (Tseng, Kuo, & Chou, 2008), higher corporate performance through greater creativ-
ity and initiative (Lim, Ribeiro, & Lee, 2008), as well as increased internationalization
activity (Ripolles, Blesa Pérez, & Roig Dobón, 2010). Nevertheless, service firms have so
far not been an explicit research topic of empirical research on EO, although some
studies from specific service industries’ sectors exist which, e.g. conclude a positive relation-
ship between EO and corporate performance in retail stores (Smart & Conant, 1994), banks
(George, Wood, & Khan, 2001), or in the tourism sector (Tajeddini, 2010).
The aim of this article is therefore to investigate the relationship between EO and cor-
porate performance on the basis of an empirical survey of 310 service firms.

Theoretical background
Defining entrepreneurship
Over the past decade, increasing attention has been paid to the concept of entrepreneurship
(Bergh, Thorgren, & Wincent, 2011; Low & MacMillan, 1988). On a national level, entre-
preneurship is regarded as an important engine of economic growth, job creation, and
innovation (OECD, 2008). Although there is no accepted generic definition of the term
itself (Sommer & Haug, 2011; Ucbasaran, Westhead, & Wright, 2001), essentially it
refers to individual opportunistic activity that creates value and bears risk, and that is
strongly associated with innovation as one of its major components (Huarng & Yu,
2011; Stopford & Baden-Fuller, 1994). Entrepreneurship stems from the entrepreneurial
venture’s orientation towards identifying market opportunities that competitors have not
yet identified or that are under-exploited, and creating a unique set of resources through
which to exploit them (Davidsson, Delmar, & Wiklund, 2002; Ho, Fang, & Lin, 2011).
Despite (or perhaps even because of) the academic attention entrepreneurship receives,
no consensus or generally accepted definition of entrepreneurship has (yet) been
reached. Over the 200 years entrepreneurship has been studied, a plethora of definitions
and approaches have been put forward, making clear its multi-dimensional character
(Audretsch, 2002). Although it has often been argued that entrepreneurship is limited
to the creation of new organizations (e.g. Gartner, Mitchell, & Vesper, 1989) or to
‘new entry’ operations (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), other scholars take the position that
entrepreneurship is also related to ‘innovating or creating new combinations of resources,
pursuing opportunity, acquiring or bringing together necessary resources, risk-taking,
profit-seeking, and creating value’ (Morris, Kuratko, & Covin, 2008, p. 9). This can
 The Service Industries Journal 429

even occur in established organizations. A much-cited definition that attempts to overcome

these considerations sees entrepreneurship as ‘the process of creating value by pulling
together a unique package of resources to exploit an opportunity’ (Stevenson, Robert, &
Grousbeck, 1985, p. 16). This approach implies that entrepreneurship is not constrained
to a small business setting. Individuals can create value by acting entrepreneurially in
larger and established organizations as well (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999), and doing so
is considered a driver for success, growth, and sustainable competitive advantage
(e.g. Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005; Zahra, 1991). Entrepreneurship is viewed as an impor-
tant factor for dealing with pressures arising from both a rapidly changing external
environment and a natural tendency towards inflexibility as organizations increase in
size (e.g. Kraus, 2009). In a sense, entrepreneurial behaviour can infuse larger organiz-
ations with the flexibility and adaptability that are commonly associated with small
organizations.
Entrepreneurial behaviour is usually measured through the concept of EO and its cor-
responding scales. EO has its origin in strategy literature, and has been used to refer to
strategy creation processes and the management style of companies having ‘entrepre-
neurial’ tendencies (Becherer & Maurer, 1997; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). Entrepreneur-
ship and EO, respectively, are generally seen as drivers of company growth. Several
authors have investigated the impact of EO on firm performance, finding that EO is a
construct that is associated with firm performance, particularly on a long-term basis
(e.g. Becherer & Maurer, 1997; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Shepherd & Wiklund, 2005;
Wiklund, 1999).

Dimensions of entrepreneurship or EO
Several dimensions of EO have been proposed in which entrepreneurial intensity surfaces.
The most prominent and best researched of these are (1) risk-taking, (2) proactiveness, and
(3) innovativeness (see Rauch et al., 2009). Some scholars have also used, e.g. competitive
aggressiveness (Venkatraman, 1989a, 1989b), autonomy (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), cor-
porate venturing, and self-renewal (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001) to measure entrepreneurial
intensity, although they have not gained widespread acceptance with their operationaliza-
tions. For the sake of simplicity and consistency with prior research, this paper will focus
on the three dominant dimensions. Risk-taking deals with actions on both an individual as
well as an organizational level that involve significant chances of failure. Miller and
Friesen (1978) define risk-taking as ‘the degree to which managers are willing to make
large and risky resource commitments – i.e. those which have a reasonable chance of
costly failures’ (Miller & Friesen, 1978, p. 923). Risk-taking within the entrepreneurship
framework is not reckless, but rather controlled and calculated (Keh, Foo, & Lim, 2002;
Morris et al., 2008). The second dimension, proactiveness, involves acting as opposed to
reacting. It applies opportunity-seeking behaviour to stay ahead of the competition by
anticipating future demand (Rauch et al., 2009). In this sense, it stresses the importance
of being knowledgeable about current and future customer preferences and subsequently
acting upon them (Venkatraman, 1989a, 1989b). Proactiveness relates to a ‘hands-on men-
tality’, taking the initiative, and not only developing plans, but implementing them as well.
The third dimension of innovativeness is a mindset towards creativity and novelty, with the
result of new or improved products, services, and processes (Morris et al., 2008; Rowley,
Baregheh, & Sambrook, 2011; Van Riel, Semeijn, Hammedi, & Henseler, 2011). As with
the other two dimensions, innovativeness has long has been associated with entrepreneur-
ial behaviour (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). It is the pursuit of new and unique solutions,
430 S. Kraus

including new technologies and administrative techniques to meet the challenges the
organization faces (Cantarello, Nosella, Petroni, & Venturini, 2011; Hotho & Champion,
2011).

