The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1750-614X.htm

Impact of
Impact of entrepreneurial entrepreneurial
orientation on the performance of orientation

new ventures in China: the roles of

entrepreneurial bricolage and
opportunity recognition Received 3 November 2020
Revised 2 January 2021
21 May 2021
Tiannv Ma 9 August 2021
25 September 2021
School of Management, Changchun University, Accepted 28 September 2021
Changchun, China, and
Siying Yang
Centre for China Public Sector Economy Research, Jilin University,
Changchun, China

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine how entrepreneurial orientation affects new venture performance in
a dynamic environment. The authors examine whether entrepreneurial bricolage and opportunity recognition
mediate the effect of entrepreneurial orientation on new venture performance and whether environmental
dynamics moderate the above effects.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses questionnaires to collect data. The sample includes
responses of managers from 274 new Chinese ventures. Regression analysis and bootstrapping are used to test the
hypotheses.
Findings – Entrepreneurial bricolage and opportunity recognition play mediating roles between
entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance. Environmental dynamism positively moderates
the relationship between opportunity recognition and new venture performance.
Practical implications – In a dynamic environment, new ventures should strengthen their entrepreneurial
orientation, which would gradually improve their performance by improving their entrepreneurial bricolage and
opportunity recognition ability.
Originality/value – This study innovatively explains the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and new venture performance from the perspectives of “flexible solutions to current
problems” and “discovering and grasping potential new opportunities.” It does so by using the concepts
of entrepreneurial bricolage and entrepreneurial opportunity identification in the context of a dynamic
environment.
Keywords Entrepreneurial orientation, New venture performance, Entrepreneurial bricolage,
Opportunity recognition, Environmental dynamics
Paper type Research paper

This study is supported by the Social Science Fund of Jilin Provincial (Grant No. 2020C060; 2019C31;
2020B094), Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of Jilin Provincial Department of
Education (Grant No. JJKH20211237SK), Special Research Project on Clean Government Construction Chinese Management Studies
of Jilin University (Grant No. 2021LZY010) and Interdisciplinary Integration Innovation Project of © Emerald Publishing Limited
1750-614X
Jilin University (Grant No. JLUXKJC2020305). DOI 10.1108/CMS-11-2020-0478
CMS 1. Introduction
Innovation and entrepreneurship are important ways to promote development and together
work as a driving force behind sustained economic growth. China’s economy has benefited
from continuous entrepreneurship and innovation since the opening of its economy and its
reforms. Rapid economic development has, in turn, created conditions beneficial to
innovation and entrepreneurship. In this context, a large number of world-class enterprises
have been born in China since this century. For example, five of the top ten unicorn
companies in the world’s list of unicorns in early 2020 were from China, all valued at more
than $30bn. There is no doubt that any world-class enterprises are developed from new
ventures. However, the existing literature mainly focuses on the strategies of those
enterprises which have become world-class enterprises and less attention is paid to how
they develop from new ventures (Dai and Taube, 2020; Li et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2018).
Therefore, this paper focuses on the growth and development strategy of start-ups from the
perspective of entrepreneurial orientation (EO), to reveal the path to improve the
performance of Chinese start-ups.
EO has been studied for nearly 40 years, with research focusing on the meaning,
measurement, dimension and other aspects of EO (Miller, 1983; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). In
recent years, additional studies have focused on the impact of EO on corporate performance
through different perspectives (Khattak and Ullah, 2021), such as organizational performance
(Li et al., 2020), innovation performance (Zhai et al., 2018) and financial performance and
business performance (Fuentes-Fuentes et al., 2015). They found that EO has an important
effect on new venture performance (NVP; Covin and Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996;
Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005). However, some literature posits there is no significant
relationship between EO and corporate performance. For example, Onwe et al. (2020) and
Matsuno et al. (2002) had drawn similar conclusions based on a sample of small businesses in
Nigeria and of American manufacturing companies, respectively.
The literature indicates that complex and even conflicting conclusions have been drawn
concerning the relationship between EO and enterprise performance. The impact of EO on
China’s new ventures has not been examined sufficiently, especially in the dynamic
environment because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Kashif and Naqvi, 2020). New ventures
are very sensitive to the changes in the external environment, owing to the vulnerability
inherent in their short lives. Hence, it is necessary to re-examine this relationship in the
context of China.
This study aims at revealing the following two research questions. First, what are the
underlying mechanisms that boost the effect of EO on the performance of Chinese new
ventures? Second, how does environmental dynamics (ED) moderate the role of such
underlying mechanisms?
The literature has examined the mechanisms of EO on corporate performance from
different perspectives and mainly analyzed the ways in which EO affects performance.
From an action path perspective, Gu and Su (2018) examined the intermediary effect of
industrial internal and external network relations on EO affecting NVP. Amankwah-Amoah
et al. (2019) revealed the mediating role of environmental sustainability between EO and
NVP. Yao et al. (2018) found that market orientation and learning orientation have
significant mediating effects in the relationship between EO and performance. Besides, An
et al. (2014) examined the mechanism of EO affecting NVP from the perspectives of business
relations, political relations and knowledge creation. This indicates that, given entrepreneurship
orientation, new ventures can improve their performance through multiple pathways. Some
studies have examined the moderating effects of different variables on the relationship between
EO and corporate performance. Based on the sample data of Chinese new ventures, Song and Jing
(2017) found that technology orientation will positively regulate the promoting effect of EO on Impact of
corporate performance. Similarly, Presutti and Odorici (2018) found that entrepreneurs’ previous entrepreneurial
entrepreneurial experiences strengthen the role of EO in promoting corporate performance in a
sample of Italian small and medium-sized enterprises.
orientation
To sum up, there is abundant literature on the relationship between EO and corporate
performance. However, existing studies seldom explore the mediating role of entrepreneurial
bricolage (EB) in the relationship between EO and corporate performance. Furthermore,
very few studies have put EB and opportunity identification (OI) under the same framework
to investigate the reason for the impact of EO on corporate performance. Thus, this study
focuses on the roles that EB and opportunity recognition play in the relationship between
EO and NVP.
Moreover, existing studies seldom discuss the relationship between EO and corporate
performance in the context of a dynamic environment. Wiklund and Shepherd (2005)
analyzed the moderating mechanism of dynamic environment and affirmed the positive
significance of dynamic environment. At present, the world economy is facing uncertainties
brought by COVID-19 outbreak and international relations. At the same time, to promote
economic growth and improve national competitiveness, China implemented a series of
measures to foster the world’s first-class enterprise. Therefore, both opportunities and
challenges exist in the development of Chinese enterprises. In the complex dynamic
environment, how do new ventures improve their performance? In this paper, we argue that
new ventures, being young and inherently vulnerable, must effectively integrate resources
and identify opportunities when facing a dynamic external environment. Therefore, we
examine the moderating mechanism of the dynamic environment on EO and corporate
performance. Different from Wiklund and Shepherd (2005), we explore the moderating effect
of dynamic environment from the two mediating mechanisms of EB and OI. We find that
the moderating effects of dynamic environment are mainly reflected in its moderating
mechanism for OI. This is the further refinement and development of the moderating
mechanism dynamic environment.
This study proposes that new ventures driven by entrepreneurship orientation can
perform at a high level in a dynamic environment by following two paths. First, new
ventures can overcome immediate difficulties by readily deploying available resources
through EB. Second, new ventures can benefit by accurately identifying and developing
valuable business opportunities. The former can help enterprises solve resource problems
rapidly, while the latter can help enterprises identify and develop new customers and
markets and efficiently locate and transform high-value business opportunities and, hence,
improve their performance.
In addition Section 1, our study also includes the following parts. Section 2 is the
theoretical basis and hypotheses, in which we put forward four hypotheses to be tested.
Section 3 is the method introduction, including data collection process and variable
measurement. In Section 4, the four hypotheses put forward in Section 2 are tested and
analyzed. In Section 5, we give the main research conclusions.

