Performance Improve Qtrly - 2020 - Hina - Impact of Entrepreneurial Orientation On Firm Performance Through Organizational

Impact of Entrepreneurial
Orientation on Firm Performance

through Organizational
Learning: The Moderating Role
of Environmental Turbulence
Syeda Mahlaqa Hina, Gul Hassan, Mahwish Parveen and Syeda Arooj
Introduction
The given work is centered on the
F
irm Performance (FP) is one of the most effect of entrepreneurial orientation
on the firm performance mediated
researched topics in management. From orga- by organizational learning while the
nizations perspective, performance is the relationship of organizational learning
capacity of an organization to adapt to every one of and firm performance moderated by
environmental turbulence. It enhances
the four fundamental processes (inputs, outputs, the literature by differentiating perfor-
transformations, and feedback effects) relatives to mances of IT firms and by describing
its goal-oriented behavior (Evan, 2019; Rafique, how the five dimensions of EO impact
the firm performances through organi-
Mamun, & Suriya, 2014). zational learning. This study observed
A basic strategy of entrepreneurial orienta- the relationship between entrepre-
tion has appeared over the past 35 years depends neurial orientation and firm perfor-
mance through organizational learning
on Miller (1983) perception and as per observed in and moderated by environmental tur-
the Covin and Slevin (2016) mechanism. Collec- bulence. To achieve this aim, deductive
tively, five dimensions of EO often work together approach was adopted. The sample
size of the study was 250 respondents
to increase the firm performance (Dess & Lump- and data were collected from software
kin, 2005; Haider, Asad, & Fatima, 2017). However, houses of Pakistan. Data were collected
in an entrepreneurial approach, decision-making through questionnaires. The proposed
hypotheses analyzed by doing the SEM
is ruled by a dynamic search for innovative ideas, in Smart-PLS. The results demonstrate
chances, and dramatic bounds in aspect of the the mediating impact of organizational
uncertainty (Press, 2013). learning between the relationship of
entrepreneurial orientation and firm
Previous study on the project management shows performance. It was accepted and the
positive effect of the adoption of project management reasons being that exploration of new
approaches on firm performance (Dvir, Raz, & Shen- ideas will help the employee to more
learning that enhances their perfor-
har, 2003; Yean & Ling, 2009). After various study, it mance to achieve the project goals
is normally admitted that firms that operate entrepre- and objectives. The results also demon-
neurially perform more better results as compared to strate the moderating impact of envi-
ronmental turbulence between the
that organizations that do not operate entrepreneurially
77
P E R F O R M A N C E I M P R O V E M E N T Q U A R T E R L Y , 3 4 ( 1 ) P P. 7 7 – 1 0 4
© 2020 International Society for Performance Improvement.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/piq.21343
19378327, 2021, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/piq.21343 by Bahauddin Zakariya University, Wiley Online Library on [20/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
(Lumpkin, 2011; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996b; Rauch,
relationship of organizational learn- Wiklund, & Frese, 2009). Moreover, EO is related
ing and firm performance. The results
to positive performance gain in both short and long
indicate that the five dimensions of EO,
organizational learning, environmentalfirms over time, though performance gain gradu-
turbulence, and their influence on firm
ally decreases over time in short term organizations
performance. Managers can use these
(Gupta & Gupta, 2014). Liu, Luo, and Shi (2002)
results to monitor, control, and influ-
ence the performance of projects and observed the impact of entrepreneurial orientation
firm performance. The study is unique in increasing the competency of firms to improve a
in its scope and implications as the
focus is upon empirical investigation learning orientation.
of the entrepreneurial orientation and There is one other variable called environ-
organizational learning in the contextmental turbulence that can play key role in firm
of Asia focusing Pakistan. The original-
performance. Environmental Turbulence (ET)
ity of this study is that it undoes how
the five dimensions of EO impact the contains two dimensions named as Market Tur-
firm performance. Second, it shows bulence (MT) and Technological Turbulence (TT)
the moderated role of environmental
turbulence between OL and firm per- (Hanvanich & Hult, 2006). Market turbulence is
characterized as the rate of change in alignment
formance. This study fills a gap in the
literature by describing the organi- of clients and their preferences while technologi-
zational learning mediating the rela-
tionship of EO and firm performance cal turbulence is characterized as the amount of
and adds the argument on the results change related through items and procedures
relating the relationship between EO advancement in an organization in which an
and firm performance. The given work
is focused on the impact of entrepre- organization implants (Glazer, 1991; Jaworski &
Kohli, 1993). It has been discussed that the impact
neurial orientation on the firm perfor-
mance through organizational learning of EO on firm performance is less for the group
while using environmental turbulence
as a moderator. A deductive approach of organizations in highly turbulence environ-
was adopted in this study. The sample ment (Hanvanich & Hult, 2006; Jiménez-jiménez
size of the study was 250 respondents & Sanz-valle, 2011).
and data were collected through ques-
tionnaires from software houses of Firm performance is critically impacted by the
Pakistan. The anticipated hypotheses depth and broadness of management association.
analyzed by doing the SEM in Smart- In the field of management, many studies have
PLS. All hypotheses were accepted
and managers can use these results to focused on the financial (Golovkova, Eklof, Malova,
Podkorytova, & Golovkova, 2019) and non-
monitor, control, and influence the per-
formance of projects and their firm tofinancial firm performance (Black & Blair, 2004;
accomplish the project objectives and
Namada, Aosa, Awino, & Wainaina, 2014). In a
intentions. The study is exclusive in its
scope and implications as the empha- rapidly changing environment, firms perform bet-
sis is upon experimental research of ter by adopting EO. (Cui, Fan, Guo, & Fan, 2017).
the EO and OL in the context of Asia
especially Pakistan. The uniqueness ofAdditionally, the effect of entrepreneurial orien-
tation depends upon the organization orientation
this study is that it undoes how the five
dimensions of EO affect firm perfor- and ultimately it will lead toward the firm per-
mance through organizational learn-
ing in the presence of environmental formance (Gupta, Niranjan, & Markin, 2019).
turbulence. Also, it has been discussed that the positive link
among organizational learning and performance is
strong when environmental turbulence is relatively
high (Hanvanich & Hult, 2006). The current study puts three main
objectives:
EO-Performance via OL. ♦ examine the role of entrepreneurial orien-

♦To
Agitated and innovate environmental. tation on the firm performance.
78 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

♦♦ To examine the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on the firm
performance through organizational learning.
♦♦ To access the moderation perspective of environmental turbu-
lence between the relationship of organizational learning and firm
performance.
Rezaei, Ortt, Rezaei, and Ortt (2018) focused on only three dimen-
sions on EO and examine these effects on firm performance but he did
not focus on the other dimensions of EO. Therefore, this study has been
focused on five dimensions of EO. In past, firm performance has been
measured from the view of: project quality, project delivery, budget,
schedule performance, organizational level of competency, and prof-
itability which is not only criteria to measure it (Konchar, Sanvido, &
Members, 1998). In this study, firm performance measured by three
dimensions (profitability, growth, and efficiency) extracted from the lit-
erature (Lau & Sholihin, 2005).
There are studies done on the measures of project success and firm
performance and its relationship with the innovativeness and entrepre-
neurial orientation but those studies have not considered the impact of
entrepreneurial orientation along with the mediating effect of organiza-
tional learning upon the firm performance in software industry. Environ-
mental turbulence makes a gap between what the firms need to do and
what it has figured out how to do (Econ, 2018). Additionally, this study
extended the literature as a relationship of firm performance in software
industry with entrepreneurial orientation by considering the mediation of
organizational learning and moderation of environmental turbulence. This
study filled the gap recommended by (Dai et al., 2017; Rezaei et al., 2018).
Previously, some countries such as India, Swedish, and Singapore
have examined the impact of EO on firm performance in context of small
IT firms. While over the past few years, Pakistan’s software industry has
grown gradually, therefore, a study needed that explain EO-performance
in context of Pakistan. Thus, by ensuring the significance of EO from lit-
erature, the current study will try to give a guide line to acquire the maxi-
mum learning process and increase the firm performance. Furthermore,
the use of tools in this study is a very convenient addition to the body of
research in the Pakistani Software Industry context.
Theoretical Framework
First, we add definitions of EO and its five dimensions in this section.
After this, our thesis explains the review of literature on firm perfor-
mance, EO, OL, and environmental learning.
Entrepreneurial Orientation
In previous research, the concept of coordination toward entrepre-
neurial association has been set a plethora of labels with entrepreneurial
Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 79