EO and performance: empirical evidence

The question arises whether the positive connotation EO receives in most theoretical work
is also reflected in empirical studies. Over the last decades substantial efforts have been
made to investigate the relationship between EO and (organizational) performance,
which has been reviewed in a comprehensive meta-analysis by Rauch et al. (2009).
Drawing upon an analysis of 51 studies with a total of 14,259 companies, they conclude
that (1) EO is positively correlated (r ¼ 0.242) with performance, (2) this positive corre-
lation is not contingent upon whether performance is measured with perceived financial,
perceived non-financial, or archival data. Furthermore, (3) cultural background does not
significantly influence the EO performance relationship, whereas (4) high-tech organiz-
ations benefit significantly more from EO than those that operate in non-high-tech environ-
ments. (5) Some evidence was found that size also has a moderating effect: the effect of
EO on performance is higher in micro organizations (0 – 49 employees) than small organ-
izations (50 – 499). Other comparisons with respect to size turned out to be insignificant.
Finally, (6) when analysed separately, the three dimensions did not impact performance
differently. This refuels the debate on whether to treat EO as a uni- or multi-dimensional
construct. Stetz, Howell, Stewart, Blair, and Fottler (2000) and Kreiser, Marino, and
Weaver (2002) provide evidence that the sub-dimensions of EO should be treated separ-
ately in a multi-dimensional model (see Covin, Green, & Slevin, 2006; Kraus, Rigtering,
Hughes, & Hosman, in press).
In line with this previous research on EO, we hypothesize that the positive relations
found between the three EO dimensions and corporate performance hold true in a
service sector setting as well:
H1: There is a direct positive relationship between the EO dimension of risk-taking and cor-
porate performance of service sector firms.
H2: There is a direct positive relationship between the EO dimension of proactiveness and
corporate performance of service sector firms.
H3: There is a direct positive relationship between the EO dimension of innovativeness and
corporate performance of service sector firms.

EO in service firms: current state of research

Although the EO – performance relationship has been widely studied, the service sector as
a research setting has not received much attention (Aaker & Day, 1986). This is in line
with a frequently mentioned general lack of attention by entrepreneurship literature to
the service sector (Davidsson et al., 2006; Dobón & Soriano, 2008).
The specific characteristics of service firms also provide a justification to further
explore the impact of EO in a service setting. For starters, the service sector is separated
from the manufacturing sector by the intangibility of its products (Bateson, 1992), ranging
from the delivery of knowledge and expertise by professional service firms to services
embedded in tangible goods (Patterson & Cicic, 1995). Intangibility leads to higher
flexibility and more opportunities to adapt the service to customer preferences.
Because there is no tangible product to compete with, tailoring the service to individual
preferences may be at the heart of the struggle to attract and retain customers and thus
 The Service Industries Journal 431

a competitive advantage. It can be argued that EO increases the ability of a firm to do

just this. The second differentiating characteristic is the impossibility to store services.
Production and consumption take place simultaneously (Lovelock, 1984). Therefore,
synchronizing supply and demand becomes crucial (Habib & Victor, 1991), emphasizing
the flexibility of the organization and its members. Both factors make the service sector
more labour- and less capital-intensive than the manufacturing sector. This places an
emphasis on all factors that relate to the behaviour, decisions, and attitudes of the organ-
izational members, including an EO.
Furthermore, studies specifically analysing the service industry have already success-
fully made a link between the service sector and entrepreneurship. A study in the Taiwanese
hotel industry by Tseng et al. (2008) found that a lack of innovations deteriorate a hotel’s
competitiveness. In an exploratory study Lim et al. (2008) tested the impact of numerous
factors on the performance of entrepreneurial service firms. It was found that the founder’s
characteristics and their measure of performance – minimum cost production – were highly
significant. Characteristics included creativity, initiative, and the ability to calculate risk.
Pires, Sarkar, and Carvalho (2008) compared innovative activity and innovative output
between Portuguese service and manufacturing firms and found no differences, pointing
at the importance of research on innovation in a service setting. Finally, Ripolles et al.
(2010) successfully associated an innovative orientation with determined international
expansion by Spanish SMEs.
In an effort to investigate the existing quantitative studies on the effects of EO in a
service setting, a literature review table on this topic was created. The first step was to
develop a list of empirical studies on the effects of EO/CE (Corporate Entrepreneurship)
that included all sectors. A comprehensive review by Rauch et al. (2009) was used as a
starting point. Their selection procedure included database searching, complemented by
a manual search in entrepreneurship journals. Conference proceedings were also
checked, along with a reference list of previously identified articles. Of the 134 articles,
51 were included in their meta-analysis. Hosman (2009) identified a further 15 articles
with an additional database and reference search. The extensive literature review on ‘Cor-
porate Entrepreneurship’ by Kraus (2009) which includes EO as the indicator of entrepre-
neurial behaviour in established firms was also consulted. The literature search was
finalized with a database search on journal articles with ‘corporate entrepreneurship and
service’ and ‘EO and service’ within the LiBHub search engine as well as the SFX
Linking Services (which include numerous databases such as EBSCO, JSTOR, Wiley-
Blackwell, Highwire, Emerald, and SAGE). Only studies that measured an effect of EO
were included.
The next step was to select the studies that took place in the service industry – or one
of its subsectors. Classification of the service sector was on the basis of the ISIC classes
50– 90 (see Wölfl, 2003), including (among others) sectors such as wholesale and retail,
hotels and restaurants, transport, and financial intermediation (United Nations, 2010).
Selection was aided by the industry information provided by the three literature reviews
that were consulted. In the case of ambiguity,1 the individual articles were accessed and
assessed based on the industry being investigated. Of the 57 studies first identified, only
13 remained for inclusion in the final overview table. This was because most studies
that had included service firms in their data set did not report on the differences
between the sector and/or controlled for industry type (e.g. Kaya, 2006). The final 13
studies are displayed in Table 1.
The most pressing result is the limited amount of studies with respondents from the
service sector. As an exception, the studies by Zahra and Garvis (2000), Liu, Luo, and
 432
Table 1. Literature review on the impact of EO in the service sector.
Sample Organization Uni-/Multi-
Author(s) Industry Country size (n) Respondents size Main results Measure of EO dimensional
Jennings and Savings and USA 49 CEO – EO positively relates to Number of new Uni-dimensional
Lumpkin loan several decision markets/new
(1989) making processes products
Smart and Apparel USA 599 Owner- Micro EO is positively linked to Risk-taking, strategic Uni-dimensional
Conant retailers managers corporate performance planning activities,
(1994) customer needs and
wants identification,
innovation, vision to
reality, identify
opportunities
Stetz et al. Health care USA 865 Executives Micro and The separate dimensions Proactiveness, risk- Multi-dimensional
(2000) small of EO are a more robust taking and futurity