2. Theoretical basis and hypotheses

2.1 Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance
EO is a firm-level strategic positioning which encompasses three main attributes – innovativeness
(IN), proactiveness (PR) and risk-taking (RT). These attributes are embodied in the firm’s decision-
making style, decision-making methods and specific behavior (Miller, 1983; Covin and Slevin,
1991; Covin and Lumpkin, 2011). IN refers to the extent to which an enterprise is committed
toward creative activities and processes, as manifested in its acceptance, recognition and support
CMS of emerging ideas and technologies (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, 2001; Dess and Lumpkin, 2005). PR
is the forward-looking characteristic of enterprises, which is manifested in their pioneering attitude
and actions, when they seek new opportunities (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001). RT refers to the
tendency of an enterprise to make decisions quickly and act boldly when the results of
entrepreneurial activities are uncertain (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001; Dess and Lumpkin, 2005).
The performance of a new venture is both a measure of the effectiveness of its
entrepreneurial activities and its final outcome. To some extent, it reflects the achievements
of the venture’s goals and the overall survival and growth rates of new ventures (Laskovaia
et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2017; Rutherford et al., 2012). Many studies have explored and tested
the relationship between EO as well as NVP; meanwhile, a positive impact on NVP from EO
has been manifested (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Wiklund and
Shepherd, 2005). Zahra and Covin (1995) tracked the entrepreneurial action and performance
of enterprises for many years and, using empirical data, they verified the positive impact of
EO on enterprise performance. Their research shows that the EO plays an increasingly
significant role in improving corporate performance over time, and hence EO has a positive
effect on long-term as well as short-term financial performance. In a study of small
enterprises, Wiklund and Shepherd (2005) tracked 413 Swedish companies and verified the
positive effect of EO on the performance of small enterprises.
Researchers have explained the positive impact of EO on NVP from different
perspectives. For example, Dess and Lumpkin (2005) explained this relationship in terms of
the three dimensions of EO, including IN, PR and RT. IN can help enterprises obtain
resources and competitive advantages (Chen, 2018) and that PR can lead enterprises to
strike quickly, preemptively winning the leading position in new market areas and
performing at a high level. RT is conducive to enterprises achieving growth and better
performance, by investing in projects with long-term benefits. In addition to the internal
dimensions of EO, researchers have also introduced external variables to explain the impact
of EO on NVP. For example, enterprises with EO are better at learning and have better
external relations (An et al., 2014; Yao et al., 2018). These studies show that EO can promote
NVP, but this impact can be realized in different ways. We focus on the roles of EB,
opportunity recognition and the important ways in which EO affects NVP in a dynamic
external environment.

2.2 Mediating role of entrepreneurial bricolage

Entrepreneurship orientation reflects the strategic positioning of an enterprise, including the
trial of new technologies, exploration of advanced actions and RT (Covin and Slevin, 1989).
It refers to the process of solving new problems and opportunities by organizing those
resources that are on hand and taking immediate and quick actions (Baker and Nelson,
2005). It comprises three core factors: the use of resources on hand, immediate action and
purposeful reorganization of resources. EB is a concept that describes how enterprises act.
Salunke et al. (2013) believe that EB is driven mainly by EO. The IN of EO makes enterprises
more likely to break with convention and find new ways to solve problems (Beckett, 2016).
The sense of leading action in EO enables entrepreneurs to quickly deploy resources after
discovering and identifying problems and on this basis to piece together entrepreneurial
resources (Baker and Nelson, 2005). EB helps enterprises seize new opportunities and
dispense outdated codes of conduct (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005). Driven by their EO and the
propensity of RT, new ventures are more likely to actively promote bricolage behavior,
despite its inherent uncertainty. RT is conducive to reducing compliance with old rules,
processes and practices in the process of organizing resources (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). To
sum up, EO is an important driver of EB. It helps new ventures maintain sensitivity to new
things and opportunities and promotes EB activities through advanced actions and RT Impact of
(Zhu, 2015). Therefore, this study proposes that EO has a positive effect on EB. entrepreneurial
Previous studies propose that EB can provide an important way to overcome the
resource constraints that inhibit new ventures, because it can help enterprises take up and
orientation
integrate available resources, break through resource constraints and thus help them gain
market opportunities and profits (Senyard et al., 2010; Mishra, 2017). In short, EB refers to
the recombination of the existing resources by entrepreneurs to develop new opportunities
and solve new problems in the context of resource scarcity (Salunke et al., 2013). In the
process, enterprises can create value through EB and make good use of the resources they
have at hand (Baker and Nelson, 2005), enabling new ventures to make profits at low cost
and improve their performance (Senyard et al., 2010). Therefore, this study also proposes
that EB has a positive effect on NVP.
Thus far, the relationship between EB, EO and NVP has been clarified. Because new
ventures carry out entrepreneurial activities within resource constraints (Elfring and
Hulsink, 2003), those with an EO must continuously integrate resources to complete their
entrepreneurial activities (Baker and Nelson, 2005). As an effective way to integrate
resources, bricolage is used by new ventures with an EO, thereby promoting business
performance. This study therefore proposes the following hypothesis.