orientation, proclivity, smartness, intensity as well as corporate entrepre-
neurship (Jennings & Kuratko, 1999; Peters & Kallmuenzer, 2015). Entre-
preneurial Orientation (EO) is “a corporation’s strategic attitude towards
entrepreneurship” (Anderson, Kreiser, & Donald, 2014 p.1579). Theoreti-
cally, EO is identified with basic strategies and practices for the improve-
ment of entrepreneurial activities and decisions plus the methods that
decision manufacturers use to increase the tenacity of their firms, upkeep
their vision as well as build reasonable benefits (Bernoster, Mukerjee, &
Thurik, 2020; Dai & Martens, 2012; Haider et al., 2017). Table 2 intro-
duces an inspection of the EO definitions advanced in past research.
Miller (1983) though about EO as a variable composed of three dif-
ferent dimensions: innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness that
must positively co-vary all together for an EO to be expressed. However,
Lumpkin and Dess (1996a) added more two dimensions in EO which are
named as: autonomy and aggressiveness.
Innovativeness involves organizations have to originate, enhance as
well as look for innovative opportunities. It includes an inclination to take
part in innovativeness and research through innovative work, Research,
and Development (R&D) (Al-Henzab, 2018; Rauch et al., 2009). The
dimension of risk-taking is very near to that of creativity and innovative-
ness including intrepid activities that task into the vague or the obliga-
tion of significant resources to unclear risks (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996b).
This dimension contains common risks, basic leadership chance, deci-
sion making risks, and business risks (Dai & Martens, 2012; Haider
et al., 2017).
Proactiveness is described as the firms’ leaning to be in front of chal-
lenges when introducing innovative items, services, or technologies. It
is identified with the ability to antedate and look for new opportunities
as well as act in expectation of future demands (Setiawan, Erdogan, &
Ogunlana, 2015; Taheri, Bititci, Gannon, & Cordina, 2019). Similarly,
another dimension, competitive aggressiveness is very close to proactive-
ness. Some researchers lean toward to compare these two theories (Covin
& Covin, 1990).
Nevertheless, some researchers see proactiveness as: “a response to
opportunities” and competitive aggressiveness as: “a reply to market coer-
cions” (Lyon, Lumpkin & Dess, 2000). And the fifth dimension of EO,
autonomy is described as self-determining action by individuals or a group
to convey an indication or vision to its completion, through the objective to
grow a mission (Hafeez, Noor, Shariff, & Lazim, 2012; Rauch et al., 2009).
Firm Performance
The discussion on performance is unconcluded. Many studies focus
family firm performance (Fattoum-guedri & Guedri, 2017; Stanley,
Hernández-linares, López-fernández, & Kellermanns, 2019), non-family
firm performance, and development of their topologies (Bau, Francesco
Chirico, & Pathak, 2018). This is especially basic on account of Firm Per-
formance (FP), one of the most significant variables and a variable used as

a dependent variable in different fields (Richard et al., 2009). In the field
of management, many studies have focused on the mid-level and top-
level management (Ahmed, Afza, & Ahmed, 2019; Fiegener, 2005; Floyd
& Wooldridge, 1997). Juhn, Bureau, Monti, and Harbor (2018) focus on
the firm performance by worker earnings growth. Many studies focus on
financial (Golovkova et al., 2019) while other focus on non-financial firm
performance (Bokhari & Khan, 2013).
As firm performance is multi-dimensional, the previous research
measured it from the view of: project quality, project delivery, budget
performance, schedule performance, organizational level of competency,
and profitability (Abdul, Khan, & Qianli, 2017; Konchar et al., 1998). A
study of relevant works demonstrates that not any identical definition
of term ‘performance’ occurs. Neely et al. (2003 p.80) defined the firm
performance as: “the process of quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness
of action” with organizational units. Rai, Patnayakuni, and Seth (2014)
defined the term performance as: “The degree to which a focal firm has
superior performance relative to its competition”.
Additionally, literature has been explained that firms should stabil-
ity cost and facility level performance regarding main time to meet cli-
ent issues (Vi, Kaminsky, & Simchi-Levi, 2000). Moreover, firms need
to accomplish market focused performance (Malhotra, Gosain, &
El Sawy, 2018) that incorporates customer relationship (“groves 1998.
pdf ”, n.d. pp. 51–64) and revenue growth (Kalwani & Narayandas, 1983,
pp. 1–16). Additionally, Pucik (2005) suggested that firm performance
represented by profitability, growth, market value, customer & employ-
ee’s satisfaction, environmental, and social performance.
Organizational Learning
Organizational Learning (OL) is one of the concepts with deficiency
of agreement in items of theoretical conceptualization. Many research-
ers have conceptualized OL differently as per the study interests. Argyris
and Schon (1978) and Metallinou (2018) proposed the OL in terms of
single loop and double loop learning but Lin and Sanders (2017) and
Lyles (1985) expressed it in terms of multi-level learning such as higher
and lower level learning. Cummings and Whorley (2009) defined as: “a
change process which enhances the ability of an organization to acquire
and develop new knowledge.”
OL is both a procedure as well as outcome. As a procedure, organi-
zational learning emphases on improving the results within organization
(Lyles, 1985; Zuo & Fisher, 2019) but as an outcome OL results into a
learning organization (Hussain, Gillani, & Kiani, 2018; Yawer, Soomro,
& Rashid, 2015; Zuo & Fisher, 2019). However, there are numerous defi-
nitions as well as approaches of OL (Clifford & Dixon, 2006; Slater &
Narver, 1995). Learning in different firms contexts have been considered as
“learning by doing” (Arrow, 1962), learning for development (Mirvis, 2006),
and employee learning at different levels of organization (Sitar, 2018; Teresa
Rebelo and Gomes, 2008) and learning of individual (Namada, 2018).

Individuals are critical in organization learning process. But, basi-
cally OL is not only the sum of each members learning. Intuition is the
fundamental learning process at the individual level. It is a preconscious
acknowledgment of the pattern, obligations, and responsibilities inher-
ent in individual stream of knowledge and experience (Juliana Mulaa
Namada, 2018; Weick, 2019). Group learning establishes interpretation
and integration. Integration is procedure of creating shared understand-
ing and taking composed activities by individuals while interpretation
is the procedure through which experiences are given meaning (Daft &
Weick, 1984).
Institutionalization is the way of learning that has happened by
individual and gathering into the organizations (Lane & White, 1999;
Namada, 2018). Environmental turbulence makes a gap between what the
firms need to do and what it has figured out how to do. The gap stimulates
the firm to oversee embedded and new learning that nourishes forward
through integration, intuition, and interpretation (Econ, 2017; Lane &
White, 1999).
Environmental Turbulence
Many researches explore the Environmental Turbulence (ET), Han-
vanich and Hult (2006) defined the ET as, environmental turbulence in
terms of magnitude of changes in the dimensions of significant variables
of the environment and eccentrics of future levels of those dimensions.
According to Tian & Xie (2019) and Khandwalla (1977), environmen-
tal turbulence is unpredictable, dynamic, inconsistent environment, and
expanding; it is an environment in which constituents are distinct by
change. Baburoglu (1988) examines this view of uncertainty, increased
complexity, dynamic and unexpected occurrence, while he specifically
highlight the transitional state of environments turbulence (Yang, Ma,
Zhao, Cater, & Arnold, 2018).
Moreover, a few studies decomposed environmental turbulence into
two dimensions: market turbulence (MT) and technological turbulence
(TT) (Droge, Calantone, & Harmancioglu, 2008; Hung & Chou, 2013).
Market turbulence is characterized by way of the degree of transforma-
tion in alignment of clients and their inclinations. In business sector with
high form of turbulence, generally organizations will take new clients
whose product desires are not quite same as those of current clients
(Hanvanich & Hult, 2006).
Technological turbulence is characterized as the rate of transforma-
tion related with products procedures technologies in a business in which
an organization set in (Moorman & Miner, 1997). Corporations with
great technological turbulence endure a higher rate of change in products
and procedures innovation than firms with low technological turbulence
(Slater & Narver, 1995). Consequently, organizations’ responsibility to
learning can support that they consistently expand their business process
and produce new ideas.