S. Kraus
predictor of firm
growth than a uni-
dimensional construct
George et al. Banking USA 70 CEO Small and Firms with an EO are Risk-taking, Uni-dimensional
(2001) medium likely to follow an proactiveness,
active networking innovation,
strategy, indirectly autonomy,
leading to a higher competitive
performance aggressiveness
Caruana et al. Public AUS 136 Heads of Middle The positive link between Innovation, risk-taking Uni-dimensional
(2002) sector government and large EO and performance
departments also applies to the
public sector
Richard et al. Banking USA 153 HR Executives On average Different dimensions of Proactiveness, Multi-dimensional
(2004) medium (154 EO have a moderating innovativeness and
employees) effect on the constructive risk-
relationship between taking
management diversity
and firm performance
Bhuian et al. Health care USA 231 Top – The positive relation Risk-taking, Uni-dimensional
(2005) 2management between market innovativeness,
orientation and proactiveness,
corporate performance autonomy
is highest with
moderate levels of EO
Monsen Health care USA 1505 Managers and Large (1 Autonomy and teamwork Innovativeness, Multi-
(2005) (high tech) staff organization) emerge as critical proactiveness, dimensional
contingency factors in autonomy,
understanding the competitive
relationship between aggressiveness, risk-
EO and individual job taking, motivation

The Service Industries Journal

performance
Jambulingam Retail USA 251 Pharmacy owner- – A classification of six Individual and Multi-
et al. (2005) pharmacies managers and different types of organizational dimensional
staff pharmacy retailers innovativeness
pharmacists based on levels of EO
emerged; these forms
relate differently to
perceptions of the
environment,
organizational factors
and performance
outcomes
Rutherford Public service USA 264 Employees Medium (1 EO mediates the Proactiveness, Multi-dimensional
and Holt (IT) organization) relationship between innovation, risk-
(2007) antecedents of EO taking
(individual
characteristics, process,
context and individual
outcomes)
Stam and Software NL 113 Founders Micro (87 firms) Network ties mediate the Risk-taking, Uni-dimensional
Elfring EO performance proactiveness,
(2008) relationship, from innovativeness
significant positive to

433
significant negative

(Continued)
 434
Table 1. Continued.
Sample Organization Uni-/Multi-
Author(s) Industry Country size (n) Respondents size Main results Measure of EO dimensional
Monsen and Health care USA 332 and Managers and Large (1 EO dimensions are Risk-taking, Multi-dimensional
Boss (2009) (high tech) 1642 staff organization) associated negatively proactiveness,
with role ambiguity and innovativeness
intention to quit; staff

S. Kraus
members react to the
EO dimensions in a
more consistent and
moderate manner than
management
Tajeddini Hotels CH 156 Hotel managers/ Median number EO has a positive effect Risk-taking, strategic Uni-dimensional
(2010) owners of employees: on profit and sales goal planning activities,
61–90 achievement, ROI customer needs and
achievement and wants identification,
innovativeness innovation, vision to
reality, identify
opportunities
 The Service Industries Journal 435