H1. Entrepreneurial orientation significantly promotes new venture performance and

entrepreneurial bricolage plays a mediating role.

2.3 Mediating role of entrepreneurial opportunity identification

OI can be defined as the cognitive process (or processes) through which individuals identify
an opportunity. Entrepreneurial OI occurs when entrepreneurs facing a variety of stimuli or
specific events recognize a business opportunity (Wang et al., 2019). OI has been described
as the core feature of entrepreneurial activities (Zhang and Hu, 2013). Successful
entrepreneurial activities begin by recognizing high-quality opportunities. In a dynamic
environment, with increasingly fierce market competition and rapid changes in market
demand, accurate identification of entrepreneurial opportunities is the key to the survival
and development of new ventures (Guo et al., 2016). EO can play an important role in OI (Sun
and Ding, 2018). Driven by EO, new ventures are more likely to create and use new methods,
products, services, technologies and organizational methods (Rivas and Wu, 2019). In
addition, obtaining new knowledge or valuable information ahead of other enterprises,
especially the discovery of subversive technologies, is more helpful for startups to identify
potential entrepreneurial opportunities (Song et al., 2017). Studies have also found that new
ventures habituated to taking risks can carry out entrepreneurial activities and collect
entrepreneurial information across a wider range. Hence, they can more accurately identify
and judge entrepreneurial opportunities (Covin and Lumpkin, 2011). This is also the process
of OI where, driven by EO, enterprises identify and develop entrepreneurial opportunities
more accurately in the organization, environment or markets through innovation, PR and
RT. Therefore, this study suggests that EO has a positive effect on enterprises’ OI ability.
Entrepreneurial opportunities often contain potential market value and can generate
sustainable profits (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Therefore, there is often a close
relationship between entrepreneurial opportunities and corporate performance and they
become the core elements of corporate performance improvement (Wu et al., 2020).
Opportunity recognition is important for new ventures wanting to gain competitive
advantages and perform at a high level (Emontspool and Servais, 2017). Such enterprises
must recognize opportunity whether it arises from changes in policy, technology or the
CMS market environment. Through the internal transmission and transformation of information, such
enterprises can identify and use opportunities (An et al., 2018) to produce new products, or
introduce other forms of innovation and perform at a high level. Studies have also confirmed the
importance of entrepreneurial OI to corporate performance from different perspectives. Benner and
Tushman (2003) found that exploratory OI can enable new ventures to acquire new knowledge,
cultivate new products, enhance their environmental adaptability and competitiveness and then
improve the performance of new product development. Mostafiz et al. (2020) studied the impact of
international entrepreneurial OI on the performance of export companies and found that it will
strengthen the role of international entrepreneurial ability in promoting corporate performance.
Therefore, we also propose that OI has a positive effect on NVP.
So far, the relationship between NVP and both opportunity recognition and EO has been
discussed. Because identifying potential opportunities and creating value based on them is
the key to the survival and development of new ventures, these new ventures with an EO
will constantly seek, identify and seize new opportunities to enhance their competitiveness
and generate profits. Recently, a few studies have explored the mediating mechanism of OI
in EO and new ventures’ performance. For example, based on the data of small and medium-
sized enterprises in Pakistan, Anwar et al. (2021) found that EO can improve corporate
performance by promoting entrepreneurial OI. Of course, entrepreneurial OI only plays a
partial mediating effect. Based on the above analysis and the existing empirical research
experience, we put forward the following hypothesis:

H2. Opportunity identification plays a mediating role between entrepreneurial

orientation and new venture performance.

2.4 Moderating role of environmental dynamics

ED is defined as the frequency of environmental change (Dess and Brard, 1984; Priem et al.,
1995). It is characterized by the absence of fixed pathways to follow and considerable
uncertainty in the operation and development of enterprises (Jahanshahi and Brem, 2020). In
such a context, enterprises that can better deal with ED will perform better. As mentioned
above, EB can help new ventures cope better with a dynamic environment, which can lead to
instability of resource supply. However, EB means that enterprises can continuously
integrate new resources creatively to meet new challenges, thus mitigating any problems
caused by ED. EB in a dynamic environment can also bring competitive advantages to new
ventures. Specifically, large enterprises are more capable in obtaining resources and
controlling the market when the external environment, market and industry competition are
relatively stable and changes in customer demand are not significant (Kreiser et al., 2010). In
such a stable environment, new ventures are less capable to develop new market areas or
cope with market competition through bricolage because mature competitors can more
readily integrate resources and respond more quickly and, thus, retain their market position.
However, when operating in an uncertain and turbulent environment, mature or large
enterprises find it difficult to quickly adapt their resource structure and organizational
structure to external changes. They are often too big to take timely action (Zahra and
George, 2002). New ventures that make good use of bricolage, however, show great
adaptability and flexibility in developing their markets and transforming their organization.
Thus, in a dynamic environment, they can seize new opportunities and substantially
improve their performance. This study therefore proposes the following hypothesis:
 H3. Environmental dynamics moderate the relationship between entrepreneurial Impact of
bricolage (EB) and new venture performance (NVP). Specifically, compared with a entrepreneurial
stable environment, EB has a greater impact on NVP in a dynamic environment.
orientation
The first step in enterprise OI is the perception of unmet demands and available, yet
undeveloped, resources (Ardichvili et al., 2003). Once an opportunity is successfully
identified and exploited, enterprise performance will improve, but this process will be
greatly affected by the external environment. Changes in the relationships between
environmental factors can generate new demands in a dynamic environment, whereas
customer demands and market structures are stable in an unchanging environment, which
is not conducive to the generation of new demands and opportunities (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000). A dynamic environment, however, enables new ventures to improve
their performance by seizing entrepreneurial opportunities. New ventures benefit more than
mature or large enterprises from a dynamic environment that brings greater rewards to
rapid decision-making, flexible organization of resources and rapid delivery of products or
services (Li et al., 2008). Mature or large enterprises find it more time-consuming and labor-
intensive to benefit from fleeting opportunities. However, in a stable environment, large
enterprises can transfer and organize resources more quickly, so they are more competitive in
the face of new opportunities (Mitchell and Shepherd, 2010). Therefore, in a stable environment,
even if new ventures successfully identify opportunities, they find it more difficult to compete
with large enterprises. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:

H4. Environmental dynamics moderate the relationship between opportunity

identification (OI) and new venture performance (NVP). Specifically, compared with
a stable environment, OI has a greater impact on NVP in a dynamic environment
than on mature, large enterprises.
The conceptual framework of the model is shown in Figure 1.

3. Methods
3.1 Participants and procedure
This study takes new ventures as its research subject and their managers as the participants
of the survey questionnaire. Following Biggadike (1976) and Wang et al. (2021), we selected
enterprises that had been established for no more than eight years as representatives of new
ventures. We randomly contact new ventures in different provinces through entrepreneurial
associations or MBA centers in different provinces across the country to complete the
questionnaire. Therefore, our sample selection is random. The survey was conducted using

Figure 1.
Theoretical model
CMS paper or electronic questionnaires and was filled out by the founders or managers of each
new venture. We ensured validity as follows. First, at the beginning of the questionnaire, we
once again emphasized that the survey results are only used for academic research and the
personal privacy of participants will be protected. Second, we informed participants that a
valid filled questionnaire would receive monetary compensation. Third, we set up test items
to assess whether participants input the answers carefully. For example, in certain
questions, we asked the participants to choose a specified option. If they chose the wrong
one, it meant that they did not answer the question carefully and the questionnaire was
regarded as invalid. Of the 350 questionnaires distributed, 286 questionnaires were received,
with a return rate of 82%. After excluding 12 questionnaires for incorrect responses and
missing data, 274 valid questionnaires remained.
Descriptive statistics of the sample are presented in Table 1. Of the surveyed enterprises,
35.8% had operated for less than two years, while nearly half (47.8%) of the surveyed enterprises
had fewer than 50 employees. These features indicate that the surveyed enterprises, in their age
and size, are typical of new ventures. The sample comprises enterprises from 16 industries that,
from the traditional agriculture, manufacturing, service industry, to the emerging high-tech
industry, covering most Chinese industries. According to the index ranking of provinces,
municipalities and autonomous regions in the China Mass Entrepreneurship Index (MEI-2018),
eight provinces and municipalities were selected as the research objects. Because the provinces
and cities in the upstream region (1–10) are typical in entrepreneurship, we have selected four
provinces and cities in the upstream region, namely, Shanghai, Guangdong, Zhejiang and Beijing.
In the midstream region, two provinces and cities are selected, namely, Chongqing and Liaoning
Provinces. In the downstream region, two provinces are selected, namely, Jilin and Gansu
Provinces. Therefore, the sample covers not only cities and provinces with relatively active
entrepreneurship, but also provinces and cities with weak entrepreneurial activity, which has
certain randomness characteristics. This ensures that the results are generalizable. Descriptive
statistics of the survey participants are presented in Table 2.

3.2 Variable measurement

To ensure the reliability and validity of the measurement tools, this study makes use of
scales derived from previous empirical studies. The items for each scale are presented in the
Appendix. Five-point Likert scales are used (1 = no match, 5 = complete match).
3.2.1 Entrepreneurial orientation. This study uses Zhu’s (2015) Chinese version of the
scale originally developed by Covin and Slevin (1989) to measure the variable of EO. The
scale comprises nine items across three dimensions, namely, IN, PR and RT. The Cronbach’s

Sample characteristics Sample size Proportion (%)

Operation life
#2years 98 35.8
3–4 years 70 25.5
5–6 years 76 27.7
7–8 years 30 10.9
Number of employees
Table 1. #50 people 131 47.8
Descriptive statistics 51–100 people 83 30.3
of surveyed 101–200 people 46 16.8
enterprises >200 people 14 5.1
Sample characteristics Sample size Proportion (%)
Impact of
entrepreneurial
Gender orientation
Male 188 68.6
Female 86 31.4
Age
#25 years old 4 1.5
26–30 years old 52 19.0
31–35 years old 54 19.7
36–40 years old 78 28.5
41–45 years old 44 16.1

46 years old 42 15.3
Education
Middle school or below 4 1.5
High school or technical secondary school 28 10.2
College or bachelor degree 142 51.8
Master degree or above 100 36.5
Previous entrepreneurial experience Table 2.
Experience 120 43.8 Descriptive statistics
No experience 154 56.2 of participants

alphas for EO, IN, PR and RT are 0.888, 0.826, 0.856 and 0.804, respectively, which suggests
that the scales have a high level of reliability.
3.2.2 Entrepreneurial bricolage. This study uses the scale developed by Senyard et al.
(2009), comprising eight items that measure the variable of EB. The Cronbach’s alpha for EB
is 0.907, suggesting high reliability.
3.2.3 Opportunity identification. This study uses the three-item scale used by An et al.
(2018) to measure the variable of OI. The Cronbach’s alpha for OI is 0.839, which suggests
high reliability.
3.2.4 Environmental dynamics. This study uses six items which are derived from the
scale developed by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) to measure the variable of ED. The Cronbach’s
alpha for ED was 0.835, suggesting high reliability.
3.2.5 New venture performance. This study uses Chen’s (2017) Chinese version of the scale
originally developed by Li and Atuahene-Gima (2002), which includes ten items to measure the
variable of NVP. The Cronbach’s alpha for NVP is 0.865, suggesting high reliability.
3.2.6 Control variables. At the enterprise level, following Donbesuur et al. (2020) and
Sedziniauskiene and Sekliuckiene (2020), we take the operation life (OP) and the number of
employees (NE) of the new ventures as the control variables. At the participant level, we also
take the age, gender, education and previous entrepreneurial experience (PE) of the surveyed
participant as the control variables. Gender (male = 1, female = 0) and PE (experience = 1,
no experience = 0) were dummy coded.