Model Formation and Hypotheses
First, in this section, we hypothesize on the relationship between the
variables. Then, we make a model.
Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance

Previous research has perceived the significance of Entrepreneur-
ial Orientation (EO) to the endurance and performance of firms. In an
entrepreneurial firm, the entrepreneur is the most significant individual,
having an excessive impact on the firm strategy and firm performance.
Rauch et al. (2009) examined that EO has positive impact on the firm
performance in his meta-analysis. This stem from the way that shorten-
ing items, plan of action, and business model life cycle make depending
on current schedule and strategies less gainful, while being innovative,
proactive, and risk-taking could help set up first-mover points of interest
and create better than expected returns (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005).
Moreover, Hiller and Hambrick (2005) suggested that managers’ char-
acteristics are not likely to impact the performance directly but indi-
rectly through planned choice of firms, and suggested that EO transmits
its influence on the firm performance. However, the hypothetical link
between EO and firm performance can be rapidly construed from the pre-
vious research. For instance, an inspiring body of literature proposed that
firms which pioneer the design and introduction of new items, new tech-
nology, or innovations which would be run of firms that practice EO, often
accomplish superior performance (Chaney, Devinney, & Winer, 2019).
To manage the inconsistent outcomes, researchers have called for
examination into firms’ internal and external features that could direct
the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm perfor-
mance (Michael J. Mapalala, 2018).
H1: Entrepreneurial orientation has significant impact on the firm

performance.
Entrepreneurial Orientation and Organizational Learning

Conscious and deliberate in nature, EO is worried about different
types of novelty (e. g., innovation, organizational renewal, and building up
new projects) and has its results for development, growth, organizational
survival, and performance (Kazanjian & Glynn, 2002). Dess et al. (2003)
report that entrepreneurship has a direct impact on the organizational
learning, which can be deliberated as mediator between the variables.
Entrepreneurial oriented organizations encourage innovation, cre-
ativity, imagination, collaboration, and negotiation (Fletcher & Wat-
son, 2007). Correspondingly, Nielsen & Bogner (1999) deliberate that
EO helps and supports organizational learning and learning values, for
example, collaboration or openness. Entrepreneurial orientation may be
considered as an essential managerial method to support learning in an
organization.

Firms with an EO are more capable to be open to the progression
and this is significant with the complexities related with learning when
an organization enters a foreign market (Ferna, 2014). Organizational
Learning (OL) practices drive a firms’ corporate knowledge in gathering,
sharing, and allotting the market and entrepreneurial data needed to suc-
ceed to effectively change it into a market and entrepreneurial driven firm
(Michael J. Mapalala, 2018).
Dess et al. (2003) discussed that a firm’s EO stimulate the acknowl-
edgment and enactment of innovative, creativity, proactive behavior that
encourage Organizational Learning (OL), and significant procedure.
There is mounting proof (Lee, 2011; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005) that
links Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and Organizational Learning (OL).
H2: Entrepreneurial orientation has significant impact on the orga-

nizational learning.
Organizational Learning and Firm Performance

Organizational learning is the critical part in improving the firm per-
formance emphasizing competitive benefits. Consequent studies explain
the relationship of Organizational Learning (OL) and Firm Performance
(FP) (March, 1991; Santos-vijande & Luis, 2005). Previous study explains
that firms with unlearning process can enable teams to use current
data and create new knowledge, factors which are key issues for imple-
mentation of innovation (Cegarra-navarro, Sa, & Cegarra-leiva, 2011).
Moreover, organizational learning allows the firms to adapt to the envi-
ronment changes, new opportunities, innovation, taking risk, increasing
efficiency, and finally improve the firm performance (Sohi, 2015).
Hung-Tai Tsou (2018) and Altinay-Gazi and Altinay-Aksa (2017)
explained that acquisition of knowledge led to advanced quality products
and some items recalls as the organization was capable to produce prod-
ucts that had higher compatibility with exterior organizations pattern.
Correspondingly, Atuahene-gima (2005) originate that external knowl-
edge acquire from OL helps the organizations find new opportunities,
identify customer preferences, enhance the innovativeness, and improve
the performance.
H3: Organizational learning has significant impact on the firm

performance.
From the past study, performance gives a significant feedback about

the effectiveness and efficiency of the organizational learning processes
(Kasim, Ekinci, Altinay, & Hussain, 2018). Previous study suggests that
firms’ access to and used of new knowledge has a positive impact on Firm
Performance (FP) (Park & Changwha, 2019). Dess et al. (2003) report
that entrepreneurship has a direct impact on the organizational learning,
which can be deliberated as mediator between the variables.

H4: Organizational learning mediates the effect of entrepreneurial
orientation on firm performance.
Environmental Turbulence as a Moderator

Environmental turbulence can be viewed as a factor that is exogenous
to organization’s center variables, for example, organizational memory and
learning orientation (Calantone, Garcia, & Dro, 2003). Emery and Trist (1965)
identified the ET as an environment with a high amount of interrelatedness
with the firm together with a high degree of change in the environment.
H5: Environmental turbulence moderates the relationship between

the organizational learning and firm performance.
Previous study explained that EO has impact on firm performance,

but literature only explained the three dimensions of EO with firm per-
formance. And literature described that learning processes allow the firm
to adapt new opportunities, environment changes, taking risks, and inno-
vation. Moreover, literature enlightened the transitional state of environ-
mental turbulence. Thus, it makes a significant connection between the
current study and past study.
Additionally, the audience of this study is project-based organizations
and project managers. As now-a-days organizations work in remarkably
focused and globally challenged domain, where EO plays its role as the
main player. Therefore, this study helps the organizations and project
managers to improve their performance in the presence of environmental
turbulence with organizational learning and entrepreneurial orientation.
Research model of this study has shown in Figure 1:
Methods
Sample and Data Collection
The sample selected for this study is the Software Industry of Islam-
abad and Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The total number of Registered Software
Houses in Pakistan is 1114 and number of Registered Software Houses in
Islamabad are 245 while in Rawalpindi are only 80 Registered Software
Houses (PSEB Registered Companies, 2019). So total Registered Software
Environmental
H4
Turbulence
Organizational
Learning
H5
H2 H3
Entrepreneurial Firm Performance
Orientation H1
FIGURE 1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Houses in Islamabad and Rawalpindi are (245 + 80) 325. The average
working employees in a Software House are 2–3 project managers and
above. So, the total population in Software Houses of Islamabad and
Rawalpindi is (2 * 325) 650. In this study, the total sample size was 242
(Sekaran, 2003).
Participants are key personnel on the projects that are project managers
and above. They must have participated in leading the projects toward bet-
ter performance. And they were asked to compare the performance of their
own firm over the past 3 years. Data were collected from project managers
and above of organization. Participants were provided the surety that their
data would remain confidential and will only be used for academic tenacity.
As this study was quantitative, surveys were conducted to collect the
data. Some of the items were reviewed according to the characteristic of
the industry. The respondents were responded to the questionnaire items
based upon their past experience. The self-administered questionnaire
will be distributed among the respondents of selected organizations of
Islamabad and Rawalpindi, Pakistan. And data were collected from proj-
ect managers and above of organization.
Descriptive statistics are momentary coefficients that encapsulate
the given information and data, which can be either demonstration of
complete data or a sample of population. The mean value for EO was
3.7835. This implies that most of the respondents selected for third and
fourth options which are neutral and agree exhibiting the entrepreneurial
orientation adopted by project managers. The mean value for firm per-
formance was 4.5860. This implies that most of the respondents opted
for fourth and fifth options which are agree and strongly agree exhibiting
the firm performance adopted by project managers and above. The mean
value for environmental turbulence was 3.8663. This implies that most of
the respondents opted for third and fourth options which are neutral and
agree exhibiting environmental turbulence adopted by project managers
and above. The mean value for organizational learning was 4.3665. This
implies that most of the respondents opted for fourth and fifth options
which are agree and strongly agree exhibiting the project success adopted
by project managers and above.
Since the study is cross-sectional in nature, data were gathered at only
one point at a time. Appropriate sample size for this study was 242; project
managers and above in the software houses of Islamabad and Rawalpindi.
A total of 325 questionnaires were distributed in software houses. 250
useable questionnaires were returned from different software houses. Of
these 250 respondents, 164 were male, and 86 were female. This makes the
response rate 76.9%. The data analysis consists of the results attained from
the collected data. The data were analyzed in SPSS as well as Smart-PLS.
Variables and Measures

Different Likert scales used to the list down the responses of respon-
dents as used in the previous studies. The 5-point Likert scale ranges

from strongly disagree to strongly agree was used for EO and firm perfor-
mance. The 5-point Likert scale was used for OL ranges from 1 indicating
not at all to 5 indicating very great extent. Also, the 5-point Likert scale
ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree was used for ET. Table 1
shows the variables and their measures.
Analysis and Results