Shi (2002), and Antoncic and Hisrich (2004) did in fact compare means and other struc-
tural coefficients between service and manufacturing firms. All found no significant differ-
ences. This provides some indirect support that EO within service firms has the same effect
as in manufacturing firms.
Table 1 presents the main findings of each study, along with information on the
research set-up. Not only the results of the articles themselves, but their characteristics
are relevant as well. With the exception of the articles by Jennings and Lumpkin (1989)
and Smart and Conant (1994), all were published in the new century, indicating an only
recent move into the domain of the service sector. In spite of this, none of the articles
specifically addresses the need to study the relationship between EO and performance
in a service sector context. No studies covering multiple industries within the service
sector were found, since all studies have a single-firm (Monsen, 2005; Monsen & Boss,
2009; Rutherford & Holt, 2007) and/or single-industry focus. Remarkable is the large rela-
tive presence of studies on healthcare providers (Bhuian, Menguc, & Bell, 2005; Monsen,
2005; Monsen & Boss, 2009; Stetz et al., 2000) and financial services (George et al., 2001;
Jennings & Lumpkin, 1989; Richard, Barnett, Dwyer, & Chadwick, 2004). All but three
studies were set in the USA, and most gathered respondents were from the upper echelons
of the organization.
Delving into the outcomes of the studies, a generally positive association between EO
and performance was found (Bhuian et al., 2005; Caruana, Ewing, & Ramaseshan, 2002;
Monsen, 2005; Smart & Conant, 1994; Stetz et al., 2000; Tajeddini, 2010). Evidence was
also found that CE improves decision making processes (Jennings & Lumpkin, 1989),
leads to active networking strategies (George et al., 2001), and decreases employees’ turn-
over intention (Rutherford & Holt, 2007). Monsen and Boss (2009) took a uni-dimensional
approach and found – in contrast to their expectations – a negative relation between levels
of proactiveness and innovativeness and the employees’ intention to quit.
The role of contingency factors has also been emphasized, changing the magnitude and
even direction of the relation between EO and performance. In a study on 87 Dutch ven-
tures, Stam and Elfring (2008) found that the network structure and the access to social
capital can transform the positive relation between CE and performance into a negative
one. Monsen (2005) identified individual perceptions of autonomy and teamwork as criti-
cal contingency factors, whereas Bhuian et al. (2005) found that EO moderates the effect
of market orientation on performance, implying that overly high levels of EO can harm the
organization.
In an innovative attempt to improve industry classifications, Jambulingam, Kathuria,
and Doucette (2005) used the EO dimensions to build a taxonomy of pharmacy retailers.
In the subsequent group comparison, the ‘True entrepreneurs’ as well as ‘Low-risk entre-
preneurs’ scored the highest on meeting their organizational goals.

Research methodology
Sample
The goal of sampling was to contact executive-level respondents, preferably owners,
founders and CEOs, i.e. the so-called ‘key informants’ (Kumar, Stern, & Anderson,
1993), considered by previous research as the ‘single most knowledgeable and valid infor-
mation sources’ (Lechner, Dowling, & Welpe, 2006, p. 525), from a heterogeneous set of
firms in Austria. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires using an
email survey procedure. The questionnaire was randomly sent to 10,000 service firms in
Austria (using the same classification criteria as for the literature analysis, i.e. the ISIC
436 S. Kraus

classes 50– 90 only). Completed questionnaires were returned by 310 companies, yielding
a response rate of 3.1%.
Control variables for both the demographic characteristics of the responding compa-
nies as well as the type of firm were included in the questionnaire. The majority of the
firms within our sample fall within the European Commission’s (2003) definition of
micro firms, i.e. companies employing less than 10 employees (66.7%). In total,
24.9% of the firms can be characterized as small firms, and 7.1% as medium-sized.
Large firms, employing more than 250 employees, only make up 1.3% of our
sample. The average number of employees is 24.65. In total, 5.2% of the firms
operate in the finance and insurance market and 43.8% fall into the categories of
science, technical services and free occupations; 21.6% are active in the hospitality
market, while 29.4% are information and communication firms. Of all firms, 77.7%
of the respondents consider their firm to be a family firm. As for the respondents, a sig-
nificant percentage (75.7%) is male. The average age of the respondents is 48.29 years,
and 91.4% of the respondents have prior experience as an entrepreneur, having started
or co-started, on average, 2.09 firms including the current one. This figure is also an
indication that the majority of the respondents are the (co-)owner or (co-)founder of
the present firm.

Operationalization
Three dimensions of EO – risk-taking, proactiveness and innovativeness – were
measured using items based upon scales developed by Covin and Slevin (1986,
1989), Miller (1982), and Miller and Friesen (1983). All dimensions consist of four
items, which are measured on a five-point Likert-type scale. In empirical papers that
investigate the relationship between EO and performance, performance is usually
measured in one, or a combination, of the following three ways: perceived financial, per-
ceived non-financial, and archival financial performance (Rauch et al., 2009). In their
meta analysis, Rauch et al. (2009) also show that there is no difference in the EO – per-
formance relationship between papers that use archival information and papers that use
perceived/subjective measures of financial performance. Wiklund (1999) suggested that
measurement scales for performance should have indicators that account for both growth
and financial performance. In the context of small businesses, financial data are often
less reliable and/or accessible (Baum, Dean, & McDougale, 2000; Sambharya, 2011;
Sitlington & Marshall, 2011), and employment growth is considered to be a more
stable indicator than turnover growth since firms only expand their staffs if they are
certain that their business volume can be stabilized in the future (Carton & Hofer,
2006; Delmar, 1997). Within the current research, a performance index is used that
consists of an increase in sales growth, employment growth, and market share. All
three items were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale, and respondents were
asked to compare the performance of their business with their direct and indirect
competitors.
In order to control for the differences between firms, the control variables of firm size
and whether a firm considered itself to be a family firm were included in the first step of all
hierarchical regression analyses (see below). The level of technological developments in
the operating environment of the firm is measured by a scale developed by Jaworski and
Kohli (1993). As for the respondent, we control for gender and, since respondents were
preferably either the (co-)owner or (co-)founder of the firm, the experience(s) that they
have had as an entrepreneur.
 The Service Industries Journal 437

Analyses
A confirmatory factor analysis was carried out to test whether EO is a multiple-item con-
struct. All independent composite constructs using multiple items were included in this
factor analysis. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to test Hypotheses
1 – 3. In the first step of the analysis, the control variables were included; in the second
step of the analyses the independent variable(s) were added. Checks for multi-collinearity
were preformed and are reported within the data analyses section. Before testing the
hypotheses, Cronbach’s alphas were calculated for all composite constructs.