4. Results
4.1 Confirmatory factor analysis
We conduct confirmatory factor analysis using Amos 22.0 to examine the structural validity of
our measures. The model fit indices show that the structural validity of the five-factor model is
good ( x 2 = 615.595, df = 584, x 2/df = 1.054, root mean square error of approximation = 0.014,
goodness of fit index = 0.916, comparative fit index = 0.995, incremental fit index = 0.995). As
shown in Table 3, the structural validities of the comparative models, which are limited to one to
CMS Model x2 df x 2/df RMSEA GFI CFI IFI

Five-factor model 615.595 584 1.054 0.014 0.916 0.995 0.995

Four-factor model 3,295.475 588 5.605 0.129 0.568 0.597 0.599
Three-factor model 3,456.279 591 5.848 0.128 0.558 0.573 0.576
Two-factor model 3,670.901 593 6.190 0.129 0.538 0.542 0.544
One-factor model 3,993.962 594 6.724 0.114 0.508 0.494 0.496

Notes: N = 274; five-factor model: entrepreneurial orientation, new venture performance, entrepreneurial
bricolage, opportunity identification and environmental dynamics; four-factor model: entrepreneurial orientation,
new venture performance, entrepreneurial bricolage and opportunity identification þ environmental dynamics;
three-factor model: entrepreneurial orientation, new venture performance and entrepreneurial bricolage þ
opportunity identification þ environmental dynamics; two-factor model: entrepreneurial orientation and new
venture performance þ entrepreneurial bricolage þ opportunity identification þ environmental dynamics; one-
Table 3. factor model: entrepreneurial orientation þ new venture performance þ entrepreneurial bricolage þ opportunity
Results of CFA identification þ environmental dynamics

four factors, are poorer than the five-factor model. In addition, the one-factor model, in which all
items load on a single factor, has relatively poor fits (x 2 = 3,993.962, df = 594, x 2/df = 6.724,
RMSEA = 0.114, GFI = 0.508, CFI = 0.494, IFI = 0.496), which suggests that common method
variance is not a problem in the present study (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

4.2 Descriptive statistics, correlations and discriminate validity

We use the correlation coefficient matrix of all constructs to examine discriminant validity.
The means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables are reported in Table 4.
The results indicate that the correlation relationships of all variables are significant, except
for the correlation between OI and ED. Meanwhile, the correlation coefficients of related
variables are smaller than the square root of the corresponding average variable extracted
on the diagonal. This proves that the constructs have good discrimination validity.

4.3 Testing of hypotheses

We first use hierarchical linear regression to examine the mediating effects (Models 1–4 in
Table 5). The results using Model 1 show that EO is positively related to NVP ( b = 0.632,
p < 0.01). This suggests that the main effect of EO on NVP is verified, which is consistent
with previous studies. Model 2 shows that EO is positively related to EB ( b = 0.511, p <
0.01). Therefore, H1 is verified. In addition, as shown in Model 3, EO is also positively
related to OI ( b = 0.520, p < 0.01), which verifies H4. From Model 4, we find that both EB
( b = 0.220, p < 0.01) and OI ( b = 0.264, p < 0.01) are positively related to NVP, supporting

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
a
1. EO 3.36 0.65 0.783
2. EB 3.82 0.64 0.543** 0.772 a
3. OI 3.20 0.87 0.525** 0.502** 0.810 a
4. ED 3.21 0.72 0.262** 0.202** 0.122 0.731 a
5. NVP 3.29 0.67 0.437** 0.443** 0.463** 0.187* 0.779 a
Table 4.
Descriptive statistics Notes: aSquare root of the AVE; the triangular data in the matrix is the Pearson correlation coefficient
and correlations between variables; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Impact of
Variables NVP EB OI NVP NVP NVP entrepreneurial
orientation
OP 0.156** 0.063 0.029 0.150** 0.154** 0.149**
NE 0.084 0.027 0.312** 0.004 0.001 0.004
Gender 0.017 0.097 0.030 0.012 0.027 0.029
Age 0.049 0.146** 0.029 0.074 0.071 0.070
Education 0.033 0.050 0.089 0.068 0.059 0.066
PE 0.122 0.021 0.307** 0.036 0.039 0.039
EO 0.420** 0.511** 0.520** 0.170** 0.153* 0.157*
EB 0.220** 0.215** 0.228**
OI 0.264** 0.266** 0.242**
ED 0.070 0.077
ED  EB 0.070
ED  OI 0.131*
R2 0.231 0.335 0.356 0.332 0.336 0.355
Adj. R2 0.211 0.318 0.339 0.309 0.311 0.325
DR2 0.170a 0.252 a 0.260a 0.271a 0.275a 0.019b Table 5.
F 11.413** 19.185** 20.983** 14.589** 13.328** 13.445** Hierarchical linear
Notes: N = 274; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; the control variables are shown in italics; aDR2 is caused by the focal regression results of
variable(s) on the basis of control variables; bDR2 is caused by the interactions in Model 6 on the basis of meditating and
Model 5 moderating effects