Pilot study was conducted to check the reliability and validity of the
questionnaire. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was directed to reduce
the items based on their loadings. The questionnaire comprised total
43 items addressing EO, FP, ET, and OL primarily which were reduced
to 30 items after confirming their reliability and factor analysis in pilot
testing process because of their loading values (<0.4), Kurtosis (> 2.5
& < −2.5), KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy)
(< 0.778), and VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) (> 3 & < −3) (Azeem, 2016).
The response rate was 74.4% in pilot study. The overall reliability of all
variables was 0.865 which is deliberated as highly reliable in pilot study.
Pilot study has done on 100 responses of respondent while after this,
analysis has done on different 250 responses. Out of 250 respondents, 164
were males and 86 were females. Thus, EFA in pilot study conducted on
different data while CFA conducted on different data than EFA.
Cronbach’s alpha of independent variable entrepreneurial orienta-
tion having 8 items was 0.869, implies that this variable is reliable as it
falls within the range defined by the researcher. The Cronbach’s alpha of
dependent variable firm performance having 4 items was 0.864, implies
that this variable was reliable. The Cronbach’s alpha of mediating variable
organizational learning having 11 items was 0.890. This implies that this
variable was reliable. The Cronbach’s alpha of moderating variable envi-
ronmental turbulence having 7 items was 0.945, which was reliable as well.
Pearson’s Correlation was used in this study which is represented
with a variable r. Table 2 shows the correlations between variables. Rela-
tionship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance is
moderately correlated (r = 0.561). So, this association is significant. It also
implies that increase in entrepreneurial orientation will increase the firm
performance by 0.561 points. The association between organizational
TABLE 1 VARIABLES AND THEIR MEASURES

Entrepreneurial (Dai et al., 2017; Li, Huang, & Tsai, 2009; Rezaei et al., 2018)
Orientation
Organizational (Castaneda et al., 2018; Namada, 2013; Yi et al., 2019)
Learning
Environmental (Hanvanich & Hult, 2006; Kaur, Chahal, & Gupta, 2019;
Turbulence Moorman & Miner, 1997; Ouro & Stoesser, 2018)
Firm Performance (Li et al., 2009; Murphy, Trailer, & Hill, 1996; Perez-luño &
Olavide, 2018)

TABLE 2 CORRELATION MATRIX
ENTREPRENEURIAL FIRM ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
VARIABLES ORIENTATION PERFORMANCE LEARNING TURBULENCE
Entrepreneurial 1 — — —
Orientation
Firm Performance 0.561** 1 — —
Organizational 0.465** 0.475** 1 —
Learning
Environmental 0.467** 0.594** 0.421** 1
Turbulence
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
learning and firm performance is moderate and positive as well as sig-

nificant (r = 0.475). This indicates that increase in organizational learning
will increase the strength of firm performance by 0.475 points. Hence,
the association brings out a significant result. The association between
environmental turbulence and firm performance relationship is strong
and positive (r = 0.594). It has a significant relationship. This implies
that increase in environmental turbulence will increase the firm perfor-
mance by 0.594 points. Relationship between entrepreneurial orienta-
tion and organizational learning is moderate and positive (r = 0.465).
This indicates that increase in entrepreneurial orientation will increase
the organizational learning by only 0.465 points. Correlation between
entrepreneurial orientation and environmental turbulence is moderate
and positive (r = 0.467). This implies that increase in entrepreneurial
orientation will increase the environmental turbulence by 0.467 points.
Correlation between environmental turbulence and organizational learn-
ing is moderate and positive (r = 0.421). This implies that increase in
environmental turbulence will increase the organizational learning by
0.421 points. So, the conclusion derived from the above results demon-
strates that increase in independent variable and mediator like entre-
preneurial orientation and organizational learning will increase the firm
performance.
In order to evaluate the measurement model, CFA was conducted. It
can be seen that the Cronbach alpha, rho_A, CR estimates, and AVE were
higher than the cut-off values of 0.7 and 0.5, respectively.
The average variance extracted has been used to evaluate discrimi-
nant validity. The AVE of each of the latent constructs should be higher
than the highest squared correlation with any other latent variable. The
discriminant validity was assessed using Fornel and Larcker (1994) by
comparing the square root of each AVE in the diagonal with the correla-
tion coefficients (off-diagonal) for each construct in the relevant rows and
columns (Izdihar, Maryono, & Du, 2017). Overall, discriminant validity
can be accepted for this measurement model and supports the discrimi-
nant validity between the constructs (Table 3).

TABLE 3 DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY
MODERATING
EO ET FP EFFECT 1 OL
EO 0.910
ET 0.467 0.951
FP 0.561 0.594 0.955
Moderating 0.018 0.111 0.100 0.740
Effect 1
OL 0.465 0.421 0.475 0.115 0.952
FIGURE 2. FACTOR LOADINGS
As the benchmark of factor loadings is 0.6, it can be seen from the

Figure 2 that all the values of the items are higher than the standard
range. Although 13 items were removed from the variables in pilot study
due to the lower factor loadings.
Path coefficients can be seen in the Table 4. According to the results
we can say that, all the paths have significant relationships. As the
T = 2.180 for entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance which
is within the standard range, and same goes for the P-value, as P = .030
which is less than 0.05. So, entrepreneurial orientation has significant
impact on firm performance. As the T = 2.620 for entrepreneurial ori-
entation and organizational learning which is within the standard range,
and same goes for the p-value, as P = .000 which is less than 0.001.
So, entrepreneurial orientation has significant impact on organizational
learning. As the T = 3.434 for environmental turbulence and firm perfor-
mance which is within the standard range, and same goes for the P-value,
as P = .001 which is less than 0.01. So, environmental turbulence has sig-
nificant impact on firm performance. As the T = 2.535 for organizational
learning and firm performance which is within the standard range, and
same goes for the p-value, as P = .012 which is less than 0.05. So, orga-
nizational learning has significant impact on firm performance. As the

TABLE 4 PATH COEFFICIENTS
PATH COEFFICIENT SD T STATISTICS P VALUES
EO - > FP 0.014 0.007 2.180 .030
EO - > OL 0.768 0.034 2.620 .000
ET - > FP 0.557 0.166 3.434 .001
OL - > FP 0.431 0.165 2.535 .012
Moderating Effect −0.008 0.004 2.130 .034
Note. EO (Entrepreneurial Orientation), ET (Environmental Turbulence), FP (Firm Perfor-
mance), OL (Organizational Learning), SD (Standard Deviation).
TABLE 5 SPECIFIC INDIRECT EFFECT

INDIRECT EFFECT T STATISTICS P VALUES
EO - > OL - > FP 0.322 2.511 .012
T = 2.130 for moderating effect which is within the standard range, and
same goes for the p-value, as P = .034 which is less than 0.05. So, moder-
ating effect has significant impact.
In this study, the effect of entrepreneurial orientation on firm perfor-
mance mediated by organizational learning has been investigated. The
Table 5 below shows the beta value (Indirect effect), and P-value for
mediation analysis. β-value or indirect effect of entrepreneurial orienta-
tion to firm performance is 0.322. As the T = 2.511, and P = .012, it could
be described that mediation of the proposed relationship is significant. As
entrepreneurial orientation has an impact on organizational learning and
organizational learning has a significant impact on the firm performance.
Moreover, the effect of environmental turbulence between the rela-
tionship of entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance has been
investigated. Table 6 shows the results for moderating effect of the pro-
posed relationship and shows the beta value (Indirect effect) & P-value
for mediation analysis. β-value or indirect effect for this relationship is
−0.008. As the T = 2.130 and p-value, as P = .034, it could be described that
moderation effect of the proposed relationship is significant (Table 7). So,
moderating effect is significant.
Hypothesis Summary
H1: Entrepreneurial orientation has significant impact on the firm

performance.
The analysis being done for H1 demonstrates that the entrepreneurial

orientation is positive and significantly related to the firm performance,
which is evident by the regression value (0.014). This is in favor of our H1.
Hence, null hypothesis for H1 was rejected, which is in line with the

TABLE 6 MODERATING EFFECT
PATH COEFFICIENT T STATISTICS P VALUES
Moderating effect −0.008 2.130 0.034
TABLE 7 REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR HYPOTHESIS TESTING