Data analyses
Correlation and reliability
Table 2 reports the correlations, descriptive statistics, and Cronbach’s alphas for all (mul-
tiple) item constructs. All Cronbach’s alphas are above 0.80, which is an indication that all
composite constructs can be regarded as highly reliable. Consistent with our expectations,
both the overall EO scale and the different EO dimensions are all significantly related to
performance. More experienced entrepreneurs report higher levels of risk-taking, proac-
tiveness, and innovation within their firm. They also report better organizational perform-
ance as compared with their direct competitors. The different EO dimensions are, as one
would expect within this type of research, moderately correlated (r ¼ 0.37 to r ¼ 0.57).

The EO – performance relationship

In order to test whether EO has a positive effect upon the performance within service firms,
a list-wise hierarchical regression analysis was applied. Checks for multi-collinearity were
performed, finding no indications of it (average VIF ¼ 1.158). The control variables were
first added to the model, and in model two EOs were added to the model. As shown in
Table 3, the six control variables explain 13% of the total variance in performance.
Both the age of the respondent (b ¼ – 0.02, p ¼ ,0.05) and the technological environ-
ment that the firm is operating in (b ¼ 0.18, p ¼ ,0.05) are significant within this
model. After adding EO to the model, the significant effect of the technological environ-
ment disappears. EO, on the other hand, is a highly significant predictor of company per-
formance (b ¼ 0.66, p ¼ ,0.001) and accounts for an additional 18% of explained
variance.

The multi-dimensionality of the EO construct

A confirmative factor analysis was carried out to test whether EO within service firms is a
multi-dimensional construct. All independent constructs using multiple items were
included in the analyses. To determine the number of factors, Kaiser’s (1960) criterion
was used. The confirmatory factor analysis shows that risk-taking, proactiveness, and
innovativeness are, although interrelated, indeed separate dimensions of EO. Furthermore,
all variable loads, according to the criteria set by Stevens (1992), are highly significant
(≥0.64) on their hypothesized latent variables with good to sufficient cross loadings
(≥0.37) on all other dimensions. Both the x2 for the measurement model (1524.171,
p ¼ ,0.001) as well as the Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
(Kaiser, 1970) (0.86) suggest that the model fits the data very well. We also ran factor ana-
lyses on just the EO items, which did not lead to different qualitative results. All three
factors combined account for 70.53% of the variance.
 438
Table 2. Means, SD, and correlations for quantitative variables.
Variable N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Firm size 309 19.42 65.01 ( –)
2. Family firm 309 0.22 0.42 –0.03 ( –)
3. Age 310 36.89 40.53 0.02 –0.20∗∗ (–)
4. Gender 310 0.24 0.43 –0.03 0.02 –0.16∗∗ (–)

S. Kraus
5. Experience as entrepreneur 303 1.91 1.48 –0.04 –0.18∗∗ 0.10 –0.15∗∗ (–)
6. Technological environment 249 3.18 1.15 –0.01 0.05 0.07 –0.29∗∗ 0.22∗∗ (0.85)
7. Entrepreneurial orientation 225 3.38 0.74 0.05 0.03 –0.04 –0.17∗ 0.22∗∗ 0.44∗∗ (0.87)
8. EO risk-taking 254 2.61 1.06 –0.05 .09 –0.11 –0.14∗ 0.14∗ 0.33∗∗ 0.79∗∗ (0.82)
9. EO proactiveness 285 3.84 0.83 0.08 0.06 0.02 –0.14 0.17∗ 0.29∗∗ 0.77∗∗ 0.37∗∗ (0.81)
10 EO innovativeness 264 3.66 0.74 0.09 0.01 0.10 –0.12∗ 0.23∗∗ 0.40∗∗ 0.82∗∗ 0.43∗∗ 0.57∗∗ (0.84)
11. Performance 226 2.95 1.07 0.05 0.10 –0.21∗∗ –0.15∗ 0.16∗ 0.27∗∗ 0.47∗∗ 0.35∗∗ 0.21∗∗ 0.48∗∗ (0.83)
Notes: The reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) are shown in the diagonal axis. For one-item measures, Cronbach’s alphas cannot be computed. These are labelled (– ).
∗
p , 0.05 (two-tailed).
∗∗
p , 0.01. (two-tailed).
 The Service Industries Journal 439

Table 3. Hierarchical regression performance: control variables and EO (uni-dimensional).

Universal model, control
Control variables variables
b SE b SE
Firm size 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Family firm 0.11 0.20 0.01 0.18
Age –0.02 0.01 –0.02 0.01
Gender –0.36 0.21 –0.18 0.19
Experience as entrepreneur 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05
Technological environment 0.18∗ 0.08 0.01 0.08
Entrepreneurial orientation 0.66∗∗∗ 0.11
R2 0.13 0.31
Adjusted R2 0.10 0.27
△R2 0.13∗∗ 0.17∗∗∗
Note: Regression weights shown are unstandardized coefficients.
∗
p , 0.05.
∗∗
p , 0.01.
∗∗∗
p , 0.001.

The multi-dimensional EO model and firm performance

The results of the second multiple hierarchical regression analyses are presented in
Table 4. Checks for multicollinearity were performed, and again no indications for multi-
collinearity were found (average VIF ¼ 1.308). As shown in Table 3, both EO risk-taking
(b ¼ 0.17, p ¼ ,0.05) and EO innovativeness (b ¼ 0.60, p ¼ ,0.001) are positive and
significantly related to performance. EO dimension proactiveness is not significantly
related to performance. The percentage of variance in performance that is explained by
the different EO dimensions is, compared with the single EO measure, much higher

Table 4. Hierarchical regression performance: Control variables and EO dimensions (multi-

dimensional).
Universal model,
Control variables control variables
b SE b SE
Firm size 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Family firm 0.11 0.20 0.05 0.17
Age –0.02 0.01 –0.02 0.01
Gender –0.36 0.21 –0.21 0.18
Experience as entrepreneur 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.05
Technological environment 0.18∗ 0.08 0.00 0.07
EO risk-taking 0.17∗ 0.08
EO proactiveness –0.15 0.10
EO innovativeness 0.60∗∗∗ 0.10
R2 0.13 0.38
Adjusted R2 0.10 0.35
△R2 0.13∗∗ 0.25∗∗∗
Note: Regression weights shown are unstandardized coefficients.
∗
p , 0.05.
∗∗
p , 0.01.
∗∗∗
p , 0.001.
440 S. Kraus

(38% versus 31% of the variance explained), showing support for the assumption that a
multi-dimensional model of EO is a better model for EO research within service industries.

