Effects of Entrepreneurial orientation, Market orientation, and Learning orientation on Cooperative Performance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2024.1189Keywords:
Entrepreneurial Orientation, Market Orientation, Learning Orientation, Cooperative Performance, Dynamic Capabilities Theory, MalaysiaAbstract
This study examines the impact of entrepreneurial orientation (EO), market orientation (MO), and learning orientation (LO) on the performance of cooperatives in Malaysia, utilizing the Dynamic Capabilities Theory to elucidate these relationships. Employing a systematic random sampling method, data were gathered from 533 small and micro cooperatives through a structured questionnaire, resulting in 236 usable responses analyzed via Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The findings indicate that MO exerts the most significant influence on cooperative performance, followed by EO and LO. The model accounts for 26.8% of the variance in cooperative performance (R²=0.268), demonstrating moderate explanatory power. The results highlight the critical role of integrating these strategic orientations to promote innovation, market responsiveness, and continuous learning. Recommendations for cooperative leaders and policymakers include fostering a culture of innovation, enhancing market responsiveness, and committing to continuous learning to strengthen competitive positioning and sustainability. This study extends the literature by applying the Dynamic Capabilities Theory to cooperatives, offering actionable insights for improving cooperative performance in dynamic environments
References
1. D'Amato A, Festa G, Dhir A, Rossi M. Cooperatives' performance relative to investor-owned firms: a non-distorted approach for the wine sector. Br Food J. 2021;124(13):35-52. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-03-2021-0275.
2. Yuhertiana I, Zakaria M, Suhartini D, Sukiswo H. Cooperative resilience during the pandemic: Indonesia and Malaysia evidence. Sustainability. 2022;14(10):5839. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105839.
3. Ismail A, Ahmadi S, Yatim N, Ismail P. The impact of board characteristics on cooperative reputation from the lens of resource-based view theory (RBVT). Int J Financ Res. 2020;11(3):43. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v11n3p43.
4. Manap N, Tehrani P. The contribution of cooperative law to economic development in Malaysia. Asian Soc Sci. 2014;10(15). https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n15p283.
5. Khan H, Yaacob M, Abdullah H, Ah S. Factors affecting performance of cooperatives in Malaysia. Int J Product Perform Manag. 2016;65(5):641-671. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-05-2014-0077.
6. Aris N, Marzuki M, Othman R, Rahman S, Ismail N. Designing indicators for cooperative sustainability: the Malaysian perspective. Soc Responsib J. 2018;14(1):226-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/srj-01-2017-0015.
7. Behl A, Dutta P, Sheorey P, Singh R. Examining the role of dialogic communication and trust in donation-based crowdfunding tasks using information quality perspective. TQM J. 2022;35(1):292-319. https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-06-2020-0139.
8. Høgevold N, Svensson G, Neira M. Trust and commitment as mediators between economic and non-economic satisfaction in business relationships: a sales perspective. J Bus Ind Mark. 2020;35(11):1685-1700. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-03-2019-0118.
9. Safiyuddin F, Wahab N, Maamor S. An analysis of the financial performance of credit cooperatives in Malaysia. J Account Res Organ Econ. 2021;4(2):199-215. https://doi.org/10.24815/jaroe.v4i2.20548.
10. Mathafena R, Msimango-Galawe J. Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and opportunity exploitation in driving business performance: moderating effect of interfunctional coordination. J Entrep Emerg Econ. 2022;15(3):538-565. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeee-03-2021-0114.
11. Masa'deh R, Al-Henzab J, Tarhini A, Obeidat B. The associations among market orientation, technology orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance. Benchmarking Int J. 2018;25(8):3117-3142. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-02-2017-0024.
12. Jia J, Wang G, Xi-nan Z, Yu X. Exploring the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and corporate performance. Nankai Bus Rev Int. 2014;5(3):326-344. https://doi.org/10.1108/nbri-05-2014-0024.
13. Sukoco B, Choirunnisa Z, Mudzakkir M, Nasution R, Susanto E, Usman I. Market orientation and capacity for change in higher education performance in Indonesia. J Asia Bus Stud. 2021;16(1):80-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/jabs-01-2020-0021.
14. Arraya M. The relationship between distinctive capabilities system, learning orientation, leadership and performance. Eur J Manag Stud. 2022;27(2):205-227. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejms-11-2021-0109.
15. Beneke J, Blampied S, Dewar N, Soriano L. The impact of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. J Res Mark Entrep. 2016;18(1):90-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrme-06-2015-0033.
16. Guerra R, Camargo M. Mediation of learning orientation on market orientation and business performance: evidence from Brazilian small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Benchmarking Int J. 2023;31(2):590-610. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-06-2022-0404.
17. Correia R, Teixeira M, Dias J. Dynamic capabilities: antecedents and implications for firms' performance. Int J Product Perform Manag. 2021;71(8):3270-3292. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-12-2019-0587.
18. Wahyuni N, Sara I. The effect of entrepreneurial orientation variables on business performance in the SME industry context. J Workplace Learn. 2020;32(1):35-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/jwl-03-2019-0033.
19. Shu C, De Clercq D, Zhou Y, Liu C. Government institutional support, entrepreneurial orientation, strategic renewal, and firm performance in transitional China. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2019;25(3):433-456. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2018-0465.
20. Habib MA, Bao Y, Ilmudeen A. The impact of green entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and green supply chain management practices on sustainable firm performance. Cogent Bus Manag. 2020;7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1743616.
21. Kumar V, Jabarzadeh Y, Jeihouni P, Garza-Reyes J. Learning orientation and innovation performance: the mediating role of operations strategy and supply chain integration. Supply Chain Manag Int J. 2020;25(4):457-474. https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-05-2019-0209.
22. Windsperger J, Cliquet G, Ehrmann T, Hendrikse G. Interfirm networks: Franchising, cooperatives and strategic alliances. In Interfirm Networks: Franchising, Cooperatives and Strategic Alliances. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10184-2.
23. Gorondutse AH, Hilman H. Does organizational culture matter in the relationship between trust and SMEs performance. Manag Decis. 2019;57(7):1638-1658. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2018-0557.
24. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc.; 2017.
25. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc.; 1994.
26. Fornell C, Larker DF. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50.
27. Cohen J, Cohen J. Applied Psychological Measurement Set Correlation and Contingency Tables. Appl Psychol Meas. 1988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168801200410.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Mohamad Haswardi Morshidi, Yusmani Mohd Yusoff (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