VARIABLES STANDARD BETA COEFFICIENT P-VALUE
EO ➔ FP 0.014 .030
EO ➔ OL 0.786 .000
OL ➔ FP 0.419 .012
ET ➔ FP 0.596 .001
research question of the study that is what is the impact of the entrepre-
neurial orientation on firm performance? And has achieved the objective
stated to investigate the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on firm
performance. The hypothesis has also been in line with the views of past
studies (Davis et al., 2013; Żur, 2013).
H2: Entrepreneurial orientation has significant impact on the orga-

nizational learning.
The analysis being done for H2 demonstrates that the entrepreneur-

ial orientation is positive and significantly related to the organizational
learning which is evident by the regression value (0.786). The hypothesis
has also been in line with the views of past studies (Dess et al., 2003;
Lee, 2011). It has been argued that entrepreneurial orientation would
demonstrate innovativeness, risk taking, aggressiveness, and be more
effective in organizational learning. This is in favor of H2. Hence, null
hypothesis of H2 was rejected. Which is in line with the research question
of the study that is, what is the impact of the entrepreneurial orientation
on organizational learning? And has achieved the objective stated to
investigate the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on organizational
learning.
H3: Organizational learning has significant impact on the firm

performance.
It was verified by using the same method used for verification of

first hypothesis i.e., SEM. It is also in line with previous studies stat-
ing that, organizational learning helps employees to learn about the
project and the techniques of achieving those goals as well. Results
indicate that organizational learning has positive and significant effect
on the firm performance by the regression value of (0.419). This is in
favor of H3. Hence, null hypothesis of H3 is rejected. The hypothesis
has also been in line with the views of past studies (Hailekiros, 2016;
Wujiabudula, 2016).

H4: Organizational learning significantly mediate the effect of entre-
preneurial orientation on firm performance.
Results suggest that the organizational learning significantly and pos-

itively mediates the effect of entrepreneurial orientation on firm perfor-
mance. The positive relationship is identified in analysis (0.322). This is in
favor of our H4. Therefore, null hypothesis of H4 is rejected, which is in
line with the research question of the study that is what is the impact of
the entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance mediated by orga-
nizational learning? The hypothesis has also been in line with the views
of past studies (Grant, 2014; Lee, 2011). And has achieved the objective
stated to investigate the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on firm
performance mediated by organizational learning.
H5: Environmental turbulence significantly moderate the relation-

ship between the organizational learning and firm performance.
Results suggested that the environmental turbulence significantly but

negatively moderate the relationship between the organizational learning
and firm performance. The negative relationship is identified in analysis
(−0.008). So, environmental turbulence buffers the relationship between
organizational learning and firm performance. This is in favor of H5.
Therefore, null hypothesis of H5 is rejected, which is in line with the
research question of the study that is what is the moderating effect of envi-
ronmental turbulence between the relationship of organizational learning
and firm performance? Additionally, this hypothesis has also been in line
with the views of past studies (Hung & Chou, 2013; Wong, 2014).
Practical Implications, Future Research, and

Conclusion
Discussion
The given work centered on the effect of entrepreneurial orientation
on the firm performance mediated by organizational learning while the
relationship of organizational learning and firm performance moder-
ated by environmental turbulence. According to speculations, organiza-
tional learning brings about perceived entrepreneurial orientation and
firm performance. Moreover, a composition of organizational learning
and environmental turbulence is required to produce desirable results.
Entrepreneurial orientation provides the perfect apparatus to make this
composition. If not used properly, their effectiveness is rendered zero.
Performance measurement is critical in coordinating, supporting and
directing managerial leadership, decision making, and improving firm
performance (Smithand bititci, 2015). Firms with an EO are more capable
to be open to the progression and this is significant with the complexities

related with learning when an organization enters in a foreign market
(Ferna, 2014). Moreover, performance gives a significant feedback about
the effectiveness and efficiency of the organizational learning processes
(Kasim et al., 2018). A firm’s EO stimulate the acknowledgment and enact-
ment of innovative, creativity, proactive behavior that encourage Organi-
zational Learning (OL), and significant procedure (Dess et al., 2003).
Organizational Learning (OL) practices drive a firms’ corporate knowl-
edge in gathering, sharing, and allotting the market and entrepreneurial
data needed to succeed to effectively change it into a market and entrepre-
neurial driven firm (Michael J. Mapalala, 2018). Environmental turbulence,
refers to the unpredictable and highly varied events which occur in the
environment in which a particular industry operates and strongly affect
the firm performance (Boyne & Meier, 2009; Ko and Tan, 2012).
These days, Organizations work in an exceedingly focused and globally
challenged domain, where EO plays its role as the main player. EO brings
forth huge innovative thoughts, challenges workers mindset, and paving
way to some new worldwide opportunities and help to improve the perfor-
mance in the presence of environmental turbulence. “Entrepreneurial Ori-
entation” and “Organization Learning” are utilized conversely, but are two
separate concepts (Rua & França, 2017). Organization learning in business
is an important first step that should be organized by senior authority.
Limitations
This study also has some restrictions and it is customary. This study
has utilized cross-sectional analysis plan which allows researcher to
gather information once, but longitudinal research plan can also be con-
sidered because it allows researcher to gather information on various
time interims. Also, this study has only collected data from the software
houses of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Pakistan but other cities can also be
considered as one wish to.
The composition of this sample represents one more potential limi-
tation. The majority of the respondents were male (65.6%) and females
were only 34.4%. So, the result is not consistent with the gender distribu-
tion of project management which states that women are having more
significance in the field of project management (Frick, 2018). This drastic
difference is because females are reluctant to work late night and also the
unbreakable barrier has been observed which keeps the women away
from going up to the top rungs of the ladder.
Recommendations, Implications, and Future Studies

The software industry of Pakistan is advancing by leaps and bounds.
Keeping in mind the discoveries of this study, certain proposals are
appropriate and important for stakeholders of the software industry. Proj-
ect managers must have mind-set those valuable relationships with the
project stakeholders are important. They ought to consider each part of
undertaking before dealing with their group. It is the prime responsibility

of project manager to put in place appropriate behavior to maximize the
learning process of the project team to ensure better performance and cli-
ent’s satisfaction while market and technology have been rapidly changed.
Nevertheless, culture and working domain can greatly affect the firm
performance. To get a better picture of the study a greater study on
the international level needs to be carried out for demonstrating dif-
ferent possibilities of the outcomes in the software industry. The soft-
ware industry of Pakistan is flourishing very rapidly. Keeping in mind
the results extracted from this study, certain approaches are appropriate
and important for the literature of the software industry. As this study is
in the context of project management but in the software industry so, it
contributes in the literature of both industries as well.
Future study that concentrates in this professional group can replicate
the research methodology of the study concerning the larger sample size and
more balanced proportions of gender. It may include the influence of each
EO dimension on the successfully completed projects and firm performance
respectively by moderating the regulatory environment and competitive envi-
ronment separately. The OL puts up a huge impact on the team and makes it
possible for the team to participate in the project with more interest and inno-
vatively to improve the firm performance. EO matters a lot in this scenario as
it will boost up the working side of the organization learning bringing about
learning and innovativeness for better performance of the organization.
Conclusion
This study shows that the EO has significant and positive impact on
firm performance with a standardized regression weight of 0.014 (P < .05).
While EO has significant and positive effect on organizational learning
with a standardized regression weight of 0.786 (P < .001). As regards the
organizational learning and FP relationship, organizational learning has
significant and positive effect on FP with a standardized regression weight
of 0.419 (P < .05). Additionally, organizational learning significantly and
positively mediates the effect of entrepreneurial orientation on firm per-
formance with a standardized regression weight of 0.322 (P < .05). On the
other hand, environmental turbulence significantly but negatively moder-
ate the relationship between the organizational learning and firm perfor-
mance with a standardized regression weight of −0.008 (P < .05).
The outcome shows that EO can enhance the end outcome and help
to improve performance. The uniqueness and EO ability of the project
team can be enhanced or diminished by the organizational learning and
the reasons being that exploration of new ideas will help the employee to
more innovatively enhance their performance and learning to achieve the
project goals and objectives which leads to better firm performance. This
study has shown that environmental turbulence encourages the organi-
zational learning of a firm and these learning can in turn help the firm
moderate the negative impacts of the environmental turbulence on the
relationship of OL and firm performance.