Discussion and conclusions

To the knowledge of the authors, this study is the first one explicitly concentrating on
service firms via an exclusively empirical analysis of the EO – performance relationship,
thereby proving a first attempt at narrowing the identified research gap of entrepreneurial
behaviour in the service sector (Dobón & Soriano, 2008).
Using a uni-dimensional model of EO (see Table 3), a clear significant positive relation-
ship between EO and corporate performance could be explicitly shown for service firms
using a sample of 310 enterprises from Austria. In other words: the positive link between
EO and performance also applies to the service sector. In line with previous research such
as the study by Stetz et al. (2000) for the healthcare sector, our research also shows that
the three sub-dimensions of EO are a more robust predictor for corporate performance in a
service industries setting than a uni-dimensional construct. When delving deeper into the
multi-dimensional character of the EO construct and its sub-dimensions, it could be
shown that this relationship is mostly due to the dimension of innovativeness (p , 0.001),
less by risk-taking (p , 0.05), and not at all by proactiveness. In other words: concentrating
on innovation and thereby also being at least somewhat risk-willing does seem to pay off for
service firms in terms of higher corporate performance, whereas being proactive does not
seem to do so. One reason for this might be that small enterprises – the average number
of employees within our sample was 24.65 – are usually not proactive in terms of their stra-
tegic orientations, but rather listen to what their customers explicitly express and then react to
it (see e.g. Cambra-Fierro, Florin, Perez, & Whitelock, 2011; Eggers & Kraus, 2011; Schia-
vone, 2011). This is also the case when it comes to innovative behaviour. It might be a prom-
ising avenue for further research to explore the relationship between innovation and success
explicitly in service firms since this relationship seems to be the most prevalent. Here, differ-
ent types of innovation – e.g. either radical or incremental (Cavalcante, Kesting, & Ulhøi,
2011; Goktan & Miles, 2011) or the question of innovation versus imitation (Naranjo-
Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez, & Sanz-Valle, 2011) – could be investigated.
This study of course holds several limitations. First, it relies on data from only one
country (Austria), and furthermore was generated by an online survey. Thus, multi-culture
studies (e.g. Lee, Lim, & Pathak, 2011) such as, e.g. comparison studies with the other ‘Ger-
manic’ countries (Germany and Switzerland) and/or other investigation approaches such as
direct comparisons between service and non-service firms should be carried out as a first step
for future research. Also, although widely accepted in entrepreneurship research, this study
relies on self-reported data, especially for the dependent variable performance, being mainly
based on growth. It might also very well be that companies with another corporate mission
regard factors other than growth as success indicators (Vasconcellos e Sá, Olão, & Pereira,
2011), so that subjective performance indicators could also be included.
Overall, we hope that this study helps to shed more light on the (so far) under-
researched field of entrepreneurship in service industries, thereby providing additional
attention to a very promising topic of scientific investigation.

Note
1. At first, ambiguity was significant because the industry classification by Rauch et al. (2009) (high-
tech/non-high-tech/mix) did not provide the necessary information. However, the sorting by
 The Service Industries Journal 441

Hosman (2009) – almost all articles were placed into three groups: manufacturing, cross-indus-
try, or specific industry – which included all articles identified by Rauch et al. (2009) were more
applicable to this study. After checking a sample of 10 studies that took place ‘cross-industry’, it
was concluded that they were not done solely on service firms and hence could be excluded.

References
Aaker, D.A., & Day, G.S. (1986). The perils of high-growth markets. Strategic Management
Journal, 7, 409 –421.
Ackelsberg, R., & Arlow, P. (1985). Small businesses do plan and it pays off. Long Range Planning,
18(5), 61 –67.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural vali-
dation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. (2004). Corporate entrepreneurship contingencies and organizational
wealth creation. Journal of Management Development, 23(6), 518–550.
Audretsch, D.B. (2002). Entrepreneurship: A survey of the literature. Studie im auftrag der
Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Brüssel: Enterprise Directorate General.
Bateson, J.E.G. (1992). Managing services marketing: Text and readings. Orlando, FL: Dryden
Press.
Baum, J.R., Dean, T.J., & McDougale, P.P. (2000). An examination of the impact of initial founding
conditions and decisions upon the performance of new bank start ups. Journal of Business
Venturing, 15, 253– 277.
Becherer, R., & Maurer, J. (1997). The moderating effect of environmental variables on the entre-
preneurial and marketing orientation of entrepreneur-led firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 22(1), 47– 58.
Bergh, P., Thorgren, S., & Wincent, J. (2011). Entrepreneurs learning together: The importance of
building trust for learning and exploiting business opportunities. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(1), 17–37.
Bhuian, S., Menguc, B., & Bell, S. (2005). Just entrepreneurial enough: The moderating effect of
entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance. Journal
of Business Research, 58(1), 9 –17.
Cambra-Fierro, J., Florin, J., Perez, L., & Whitelock, J. (2011). Inter-firm market orientation as ante-
cedent of knowledge transfer, innovation and value creation in networks. Management
Decision, 49(3), 444– 467.
Cantarello, S., Nosella, A., Petroni, G., & Venturini, K. (2011). External technology sourcing:
Evidence from design-driven innovation. Management Decision, 49(6), 962– 983.
Carton, R.B., & Hofer, C.W. (2006). Measuring organizational performance – metrics for entrepre-
neurship and strategic management research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Caruana, A., Ewing, M.T., & Ramaseshan, B. (2002). Effects of some environmental challenges and
centralization on the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of public sector entities. The
Service Industries Journal, 22(2), 43–58.
Cavalcante, S.A., Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J.P. (2011). Business model dynamics and innovation:
(Re)establishing the missing linkages. Management Decision, 49(8), 1327–1342.
Covin, J.G., Green, K.M., & Slevin, D.P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial
orientation –sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(1),
57 –81.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1986). The development and testing of an organization-level entrepre-
neurship scale. In R. Ronstadt, J.A. Hornaday, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepre-
neurship research 1986 (pp. 628– 639). Wellesly, MA: Babson College.
Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environ-
ments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(11), 75– 87.
Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2002). Entrepreneurship as growth: Growth as entrepre-
neurship. In M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp, & D.L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepre-
neurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 328 –340). Oxford: Blackwell.
Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship and the growth of firms.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
442 S. Kraus

