Entrepreneurial Orientation and MSME Performance: A Conceptual Framework Highlighting the Role of Innovation Capability

Sweksha Singh; Ruchi Singh Maurya

doi:10.37022/tjmdr.v6i2.954

Sweksha Singh Assistant Professor, Department of Business and Industrial Management, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat, Gujarat
Ruchi Singh Maurya Assistant Professor, Department of Business and Industrial Management, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat, Gujarat

DOI https://doi.org/10.37022/tjmdr.v6i2.954

Abstract

Word order encodes information structure in discourse, not only grammatical relations. In this paper, inversion in English and Vietnamese is studied in the perspective of information structure, considering the inversion as a communicative strategy for the distribution of given and new information, the construction of discourse frames, and the highlighting of focal content. The study examines four types of inversion including locative, directional, negative and presentational in terms of the notions of topic, focus and stage topic. The results show that, in both languages, fronted constituents function as stage topics, offering a discourse frame before new referents are introduced, while sentence-final position always encodes focal, discourse-new information. The two languages, however, differ widely in the grammatical manifestation of inversion. English inversion is syntactically restricted: verb class restrictions, mandatory auxiliary-subject inversion in negative constructions, and deictic marking in presentational structures. Vietnamese, which has no morphological inflection and no auxiliary inversion, depends on a discourse-oriented system of flexible constituent ordering. The stage-topic function in this system spans a continuum of constructions, including existential and copular structures, that does not conform to the discrete categorial boundaries maintained in English. This asymmetry is more basic than a difference in formal means: inversion is a syntactically licensed operation in English but a discourse-motivated positional strategy in Vietnamese.

Keywords: Information Structure, inversion, English, Vietnamese, contrastive analysis

References

1. Murray JA. A concept of entrepreneurial strategy.Strategic Management Journal. 1984;5(1):1–13.
2. Dai L, Maksimov V, Gilbert BA, Fernhaber SA. Entrepreneurial orientation and international scope: The differential roles of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Journal of business venturing. 2014;29(4):511–24.
3. Cui L, Fan D, Guo F, Fan Y. Explicating the relationship of entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: Underlying mechanisms in the context of an emerging market. Industrial Marketing Management. 2018;71:27–40.
4. Van Doorn S, Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW. Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance: Drawing Attention to the Senior Team. J of Product InnovManag. 2013 Sep;30(5):821–36. doi:10.1111/jpim.12032
5. Semrau T, Ambos T, Kraus S. Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance across societal cultures: An international study. Journal of Business Research. 2016;69(5):1928–32.
6. Shirokova G, Bogatyreva K, Beliaeva T, Puffer S. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in different environmental settings: contingency and configurational approaches. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2016;23(3):703–27.
7. Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Sirmon DG, Trahms CA. Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating Value for Individuals, Organizations, and Society. AMP. 2011 May;25(2):57–75. doi:10.5465/amp.25.2.57
8. Lawson B, Samson D. Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. Int J Innov Mgt. 2001 Sep;05(03):377–400. doi:10.1142/S1363919601000427
9. Barney J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management. 1991 Mar;17(1):99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
10. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. StratMgmt J. 1997 Aug;18(7):509–33. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
11. Mamduh A, Pratikto H, Handayati P, Restuningdiah N. Innovation Ability Mediates The Influence of Financial Literacy, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Learning Orientation on The Performance of Food and Beverage Umkm in Bontang City, East Kalimantan Province Indonesia. Environmental & Social Management Journal/Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental. 2024;18(10).
12. Miller D. The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms.Management Science. 1983 Jul;29(7):770–91.
13. Lumpkin GT, Dess GG. Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. The Academy of Management Review. 1996 Jan;21(1):135. doi:10.2307/258632
14. Rauch A, Wiklund J, Lumpkin GT, Frese M. Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance: An Assessment of past Research and Suggestions for the Future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2009 May;33(3):761–87. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x
15. Wiklund J, Shepherd D. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach. Journal of business venturing. 2005;20(1):71–91.
16. Soares M do C, Perin MG. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: an updated meta-analysis. RAUSP Management Journal. 2020;55(2):143–59.
17. Murphy GB, Trailer JW, Hill RC. Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research.Journal of business research. 1996;36(1):15–23.
18. Wiklund J. The Sustainability of the Entrepreneurial Orientation—Performance Relationship.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 1999 Oct;24(1):37–48. doi:10.1177/104225879902400103
19. Chandler GN, Hanks SH. Measuring the performance of emerging businesses: A validation study. Journal of Business venturing. 1993;8(5):391–408.
20. Damanpour F. ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION: A META-ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS OF DETERMINANTS AND MODERATORS. Academy of Management Journal. 1991 Sep 1;34(3):555–90. doi:10.2307/256406
21. Briones OF, Camino-Mogro SM, Navas VJ. Working capital, cash flow and profitability of intensive MSMEs: Evidence from Ecuador. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. 2024;16(2):396–417.
22. Saunila M. Innovation capability in SMEs: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Innovation & knowledge. 2020;5(4):260–5.
23. Zahra SA, George G. Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. The Academy of Management Review. 2002 Apr;27(2):185. doi:10.2307/4134351
24. Saunila M. Performance measurement approach for innovation capability in SMEs. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2016;65(2):162–76.
25. Ince H, Imamoglu SZ, Karakose MA. Entrepreneurial orientation, social capital, and firm performance: The mediating role of innovation performance. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. 2023 Feb;24(1):32–43. doi:10.1177/14657503211055297
26. Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA. Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? In: Helfat CE, editor. The SMS Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Capabilities [Internet]. 1st ed. Wiley; 2017 [cited 2026 Jan 12]. p. 341–63. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405164054.ch21 doi:10.1002/9781405164054.ch21
27. Covin JG, Slevin DP. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.Strategic Management Journal. 1989 Jan;10(1):75–87. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100107
28. Prasanna R, Jayasundara J, Gamage SKN, Ekanayake EMS, Rajapakshe PSK, Abeyrathne G, et al. Sustainability of SMEs in the Competition: A Systemic Review on Technological Challenges and SME Performance. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity [Internet]. 2019 Dec 12 [cited 2026 Jan 10];5(4). Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/5/4/100