References
Abdul, S., Khan, R., & Qianli, D. (2017). Impact of green supply chain management
practices on firms’ performance: An empirical study from the perspective of
Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 16829–16844. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9172-5.
Ahmed, N., Afza, T., & Ahmed, N. (2019). Capital structure, competitive intensity and firm
performance: Evidence from Pakistan intensity. Journal of Advances in Management
Research, 16(5), 796–813. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-02-2019-0018.
Al-Henzab, J. (2018). The associations among market orientation, technology orientation,
entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 25(8), 3117–3142. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2017-0024.
Altinay-Gazi, Z., & Altinay-Aksal, F. (2017). Technology as mediation tool for improving
teaching profession in higher education practices. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology. Education, 13(3), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.12973/
eurasia.2017.00644a.
Anderson, B. S., Kreiser, P. M., & Donald, F. (2014). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial
orientation. Strategic Management, 36(10), 1579–1596.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Wesley.
Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of
Economic Studies, 3, 155–173.
Atuahene-gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability–rigidity. Journal of Marketing, 69(4),
61–83.
Azeem, M. F. (2016). Linking learning organization practices with employee performance
(Thesis). Department of Management Sciences IQRA University, Islamabad Campus
Department of Management Sciences IQRA University, Islamabad Campus.
Baburoglu, O. N. (1988). The vortical enviroenment: the fifth in the Emery-Trist levels of
organization environment. Human Relations, 41(3), 181–210.
Background, T. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth,
profitability, and market value. Strategic Management Journal, 575(2004), 555–575.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.461.
Bau, M., Francesco Chirico, R. E. H., & Pathak, S. M. (2018). Family versus non-family firm
mergers: Likes attract likes, but complementarity also helps. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2018(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.18768abstract.
Bernoster, I., Mukerjee, J., & Thurik, R. (2020). The role of affect in entrepreneurial
orientation. Small Business Economics, 54(1), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11187-018-0116-3.
Black, B., & Blair, M. (2004). PDFlib PLOP: PDF linearization, optimization, protection page
inserted by evaluation version. PDFlib GmbH.
Bokhari, H. W., & Khan, M. A. (2013). The impact of capital structure on firm’s performance
(a case of non-financial sector of Pakistan). European Journal of Business and
Management, 5(31), 111–138.
Boyne, G. A., & Meier, K. J. (2009). Environmental turbulence, organizational stability,
and public service performance. SAGE Journals, 40(8), 799–824. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0095399708326333.
Calantone, R., Garcia, R., & Dro, C. (2003). The effects of environmental turbulence
on new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 20, 90–103.
Castaneda, D. I., Manrique, L. F., Cuellar, S., Castaneda, D. I., Manrique, L. F., & Cuellar, S.
(2018). Is organizational learning being absorbed by knowledge management ? A
systematic review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 299–325. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JKM-01-2017-0041.
Cegarra-navarro, J. G., Sa, M. E., & Cegarra-leiva, D. (2011). Balancing exploration
and exploitation of knowledge through an unlearning context: An empirical
investigation in SMEs. Management Decision, 49(6), 962–983. https://doi.
org/10.1108/00251741111151163.

Chaney, P. K., Devinney, T. M., & Winer, R. S. (2019). The impact of new product
introductions on the market value of firms. The Journal of Business, 64(4),
573–610.
Covin, J. G., & Covin, T. J. (1990). Aggressiveness, environmental context, and small firm
performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(4), 35–50.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (2016). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and
benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.
Cui, L., Fan, D., Guo, F., & Fan, Y. (2017). Explicating the relationship of entrepreneurial
orientation and firm performance: Underlying mechanisms in the context of
an emerging market. Industrial Marketing Management, 71, 27–40. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.11.003.
Cummings, T. G., & Whorley, C. G. (2009). Organizational development and change.
Cengage Learning.
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation
systems. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2).
Dai, C., & Martens, P. (2012). Empreendedora em organizações de software. Revista de
Administração, 47, 163–179. https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1032.
Dai, C., Martens, P., Jean, F., Luiz, M., Quevedo, F., De Oliveira, P., … Freitas, R. D.
(2018). Linking entrepreneurial orientation to project success. International
Journal of Project Management, 36(2), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2017.10.005.
Davis, J. L., Bell, R. G., Payne, G. T., Kreiser, P. M., Davis, J. L., & Bell, R. G. (2013).
Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The moderating role of
managerial power. The moderating role of managerial power. American Journal of
Business, 25(2), 41–54.
Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., & Lane, P. J. (2003).
Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3),
351–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00015-1.
Dess, G. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating
effective corporate entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Executive, 19(1),
19–75. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.15841975.
Dixon, N. M. (n.d.). The organizational learning cycle how we can learn collectively. Routledge.
Droge, C., Calantone, R., & Harmancioglu, N. (2008). New product success: Is it really
controllable by managers in highly turbulent environments? The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 25, 272–286.
Dvir, D., Raz, T., & Shenhar, A. J. (2003). An empirical analysis of the relationship between
project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management,
21(2), 89–95.
Econ, S. M. (2018). The performance effect of network and managerial capabilities
of entrepreneurial firms. Small Business Economics, 50(4), 807–824. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11187-017-9896-0.
Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments.
Human Relations, 18(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103.
Evan, W. M. (2019). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of
organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 392–409.
Fattoum-guedri, A., & Guedri, Z. (2018). Multiple blockholder structures and family
firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(2), 1–21. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1042258717748652.
Ferna, A. (2014). Entrepreneurial orientation and export intensity: Examining the
interplay of organizational learning and innovation. International Business Review,
24(1), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.07.004.
Fiegener, M. K. (2005). Determinants of board participation in the strategic decisions of
small corporations entrepreneurship. Theory and Practice, 29(5), 627–650.
Fletcher, D. E., & Watson, T. J. (2007). Learning and Negotiated Narratives: “Making it
Otherwise for Us—Otherwise for Them”. Management Learning, 38(1), 9–26. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1350507607073020.

Floyd, W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management’s strategic influence and
organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3), 465–485.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00059.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1994). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research.
Advances Methods of. Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Frick, K. T. (2018). The Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Transport Reviews,
0(0), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1502215.
Glazer, R. (1991). Marketing in an information-intensive environment: Strategic
implications of knowledge as an asset. Journal of Marketing, 55, 1–19.
Golovkova, A., Eklof, J., Malova, A., Podkorytova, O., & Golovkova, A. (2019). Customer
satisfaction index and financial performance: A European cross country study index.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(2), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJBM-10-2017-0210.
Grant, R. M. (2014). Knowledge-based view, 1990–1991.
groves 1998.pdf. (n.d.).
Gupta, V. K., & Gupta, A. (2014). Relationship between entrepreneurial orientation
and firm performance in large organizations over time. Journal of International
Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-014-0138-0.
Gupta, V. K., Niranjan, S., & Markin, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm
performance: The mediating role of generative and acquisitive learning through
customer relationships. Review of Managerial Science, 14, 1123–1147. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11846-019-00327-6.
Hafeez, M. H., Noor, M., Shariff, M., & Lazim, M. (2012). Relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation, firm resources, SME Branding and Firm’s performance:
Is innovation the missing link? American Journal of Industrial and Business
Management, 2(4), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2012.24020.
Haider, S. H., Asad, M., & Fatima, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business
Performance of Manufacturing Sector Small and Medium Scale Enterprises of
Punjab Pakistan. European Business & Management, 3(2), 21–28. https://doi.
org/10.11648/j.ebm.20170302.
Hailekiros, G. S. (2016). The effect of organizational learning capability on firm
performance: Mediated by technological innovation capability. European Journal
of Business and Management, 8(30), 87–95.
Hanvanich, S., & Hult, G. T. M. (2006). The relationship of learning and memory with
organizational performance: The moderating role of turbulence. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070306287327.
Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of
(hyper-) core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management
Journal, 319, 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.455.
Hung, K., & Chou, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The
moderating effects of internal R & D and environmental turbulence. Technovation,
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.06.006.
Hussain, S., Gillani, M., & Kiani, M. N. (2018). Studying the organizational learning and
organizational effectiveness among the cellular companies of Pakistan. Pakistan
Business Review, 20(3), 626–640.
Izdihar, R. P., Maryono, M., & Du, Y. L. (2017). Discriminant validity assessment: Use of
Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion discriminant validity assessment.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences.
Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.
Jennings, D. F., & Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level
entrepreneurship: The state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(2), 45–65.
Jiménez-jiménez, D., & Sanz-valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and
performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2010.09.010.