H2 and H4. These results suggest that EB and OI mediate the positive effect of EO on NVP.
H3 and H6 are verified.
We also use hierarchical linear regression to examine the moderating effects (Model 5
and Model 6 in Table 5). As shown in Model 6, the interactive item of ED  EB is not
significantly related to NVP ( b = 0.070, p > 0.05). This suggests that ED does not
moderate the effect of EB on NVP. H7 was not verified. However, the interactive item of
ED  OI is significantly and positively related to NVP ( b = 0.131, p < 0.05). This suggests
that ED positively moderate the effect of OI on NVP. H8 is verified. The results suggest that
ED moderates the effect of OI on NVP but does not moderate the effect of EB on NVP. To
clarify the moderating effects more clearly, we use bootstrapping procedures to conduct a
simple slope test. As shown in Table 6, regardless of the low ED (SD), medium ED (Mean),
or high ED (þSD) OI has a significant and positive impact on NVP (the 95% confidence
intervals do not include 0). The simple slope test shown in Figure 2 indicates that the

Path Value of moderator (ED) Effect SE BootLLCI BootULCI

EB ! NVP 2.4902 (SD) 0.4290 0.0708 0.2896 0.5684

3.2127 (Mean) 0.4445 0.0584 0.3296 0.5594
3.9353 (þSD) 0.4600 0.0809 0.3008 0.6193
OI ! NVP 2.4902 (SD) 0.2698 0.0546 0.1923 0.4074
3.2127 (Mean) 0.3404 0.0414 0.2590 0.4218
3.9353 (þSD) 0.3989 0.0511 0.2804 0.4815

Notes: n = 274, bootstrapping random sampling 5,000 times; BootLLCI means the lower level of 95% Table 6.
confidence interval, BootULCI means the upper level of 95% confidence interval. If the 95% confidence Bootstrap results of
interval does not include 0, it means the effect is significant in 95% level moderating effects
CMS

Figure 2.
Simple slope test for
OI

moderating effect of ED between OI and NVP is positively significant. Specifically, OI has a

larger effect on NVP when the level of ED is higher than when it is lower.
With respect to why the predicted moderating effect of ED between EB on NVP does not
manifest, we try to explain it through the following logic. As shown in Table 6, the simple
slope analysis shows that the impact of EB on the NVP is relatively stable and can
significantly improve NVP, whether the external environment is dynamic or not. This
conclusion suggests that compared to OI, EB is a more robust factor in elevating NVP. Even
when the external environment is relatively stable, it will still play a very important role.

5. Conclusions
Against the background of ED, this study examines the impact of EO on NVP from the
perspectives of EB and opportunity recognition. The empirical research conclusions are as
follows:
 EB mediates the positive impact of EO on NVP. Specifically, EO can promote the EB
behavior of enterprises and improve NVP.
 OI mediates the positive impact of EO on NVP. Specifically, EO can promote OI and
improve NVP.
 ED positively moderate the relationship between OI and NVP; that is, the stronger
the environment dynamics, the greater the impact of OI on NVP.
 The moderating effect of ED on the relationship between EB and NVP is not
significant; that is, regardless of ED, EB has a stable impact on NVP.

Previous studies on the relationship between EO and NVP have mainly been conducted
from the perspective of competence and social networks to test, for example, the mediating
roles of entrepreneurial competence, executive competence or relationship utilization (An
et al., 2014; Yao et al., 2018). This study argues that EB and OI can better explain the
relationship between EO and NVP facing a dynamic external environment and empirically
verifies the role of both factors. This discovery not only allows us to look at the relationship
between EO and NVP from a new perspective, but also has practical implications for the
development of new ventures. Specifically, it shows that EB can help startups integrate and
use new resources to complete tasks that they have previously been unable to complete,
which can greatly enhance their flexibility. In addition, this research shows that enterprises
can achieve sustainable development not only by focusing on solving the problem of
resource constraints through entrepreneurship bricolage, but also by constantly discovering Impact of
new opportunities. entrepreneurial
Environment dynamics is an important feature of this study. The empirical results show that
ED do not have a significant moderating effect on the impact of EB on NVP. The results of simple
orientation
slope analysis show that the impact of EB on NVP is relatively stable and can significantly
improve NVP, whether the external environment is dynamic or not. The implication for
managers of new ventures is that entrepreneurship bricolage can significantly improve the
performance of their business and should be thoroughly implemented. Consistent with our
hypotheses, it is found that ED positively moderate the impact of OI on NVP. This shows that the
more dynamic the environment, the more attention should be paid to the role of OI.
This study explains the relationship between EO and NVP from the perspectives of “flexible
solutions to current problems” and “discovering and grasping potential new opportunities” by
highlighting the roles of EB and entrepreneurial OI, both of which are, innovatively, shown to
make theoretical contributions. This study helps scholars reach a consensus on the effect and
mechanism of EO on NVP. At the same time, the conclusion also discusses the impact of the
dynamic environment on the relationship between EO and performance, which enriches and
expands the existing research results. Existing literature has discussed the effect and mechanism
of EO on NVP, but few studies have discussed the moderating effect of dynamic environment, let
alone the moderating effect of dynamic environment on the relationship between EB, OI and
NVP. Our research makes up for this defect of the existing research.
This study has limitations. First, it does not consider the impact of differences between
industries. The importance of EB and OI may differ between industries. In future research, we
will collect more samples of specific industries to verify whether the model is applicable to
different industries. Second, the data obtained by the survey method are mainly cross-sectional.
The verification of causal relationships can be verified only by the degree of fit of the
theoretical hypotheses and empirical data. Therefore, it cannot control for all kinds of
confounding variables nor eliminate the adverse effects of causal relationships. Although this is
a common problem in research conducted using questionnaires, we will try to avoid it in future
research by using a variety of research methods and a more sophisticated research design.