Delmar, F. (1997). Measuring growth: Methodological considerations and empirical problems. In R.

Donckels & A. Miettinen (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and SME research: On its way to the next
millennium (pp. 199 –215). Andover: Ashgate.
Dobón, S.R., & Soriano, D.R. (2008). Exploring alternative approaches in service industries: The
role of entrepreneurship. The Service Industries Journal, 28(7/8), 877– 882.
European Commission (2003). The new SME definition: User guide and model declaration. In
European Commission (Eds.), Enterprise and industry publications (p. 36). Brussels:
Official Journal of the European Union.
Eggers, F., & Kraus, S. (2011). Growing young SMEs in hard economic times: The impact of entre-
preneurial and customer orientations – a qualitative study from Silicon Valley. Journal of
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 24(1), 99–111.
Gartner, W.B., Mitchell, T.R., & Vesper, K.H. (1989). A taxonomy of new business ventures.
Journal of Business Venturing, 4(3), 169 –186.
George, G., Wood, D.R., & Khan, R. (2001). Networking strategy of boards: Implications for small
and medium-sized enterprises. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 13(3),
269 –285.
Goktan, A.B., & Miles, G. (2011). Innovation speed and radicalness: Are they inversely related.
Management Decision, 49(4), 533 –547.
Habib, M.M., & Victor, B. (1991). Strategy, structure, and performance of US manufacturing and
service MNC: A comparative analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 12(8), 589–606.
Henderson, J., & Weiler, S. (2010). Entrepreneurs and job growth: Probing the boundaries of time
and space. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(1), 23–32.
Ho, Y.C., Fang, H.C., & Lin, J.F. (2011). Technological and design capabilities: Is ambidexterity
possible. Management Decision, 49(2), 208 –225.
Hosman, V.L. (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship as a factor of superior performance in the 2009
crisis. Utrecht: Science Shop of Law, Economics and Governance, Utrecht University.
Hotho, S., & Champion, K. (2011). Small businesses in the new creative industries: Innovation as a
people management challenge. Management Decision, 49(1), 29–54.
Huarng, K.H., & Yu, T.H.K. (2011). Entrepreneurship, process innovation and value creation by a
non-profit SME. Management Decision, 49(2), 284– 296.
Jambulingam, T., Kathuria, R., & Doucette, W.R. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation as a basis for
classification within a service industry: The case of retail pharmacy industry. Journal of
Operations Management, 23(1), 23 –45.
Jansen, R.J.G., Curseu, P.L., Vermeulen, P.A.M., Geurts, J.L.A., & Gibcus, P. (2011). Social capital
as a decision aid in strategic decision-making in service organizations. Management Decision,
49(5), 734 –747.
Jaworski, B.J., & Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences’. Journal
of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.
Jennings, D.F., & Lumpkin, J.R. (1989). Functioning modeling corporate entrepreneurship: An
empirical integrative analysis. Journal of Management, 15(3), 485–503.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 141 –151.
Kaiser, H.F. (1970). A second-generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.
Kaya, N. (2006). The impact of human resource management practices and corporate entrepreneur-
ship on firm performance: Evidence from Turkish firms. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 17(12), 2074 –2090.
Keh, H.T., Foo, M.D., & Lim, B.C. (2002). Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: The cog-
nitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 125–148.
Kraus, S. (2009). Strategic corporate entrepreneurship – a case study on the basis of the configur-
ation approach. Utrecht: USE.
Kraus, S., Rigtering, C., Hughes, M., & Hosman, V. (in press). Entrepreneurial orientation and the
business performance of SMEs: A quantitative study from the Netherlands. Review of
Managerial Science, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11846-011-0062-9.
Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D., & Weaver, K.M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of the
entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 26(4), 71– 95.
Kumar, N., Stern, L.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key
informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633– 1651.
 The Service Industries Journal 443