Juhn, C., Bureau, N., Monti, H., & Harbor, F. (2018). Firm Performance and the Volatility of
Worker Earnings. Journal of Labor Economics, 36(1).
Kalwani, M. U., & Narayandas, N. (1983). Long-term manufacturer-supplier relationships:
Do they pay off for supplier firms? Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 1–16.
Kasim, A., Ekinci, Y., Altinay, L., & Hussain, K. (2018). Impact of market orientation,
organizational learning and market conditions on small and medium-size
hospitality enterprises. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(7), 855–
875. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2018.1438955.
Kaur, J., Chahal, H., & Gupta, M. (2019). Re-investigating market orientation
and environmental turbulence in marketing capability and business
performance linkage: A structural approach. Springer Singapore. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-13-1334-9.
Kazanjian, D., Drazin, R., & Glynn, M. A. (2000). Creativity and technological learning:
The roles of organization architecture and crisis in large-scale projects. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 17(3–4), 273–298.
Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The design of organizations. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Konchar, B. M., Sanvido, V., & Members, A. (1998). Comparison of U. S. project
delivery systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(6),
435–444.
Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition
to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 21–35.
Lau, C. M., & Sholihin, M. (2005). Financial and nonfinancial performance measures:
How do they affect job satisfaction? The British Accounting Review, 37(4), 389–413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2005.06.002.
Lee, S. H. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation, organizational learning, and performance:
Evidence from China. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2), 293–317. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00359.x.
Li, Y., Huang, J., & Tsai, M. (2009). Industrial marketing management entrepreneurial
orientation and firm performance: The role of knowledge creation process.
Industrial Marketing Management, 38(4), 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2008.02.004.
Lin, C. V., & Sanders, K. (2017). HRM and innovation: a multi-level organisational learning
perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(2), 300–317. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1748-8583.12127.
Liu, S. S., Luo, X., & Shi, Y. (2002). Integrating customer orientation, corporate
entrepreneurship, and learning orientation in organizations-in-transition: An
empirical study. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 367–382.
Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a
needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 855–872. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00482.x.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct
and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 15–68.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2011). 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.
Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4),
79–103.
Lyon, D. W., Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing entrepreneurial
orientation research: Operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision
making process. Journal of Management, 26(5), 1055–1085. https://doi.
org/10.1177/014920630002600503.
Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., & El Sawy, O. A. (2018). Absorptive capacity configurations in supply
chains: Gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. In MS Quarterly (pp.
145–187). Special Issue on Information Technologies and Knowledge Management.
Mapalala M. J. (2018). Expressive-level comments and social media: Challenging a model
of ethical reflection.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Metallinou, M. M. (2018). Single- and double-loop organizational learning through
a series of pipeline emergency exercises. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, 26(4), 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12214.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management
Science, 29(7). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770.
Mirvis, P. H. (2006). Historical foundations of organization learning. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 9(1), 13–31.
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational Memory on new product
performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXIV, 91–106.
Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C. (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship
research. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 15–23.
Namada, J. M. (2013). Strategic planning systems, organizational learning, strategy
implementation and performance of firms. thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the award of the degree of doctor of philosophy in business
admin. (Thesis), University of Nairobi, Nairobi.
Namada, J. M. (2018). Organizational learning and competitive advantage. United States
International University.
Namada, J. M., Aosa, E., Awino, Z., & Wainaina, G. (2014). Management participation
and firm performance. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management,
4, 113–122.
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2003). Performance measurement system design—A
literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations
Management, 15, 80–116.
Nielsen, A. P., & Bogner, W. C. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
knowledge, and competence development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
23(3), 169–189.
Ouro, P., & Stoesser, T. (2018). Impact of environmental turbulence on the performance
and loadings of a tidal stream turbine. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 102,
613–639.
Park, H., & Changwha, C. (2019). The role of subsidiary learning behavior and absorptive
capacity in foreign subsidiary expansion. International Business Review, 28, 685–695.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.01.006.
Perez-luño, A. N. A., & De Olavide, U. P. (2018). ADHD symptoms, entrepreneurial
orientation (EO) and firm performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1,
2010–2015. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.51.
Peters, M., & Kallmuenzer, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: The case
of the hospitality industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13
683500.2015.1053849.
Press, C. (2013). In three modes, 16(2), 44–53.
Press, H. M. C. (1973). Strategy-making in three modes. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 16(2), 44–53.
PSEB Registered Companies (2019).
Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and
market. Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.461.
Rafique, Q., Mamun, A., & Suriya, A. (2014). CEO duality structure and firm performance
in Pakistan. Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance, 69, 57–69.
Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., & Seth, N. (2014). Firm performance impacts of digitally supply
chain integration capabilities. Management Information Systems Research Center,
University of Minnesota, 30(2), 225–246.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business
performance: An assessment of past research and the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice, 33(3), 761–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x.
Rebelo, T., & Gomes, A. D. (2008). The Learning organization article information. The
Learning Organization, 15, 294–308.

Rezaei, J., Ortt, R., Rezaei, J., & Ortt, R. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm
performance: The mediating role of functional performances. Management
Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2017-0092.
Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., Johnson, G., Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., &
Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance. Journal of Management,
35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330560.
Rua, O. L., & França, A. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance.
International Journal of Innovation, 5(3), 399–410.
Santos-vijande, L., & Luis, I. A. (2005). Organizational learning and market orientation :
interface and effects on performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(3),
187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.08.004.
Sekaran, U. (1998). Methodological and Theoretical Issues and Advancements in Cross-
Cultural Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 61–73.
Setiawan, H., Erdogan, B., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2015). Proactiveness of contractors: A
study of Indonesia. Procedia Engineering, 125, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2015.11.010.
Sitar, A. S., & Škerlavaj, M. (2018). Learning-structure fi t part I Conceptualizing the
relationship between. The Learning Organization, 25, 294–304. https://doi.
org/10.1108/TLO-09-2015-0050.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization.
Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.
Smithand bititci. (2015). Towards a Theoretical Foundation for Performance Measurement
and Management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(3), 53–660.
Sohi, R. S., & Matthews, A. L. (2015). Organizational learning and inter-organzational
knowledge transfer. In C. A. Ingene, J. R. Brown, & R. P. Dant (Eds.), Handbook of
research on distribution channels. Edward Elgar.
Stanley, L. J., Hernández-linares, R., López-fernández, M. C., & Kellermanns, F.
W. (2019). A typology of family firms: An investigation of entrepreneurial
orientation and performance. Family Business Review, 21(1). https://doi.
org/10.1177/0894486519838120.
Taheri, B., Bititci, U., Gannon, M. J., & Cordina, R. (2019). Investigating the influence
of performance measurement on learning, entrepreneurial orientation and
performance in turbulent markets. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2017-0744.
Tian, M. A., & Xie, Y. (2019). The Study of Emotion in Tourist Experience: Current Research
Progress. Tourism and Hospitality Prospects, 3(2), 82–101.
Tsou, H.-T., Chen, J.-S., & Y.-W. (D.) Yu. (2018). Antecedents of co-development and its
effect on innovation performance. Management Decision, 57(7), 1609–1637. https://
doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2018-0421.
Vi, D., Kaminsky, P., & Simchi-Levi, E. (2000). Designing and managing the supply chain:
Concepts, strategies and case studies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 17(7), 812–812.
Weick, K. E. (2019). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3),
385–390.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business
performance : a configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 71–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001.
Wong, S. K. (2014). Impacts of environmental turbulence on entrepreneurial orientation
and new product success. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(2), 229–
249. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2013-0032.
Wujiabudula, A. (2016). The effects of organizational learning on firm performance
through product innovation. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 10(1), 79–88.
https://doi.org/10.20460/JGSM.20161022388.
Yang, J., Ma, J., Zhao, H., Cater, J., & Arnold, M. (2018). Family involvement, environmental
turbulence, and R & D investment: Evidence from listed Chinese SMEs. Small
Business Economics, 53, 1017–1032.