References
Amankwah-Amoah, J., Danso, A. and Adomako, S. (2019), “Entrepreneurial orientation, environmental
sustainability and new venture performance: does stakeholder integration matter?”, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 79-87.
An, S., Cai, L. and Shan, B. (2014), “New ventures’ entrepreneurial orientation, connectionutilization and
performance”, Science Research Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 66-74.
An, W., Zhao, X., Cao, Z., Zhang, J. and Liu, H. (2018), “How bricolage drives corporate
entrepreneurship: the roles of opportunity identification and learning orientation”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 49-65.
Anwar, M., Clauss, T. and Issah, W.B. (2021), “Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture
performance in emerging markets: the mediating role of opportunity recognition”, Review of
Managerial Science, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1007/s11846-021-00457-w.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R.N. and Ray, S. (2003), “A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification
and development”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 105-123.
Baker, T. and Nelson, R.E. (2005), “Creating something from nothing: resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 329-366.
Beckett, R.C. (2016), “Entrepreneurial bricolage developing recipes to support innovation”,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 1-17.
CMS Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), “Exploitation, exploration and process management: the
productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 238-256.
Biggadike, E.R. (1976), Corporate Diversification: Entry, Strategy and Performance, Division of
Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston.
Chen, B. (2017), “Strategy formation, entrepreneurial learning and new venture performance”, Foreign
Economics and Management, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 3-15.
Chen, C. (2018), “Developing a model for supply chain agility and innovativeness to enhance firms’
competitive advantage”, Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 1511-1534.
Covin, J.G. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2011), “Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: reflections on a
needed construct”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 855-872.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Dai, S. and Taube, M. (2020), “The long tail thesis: conceptualizing China’s entrepreneurial practices in
fintech and electric vehicles”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 433-454.
Dess, G.G. and Brard, D.W. (1984), “Dimensions of organizational task environments”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 52-73.
Dess, G.G. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2005), “The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating
effective corporate entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 147-156.
Donbesuur, F., Boso, N. and Hultman, M. (2020), “The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on new
venture performance: contingency roles of entrepreneurial actions”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 118, pp. 150-161.
Elfring, T. and Hulsink, W. (2003), “Networks in entrepreneurship: the case of high-technology firms”,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 409-422.
Emontspool, J. and Servais, P. (2017), “Cross-border entrepreneurship in a global world: a critical
reconceptualisation”, European Journal of International Management, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 262-279.
Fuentes-Fuentes, M.D., Bojica, A.M. and Ruiz-Arroyo, M. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation and
knowledge acquisition: effects on performance in the specific context of women-owned firms”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 695-717.
Gu, Y. and Su, D. (2018), “Innovation orientations, external partnerships and start-ups’ performance of
low-carbon ventures”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 194, pp. 98-107.
Guo, H., Su, Z. and Ahlstrom, D. (2016), “Business model innovation: the effects of exploratory
orientation, opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial bricolage in an emerging economy”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 533-549.
Jahanshahi, A.A. and Brem, A. (2020), “Entrepreneurs in post-sanctions Iran: innovation or imitation
under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 531-551.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 53-70.
Kashif, M. and Naqvi, S. (2020), “Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic”, Annals of Abbasi
Shaheed Hospital and Karachi Medical & Dental College, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 67-68.
Khattak, M.S. and Ullah, R. (2021), “The role of entrepreneurial orientation in tangible and intangible
resource acquisition and new venture growth”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 42
No. 6, pp. 1619-1637.
Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D., Dickson, P. and Weaver, M.K. (2010), “Cultural influences on Impact of
entrepreneurial orientation: the impact of national culture on risk taking and proactiveness in
SMEs”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 959-983.
entrepreneurial
Laskovaia, A., Shirokova, G. and Morris, M.H. (2017), “National culture, effectuation and new venture
orientation
performance: global evidence from student entrepreneurs”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 49
No. 3, pp. 1-23.
Li, C., Ashraf, S.F., Shahzad, F., Bashir, I., Murad, M., Syed, N. and Riaz, M. (2020), “Influence of
knowledge management practices on entrepreneurial and organizational performance: a
mediated-moderation model”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 1-15.
Li, H. and Atuahene-Gima, K. (2002), “The adoption of agency business activity, product innovation
and performance in Chinese technology ventures”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 469-490.
Li, J.J., Poppo, L. and Zhou, K.Z. (2008), “Do managerial ties in China always produce value?
Competition, uncertainty and domestic vs. foreign firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 383-400.
Li, Z., Li, J., Chen, J. and Vinig, T. (2020), “Innovation with Chinese characteristics: theory and practice”,
Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 325-333.
Lin, Y.H., Chen, C.J. and Lin, B.W. (2017), “The influence of strategic control and operational control on
new venture performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1042-1050.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking
it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-172.
Lumpkin, G.T. and 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, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 429-451.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T. and Zsomer, A. (2002), “The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market
orientation on business performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 18-32.
Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms”, Management Science,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 770-791.
Mishra, C.S. (2017), Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Springer International Publishing
AG, Cham, CH.
Mitchell, J.R. and Shepherd, D.A. (2010), “To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of
opportunity, and entrepreneurial action”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 138-154.
Mostafiz, M.I., Sambasivan, M. and Goh, S.K. (2020), “The performance of export manufacturing firms:
roles of international entrepreneurial capability and international opportunity recognition”,
International Journal of Emerging Markets, doi: 10.1108/IJOEM-09-2019-0732.
Onwe, C.C., Ogbo, A. and Ameh, A.A. (2020), “Entrepreneurial orientation and small firm performance:
the moderating role of environmental hostility”, Entrepreneurial Business and Economics
Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 67-84.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Presutti, M. and Odorici, V. (2018), “Linking entrepreneurial and market orientation to the SME’s
performance growth: the moderating role of entrepreneurial experience and networks”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 697-720.
Priem, R.L., Rasheed, A.M.A. and Kotulic, A.G. (1995), “Rationality in strategic decision processes,
environmental dynamism and firm performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 913-929.
CMS Rivas, A.A.A. and Wu, W. (2019), “A serial mediation model of effects of team innovation on new
product development success: revising the role of team strategic orientations”, Knowledge and
Process Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 262-276.
Rutherford, M.W., Coombes, S.M. and Mazzei, M.J. (2012), “The impact of bootstrapping on new venture
performance and survival: a longitudinal analysis”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 1-16.
Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J. and Mccoll-Kennedy, J.R. (2013), “Competing through service innovation:
the role of bricolage and entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1085-1097.
Sedziniauskiene, R. and Sekliuckiene, J. (2020), “Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture
performance: the moderating role of network types”, European Journal of International
Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 842-865.
Senyard, J.M., Baker, T. and Davidsson, P. (2009), “Entrepreneurial bricolage: towards systematic
empirical testing”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1-15.
Senyard, J.M., Baker, T. and Steffens, P.R. (2010), “Entrepreneurial bricolage and firm performance:
moderating effects of firm change and innovativeness”, Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Montreal, Canada.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-226.
Song, G., Min, S., Lee, S. and Seo, Y. (2017), “The effects of network reliance on opportunity recognition:
a moderated mediation model of knowledge acquisition and entrepreneurial orientation”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 117, pp. 98-107.
Song, L. and Jing, L. (2017), “Strategic orientation and performance of new ventures: empirical studies
based on entrepreneurial activities in China”, International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 989-1012.
Sun, Y. and Ding, Y. (2018), “Entrepreneurial orientation, external knowledge acquisition and
entrepreneurial opportunity recognition”, Research on Economics and Management, Vol. 39
No. 5, pp. 130-144.
Wang, Q., Aman, M.S. and Hooi, L.B. (2021), “Exploring talent cultivation of college student-athletes for
new ventures and entrepreneurial psychology of new venture entrepreneur”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 1-12.
Wang, W., Tang, Y., Liu, Y., Zheng, T., Liu, J. and Liu, H. (2019), “Can sense of opportunity
identification efficacy play a mediating role? Relationship between network embeddedness
and social entrepreneurial intention of university students”, Frontiers in Psychology,
Vol. 10, pp. 1-13.
Wei, J., Wang, D. and Liu, Y. (2018), “Towards an asymmetry-based view of Chinese firms’
technological catch-up”, Frontiers of Business Research in China, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a
configurational approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 71-91.
Wu, A., Song, D. and Yang, Y. (2020), “Untangling the effects of entrepreneurial opportunity on
the performance of peasant entrepreneurship: the moderating roles of entrepreneurial effort
and regional poverty level”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 32 Nos 1/2,
pp. 112-133.
Yao, M., Luan, F. and Cao, Q. (2018), “Entrepreneurial orientation and performance of new ventures:a
double mediation and moderated model”, South China Journal of Economics, Vol. 2018 No. 11,
pp. 83-102.
Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. (1995), “Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship
performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 43-58.
Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002), “Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization and extension”, Impact of
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-203.
entrepreneurial
Zhai, Y., Sun, W., Tsai, S., Wang, Z., Zhao, Y. and Chen, Q. (2018), “An empirical study on
entrepreneurial orientation, absorptive capacity and SMEs’ innovation performance: a
orientation
sustainable perspective”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Zhang, X. and Hu, L. (2013), “A study on the boundary conditions of the relationship between the
entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance”, Management World, Vol. 6,
pp. 99-110.
Zhu, Z. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial bricolage and new firm performance:
empirical research of a moderating effect model”, Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 27, pp. 57-65.