Lechner, C., Dowling, M., & Welpe, I. (2006). Firm networks and firm development: The role of the
relational mix. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 514–40.
Lee, S.M., Lim, S.B., & Pathak, R.D. (2011). Culture and entrepreneurial orientation: A multi-
country study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(1), 1–15.
Lim, S., Ribeiro, D., & Lee, S.M. (2008). Factors affecting the performance of entrepreneurial
service firms. The Service Industries Journal, 28(7/8), 1003 –1013.
Liu, S.S., Luo, X., & Shi, Y.-Z. (2002). Integrating customer orientation, corporate entrepreneurship,
and learning orientation in organizations-in-transition: An empirical study. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 367.
Lovelock, C.H. (1984). Why marketing management needs to be different for services. In C.H.
Lovelock (Ed.), Services marketing (pp. 479– 488). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Low, M.B., & MacMillan, I.C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges.
Journal of Management, 14(2), 139 –161.
Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking
it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.
Lumpkin, G.T., & 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.
Miller, D. (1982). Evolution and revolution: A quantum view of structural change in organizations.
Journal of Management Studies, 19(2), 131 –151.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1978). Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24(9),
921 –933.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P.H. (1983). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two
models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1– 25.
Monsen, E. (2005). Employees do matter: Autonomy, teamwork and corporate entrepreneurial
culture (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder).
Monsen, E., & Boss, W. (2009). The impact of strategic entrepreneurship inside the organization:
Examining job stress and employee retention. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(1),
71 –104.
Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F., & Covin, J.G. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation.
Mason, OH: Thomson Higher Education.
Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation or imitation? The
role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55–72.
OECD (2008). Growth in services: Fostering employment, productivity and innovation. Paris:
OECD.
Parker, S.C. (2004). The economics of self-employment and entrepreneurship. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, P.G., & Cicic, M. (1995). Typology of service firms in international markets: An empirical
investigation. Journal of International Marketing, 3(4), 57 –83.
Pires, C.P., Sarkar, S., & Carvalho, L. (2008). Innovation in services – how different from manufac-
turing. The Service Industries Journal, 28(7/8), 1339– 56.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business
performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(3), 761–787.
Richard, O.C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural diversity in management,
firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 255–266.
Ripolles, M.M., Blesa Pérez, A., & Roig Dobón, S. (2010). The influence of innovation orientation
on the internationalization of SMEs in the service sector. The Service Industries Journal,
30(5), 777 –791.
Rowley, J., Baregheh, A., & Sambrook, S. (2011). Towards an innovation-type mapping tool.
Management Decision, 49(1), 73–86.
Rutherford, M.W., & Holt, D.T. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 20(3), 429– 446.
Sambharya, R.B. (2011). Security analysts’ earnings forecasts as a measure of firm performance: An
empirical exploration of its domain. Management Decision, 49(7), 1160–1181.
Schiavone, F. (2011). Strategic reactions to technology competition: A decision-making model.
Management Decision, 49(5), 801 –809.
444 S. Kraus

Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J.J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of
corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 11–27.
Shepherd, D.A., & Wiklund, J. (2005). Entrepreneurial small business: A resource-based perspec-
tive. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Sitlington, H., & Marshall, V. (2011). Do downsizing decisions affect organisational knowledge and
performance. Management Decision, 49(1), 116– 129.
Smart, D.T., & Conant, J.S. (1994). Entrepreneurial orientation, distinctive marketing competencies
and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(3), 28 –38.
Sommer, L., & Haug, M. (2011). Intention as a cognitive antecedent to international entrepreneur-
ship – understanding the moderating roles of knowledge and experience. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(1), 111–142.
Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderat-
ing role of intra- and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 97–111.
Stetz, P.E., Howell, R., Stewart, A., Blair, J.D., & Fottler, M.D. (2000). Multidimensionality of
entrepreneurial firm-level processes: Do the dimensions covary? In R.D. Reynolds, E.
Autio, C.G. Brush, W.D. Bygrave, S. Manigart, H.J. Sapienza, & D.L. Sexton (Eds.),
Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 459–469). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Stevens, J.P. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Stevenson, H., Robert, M.J., & Grousbeck, H.I. (1985). New business ventures and the entrepreneur.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Stopford, J.M., & Baden-Fuller, C.W.F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic
Management Journal, 15(7), 521– 536.
Sundbo, J. (2007). Innovation and learning in services – the involvement of employees. In D. Spath
& K.-P. Fahnrich (Eds.), Advances in services innovations (pp. 131–150). Leipzig: Springer.
Tajeddini, K. (2010). Effect of customer orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on innovative-
ness: Evidence from the hotel industry in Switzerland. Tourism Management, 31(2), 221– 231.
Tseng, C.-Y., Kuo, H.-Y., & Chou, S.-S. (2008). Configuration of innovation and performance in the
service industry: Evidence from the Taiwanese hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal,
28(7/8), 1015– 1028.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P.H., & Wright, M. (2001). The focus of entrepreneurial research:
Contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 57 –80.
United Nations (2010). Detailed structure and explanatory notes ISIC Rev.3 (International Standard
Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities). New York: United Nations.
Valliere, D. (2006). Consequences of growth: Shaping entrepreneurial attitudes. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 7(3), 141–148.
Van Riel, A.C.R., Semeijn, J., Hammedi, W., & Henseler, J. (2011). Technology-based service pro-
posal screening and decision-making effectiveness. Management Decision, 49(5), 762– 783.
Vasconcellos e Sá, J.A., Olão, F., & Pereira, M. (2011). From Levitt to the global age: One more
time, how do we define our business. Management Decision, 49(1), 99–115.
Venkatraman, N. (1989a). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensional-
ity and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 941–962.
Venkatraman, N. (1989b). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical cor-
respondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423–444.
Wiklund, J. (1999). The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), 37 –48.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A
configuration approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71 –91.
Wölfl, A. (2003). Productivity growth in service industries: An assessment of recent patterns and the
role of measurement. Paris: OECD.
World Bank (2006). From disintegration to reintegration: Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union in international trade. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Zahra, S. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory
study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259–286.
Zahra, S.A., & Garvis, D.M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance:
The moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing,
15(5/6), 469 –493.
Copyright of Service Industries Journal is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.