Yawer, T., Soomro, R. H., & Rashid, S. (2015). The mediating role of organizational
cynicism in causing work alienation in higher educational institutions. Journal of
Business Strategies, 13(1), 89–108.
Yean, F., & Ling, Y. (2009). Key project management practices affecting Singaporean
firms’ project performance in China. International Journal of Project Management,
27(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.004.
Yi, C., Xu, X., Chen, C., Wu, Y. J., Yi, C., Xu, X., … Wu, Y. J. (2019). Institutional distance,
organizational learning, and innovation performance: Outward foreign direct
investment by Chinese multinational enterprises. Emerging Markets Finance and
Trade, 56, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2018.1545118.
Zuo, L., & Fisher, G. J. (2019). Organizational learning and technological innovation: The
distinct dimensions of novelty and meaningfulness that impact firm performance.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 1166–1183.
Żur, A. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance—Challenges for
research and practice. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 1(2), 7–28.
SYEDA MAHLAQA HINA
SYEDA MAHLAQA HINA holds Ph.D. degree in Transportation

and Logistics with majors in Supply Chain Management from North
Dakota State University (NDSU), USA. She is working as an Assistant
Professor with the Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS
University Islamabad (CUI), Pakistan. Her primary areas of research
activity are entrepreneurial orientation, finance, logistic management,
supply chain management, fleet management, energy supply chain
management, project management and scheduling, vehicle routing
problem (VRP) and applications of GIS and remote sensing to urban
environmental planning and management. Email: mahlaqakhan8584@
gmail.com
GUL HASSAN
GUL HASSAN has a M.S. in Project Management from Comsats

University Islamabad in 2020. His research interests include
entrepreneurial orientation, social robots, supply chain management,
corporate social responsibility, learning approaches, and extreme event
management. Gul Hassan received his Bachelor’s degree in Electrical
Engineering from UET Lahore in 2017. Email: hassan.gul44@yahoo.com,
MAHWISH PARVEEN
MAHWISH PARVEEN: Is currently Serving as Lecturer at

COMSATS University Islamabad. She completed her doctoral degree
from Qurtuba University of Science and Information Technology
Peshawar. Her area of research is Entrepreneurship and organization
development. Email: mahwish.parveen@gmail.com

SYEDA AROOJ
SYEDA AROOJ has a M.S. in Human Resource Management from Pir

Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University; Rawalpindi in 2019. She has
done her 1 year certification in Human Resource Management & Leadership
from Otero Junior College La Junta, Colorado, USA in 2014. Her research
interests include human resource management, supply chain management,
leadership, entrepreneurial orientation, corporate social responsibility, and
environmental management. Email: syeda.arooj@live.com
APPENDIX – QUESTIONNAIRE
INFORMATION STATEMENT
I am a student at COMSATS University Islamabad, proposed to do research title as
“Connecting Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organizational Learning, Environmental Turbu-
lence and Firm Performance” in software industry context, for which this questionnaire is
being disseminated. I need your observations and true opinion by filling this questionnaire.
There is no moralities or incorrect answers to questions offered. I am only fascinated to your
true and genuine point of view. It is surety that the information given by you will be kept con-
fidential and will be only used for academic purpose. Results will be accounted for in a total
structure without individual identification. Thank you in anticipation.
SECTION A
Below are given the statements regarding the “Entrepreneurial Orientation” (EO) of your
organization, please circle the suitable answer according to the following scale.
1 2 3 4 5
STRONGLY DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
DISAGREE AGREE
EO1 The top managers favor a strong emphasis on R&D, technological 12345
leadership, and innovations in my firm.
EO2 Changes in product or service lines have usually been quite dramatic in my 12345
firm.
EO3 My firm usually has a strong proclivity for high risk projects (with chances 12345
of very high returns).
EO4 I believe, owing to the nature of the environment, bold, wide-ranging acts 12345
are necessary to achieve the firm’s objectives.
EO5 In dealing with competitors, my firm usually initiates actions which 12345
competitors then respond to.
EO6 My firm has the independent action of an individual or a team in bringing 12345
forth an idea or a vision and carrying it through to completion.
EO7 My firm has the ability and will to be self-directed in the pursuit of 12345
opportunities.
EO8 My firm takes action free of stifling organizational constraints. 12345

Now in answering the following questions focus on “Firm Performance” (FP), and circle
the appropriate choice.
1 2 3 4 5
DISAGREE AGREE
FP1 My firm is usually satisfied with return on investment. 12345
FP2 My firm is usually satisfied with return on equity. 12345
FP3 My firm is usually satisfied with return on assets. 12345
FP4 My firm is usually satisfied with market share growth. 12345
Below are given the statements regarding the “Environmental Turbulence” (ET), please
circle the suitable answer according to the following scale.
1 2 3 4 5
DISAGREE AGREE
ET1 I believe in our kind of business, customers’ product preferences change 12345
quite a bit over time.
ET2 I believe, our customers tend to look for new products all the time. 12345
ET3 We have demand for our products from customers who never bought 12345
them before in my firm.
ET4 New customers have product needs that are different from our existing 12345
customers in my firm.
ET5 I believe in my firm, we continuously cater to many new customers. 12345
ET6 New product ideas have been made possible through technological 12345
breakthrough in my firm.
ET7 I believe, technological developments in our industry are fairly major. 12345
Keeping in view your organization/supervisor/manager regarding “Organizational

Learning” (OL), to what level is individual, group, and institutional learning involved in your
firm. Please circle the suitable answer according to the following scale.
1 2 3 4 5
NOT SMALL EXTENT MODERATE EXTENT GREAT EXTENT VERY GREAT
AT ALL EXTENT
OL1 Individuals generate many new insights in my firm. 12345
OL2 I believe in my firm, individuals take actions that are experimental in nature. 12345
OL3 I believe in my firm, individuals are motivated to carry out assigned tasks. 12345
OL4 I believe in my firm, individuals are aware of critical issues that affect their 12345
work.
OL5 Our organization value group work output. 12345
OL6 We have effective conflict resolution when working in groups. 12345
OL7 Different points of views are encouraged in group work in my firm. 12345

1 2 3 4 5
NOT SMALL EXTENT MODERATE EXTENT GREAT EXTENT VERY GREAT
AT ALL EXTENT
OL8 Lessons learned from one group are shared by other groups in my firm. 12345
OL9 Our organizational structure results from what we learn. 12345
OL10 Our cultural values are as a result of our different ideas in my firm. 12345
OL11 Group resolutions are used to improve production/service delivery process 12345
in my firm.
SECTION B
Thank you very much

Date: __________________________________

Performance Improve Qtrly - 2020 - Hina - Impact of Entrepreneurial Orientation On Firm Performance Through Organizational

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Improve Qtrly - 2020 - Hina - Impact of Entrepreneurial Orientation On Firm Performance Through Organizational

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Entrepreneurial

Orientation on Firm Performance

EO-Performance via OL. ♦ examine the role of entrepreneurial orien-

78 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 79

80 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 81

82 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance

H1: Entrepreneurial orientation has significant impact on the firm

Entrepreneurial Orientation and Organizational Learning

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 83

H2: Entrepreneurial orientation has significant impact on the orga-

Organizational Learning and Firm Performance

H3: Organizational learning has significant impact on the firm

From the past study, performance gives a significant feedback about

84 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Environmental Turbulence as a Moderator

H5: Environmental turbulence moderates the relationship between

Previous study explained that EO has impact on firm performance,

FIGURE 1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 85

Variables and Measures

86 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Analysis and Results

TABLE 1 VARIABLES AND THEIR MEASURES

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 87

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

learning and firm performance is moderate and positive as well as sig-

88 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

FIGURE 2. FACTOR LOADINGS

As the benchmark of factor loadings is 0.6, it can be seen from the

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 89

TABLE 5 SPECIFIC INDIRECT EFFECT

H1: Entrepreneurial orientation has significant impact on the firm

The analysis being done for H1 demonstrates that the entrepreneurial

90 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

TABLE 7 REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR HYPOTHESIS TESTING

H2: Entrepreneurial orientation has significant impact on the orga-

The analysis being done for H2 demonstrates that the entrepreneur-

H3: Organizational learning has significant impact on the firm

It was verified by using the same method used for verification of

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 91

Results suggest that the organizational learning significantly and pos-

H5: Environmental turbulence significantly moderate the relation-

Results suggested that the environmental turbulence significantly but

Practical Implications, Future Research, and

92 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Recommendations, Implications, and Future Studies

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 93

94 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 95

96 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 97

98 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 99

100 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

SYEDA MAHLAQA HINA

SYEDA MAHLAQA HINA holds Ph.D. degree in Transportation

GUL HASSAN has a M.S. in Project Management from Comsats

MAHWISH PARVEEN: Is currently Serving as Lecturer at

Volume 34, Number 1 / 2021 DOI: 10.1002/piq 101

SYEDA AROOJ has a M.S. in Human Resource Management from Pir