Appendix

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO)

Innovativeness
IN1: After the establishment of the enterprise, we have launched many new products or services.
IN2: After the establishment of the enterprise, we have made a significant adjustment to the
product or service.
IN3: Our company attaches great importance to R and D activities and pursues leading
innovations in technology or services.

Proactiveness
PR1: Our company will first initiate competitive action and then competitors will be forced to
respond.
PR2: Our company often takes the lead in introducing new products, management skills and
production technology in the industry.
PR3: In general, our company attaches great importance to introducing new products or ideas
before competitors.

Risk-taking
RT1: Our enterprise management team prefers high-risk projects with high returns.
RT1: In the face of uncertainty, our enterprises tend to take positive actions to seize
opportunities instead of being conservative.
RT1: To achieve business objectives, our enterprises tend to act more boldly and quickly.

Entrepreneurial bricolage (EB)

EB1: We are confident of our ability to find workable solutions to new challenges by using our
existing resources.
EB2: We gladly take on a broader range of challenges than others with our resources would be
able to.
EB3: We use any existing resource that appears useful to respond to a new problem or
opportunity.
EB4: We deal with new challenges by applying a combination of our existing resources and
inexpensive other resources available to us.
EB5: When dealing with new problems or opportunities, we take action by assuming that we
will find a workable solution.
EB6: By combining our existing resources, we take on a surprising variety of new challenges.
CMS EB7: When we face new challenges, we put together workable solutions from our existing
resources.
EB8: We combine resources to accomplish new challenges that the resources were not originally
intended to accomplish.

Opportunity identification (OI)

OI1: While going about day-to-day activities, we see potential new ideas (e.g. on new products, new
markets and new ways of organizing firms all around us).
OI2: We have a special alertness or sensitivity toward new opportunities (e.g. about new
products, new markets and new ways of organizing the firm).
OI3: Seeing potential new opportunities (as mentioned above) comes very naturally to us.

Environmental dynamics (ED)

ED1: The technology in our industry is changing rapidly.
ED2: In our kind of business, customers’ product preferences change quite a bit over time.
ED3: Our customers tend to look for new product all the time.
ED4: Competition in our industry is cutthroat.
ED5: It is very difficult to forecast where the technology in our industry will be in the next two
to three years.
ED6: New customers tend to have product-related needs that are different from those of our
existing customers.

New venture performance (NVP)

NVP1: Compared to our competitors, our company’s annual sales are at a very high level.
NVP2: Compared to our competitors, our company’s net profit is at a very high level.
NVP3: Compared to our competitors, our company’s return on investment (income/investment
cost) remains at a very high level.
NVP4: Compared to our competitors, our company’s return on assets (net profit/total assets)
remains at a very high level.
NVP5: Compared to our competitors, our company’s sales growth rate is very fast.
NVP6: Compared to our competitors, our company’s market share is growing rapidly.
NVP7: Compared with our competitors, our customers have a high evaluation of our products
and services.
NVP8: Compared to our competitors, the number of employees in our company is growing
rapidly.
NVP9: Compared to our competitors, our company is quick to respond to market changes.
NVP10: Compared to our competitors, our company’s overall reputation is very good.

Corresponding author
Siying Yang can be contacted at: yangsy@jlu.edu.cn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com