Implications of strategic orientation on firms’ performance in a lower middle-income country: Does organizational innovation capability matter?

Maclean, Marian; Appiah, Michael Karikari; Addo, Joyce Francisca Article Implications of strategic orientation on firms’ performance in a lower middle-income country: Does organizational innovation capability matter? Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Maclean, Marian; Appiah, Michael Karikari; Addo, Joyce Francisca (2023) : Implications of strategic orientation on firms’ performance in a lower middle-income country: Does organizational innovation capability matter?, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 10, Iss. 2, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/294436 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Implications of strategic orientation on firms’ performance in a lower middle-income country: Does organizational innovation capability matter? Marian Maclean, Michael Karikari Appiah & Joyce Francisca Addo To cite this article: Marian Maclean, Michael Karikari Appiah & Joyce Francisca Addo (2023) Implications of strategic orientation on firms’ performance in a lower middle-income country: Does organizational innovation capability matter?, Cogent Business & Management, 10:2, 2211366, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 14 May 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1618 View related articles View Crossmark data OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE Implications of strategic orientation on firms’ performance in a lower middle-income country: Does organizational innovation capability matter? Marian Maclean 1 , Michael Karikari Appiah 2 * and Joyce Francisca Addo 3 Abstract: Since the birth and subsequent ratification of United Nations’ Agenda 2030 for sustainable development, local businesses are working assiduously to re-strategize and adapt to the changing external environment including responsible consumptions and production in order to gain competitive advantage and improve their performance. To facilitate this call, our paper is aimed to analyse the implications of strategic orientation on firm performance, and develop a model to explain the mediating role of organizational innovation capability on the relationship between strategic orientation and firm performance with a focus on a lower middle-income country where such studies are largely inadequate. Our paper is anchored on positivists’ ontology and quantitative approach. Cross-sectional survey data have been elicited from formalized small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that are registered with Ghana Enterprise Agency. Our hypotheses have been tested using Partial Least Square and Andrew Hayes Macro Process techniques. Our results have showed that the dimensions of strategic orientation (marketing, entrepreneurship, and technology) exert positive and significant effects on firms’ innovation capability and performance. Besides, organizational innovation capability significantly mediates the relationships between marketing and technological orientations and firms’ performance. This study is among the very few to provide strategic orientation model to enhance organizational innovation and performance in the context of lower middle-income country. The emergency of contextual variables that impact on organizational innovation and firm performance would go a long way to guide managers, owners and regulators to develop robust strategies that could enhance the realization of sustainable development goals in the long term. Subjects: Economics; Business, Management and Accounting; Industry & Industrial Studies Keywords: Strategic Orientation; Firm’s Performance; Organizational Innovational and Lower Middle-Income Country 1. Introduction The birth and subsequent ratification of United Nations Agenda 2030 have necessitated the need for responsible consumptions and productions. As a result, corporations are exploring Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 1 of 18 Received: 04 January 2023 Accepted: 18 April 2023 *Corresponding author: Michael Karikari Appiah, School of Sustainable Development, University of Environment and Sustainable Development, PMB, Somanya, Ghana , E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Gordon Liu, Business School, The Open University, London, United kingdom Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. opportunities to re-strategize and adapt to the external environmental changes in order to gain competitive advantage and improve its performance (Akter et al., 2021; Chevrollier et al., 2019). Environmental adaptation has become a basic requirement in the turbulent and sophisticated business environment. Strategy is one of the main pillars that significantly influence an organization’s structure, operations, investments, market relationships and performance. Strategic Orientation is a general or permanent train of thought, trend or interest. It broadly encompasses the way in which a company adapts to the external environment (Ibarra-Cisneros et al., 2021; Obel & Gurkov, 2021). In other words, it is about how an organization responds to its environment to improve its performance and achieve competitive advantage. Other researchers consider strategic orientation as part of organizational culture. Organizational culture is a kind of intangible resource and the development of these resources or orientations has different impacts on the organization. Strategic orientation focuses resources to achieve desired outcomes (Adiguzel & Sonmez Cakir, 2022; Nassani & Aldakhil, 2021). Business strategy offers tremendous contributions towards problem solving in order to create new opportunities and improve firm competitive performance by providing conducive platforms support organizational and managers decision to pool resources, identify opportunities to deliver valuable products and services, and drive those products and services to greater profitability. In order to choose the best strategy, companies need to coordinate their approaches to create industry niches and/or strengthen their resources, skills, and capabilities to adapt to the internal and external environment in order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage and improve business performance (Chevrollier et al., 2020; Akter et al., 2021; Blaique et al., 2022; Cao et al., 2022; Huo & Li, 2022; Vlasic, 2022). In order to fulfil the outlined goals, organizations should rather focus on developing robust strategic orientation. Thus, an organization’s strategic direction reflects its operational, commercial and business innovation capability. In this way, a company achieves its goals in the marketplace by taking risks, investing in innovation, acting proactively, and developing forward-looking insights. Organizational innovation includes changes in business practices, workplace organization, and external relationships (Walker et al., 2015). Nandram (2016) define organizational innovation practices (OIP) as new knowledge that is incorporated into process, product, and service development. Innovation is a creative process that focuses on going beyond conventional practices and finding new ways of doing or managing things (Bocken et al., 2019). Amidst other suitable theories to explain the association between firm performance and strategic orientations the Resource-Based View (RBV) proposed by Penrose (1959) and standardized by Barney in 1984 has been adopted to explain the relationship between strategic orientation, organizational innovation and firm performance. RBV focuses on human capabilities and external capabilities such as networks and technology to achieve competitive advantage—which is also reflected in the strategic management literature. Drawing on the RBV theory, this paper aims to analyse the implications of strategic orientation on firm performance, and to develop a model to explain the mediating role of organizational innovation on the relationship between strategic orientation and firm performance with a focus on a lower middle-income country to address responsible consumption and production (Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12) while taking actions to mitigate the impact of climate change (SDG 13). Inferring from the main aim of the paper, the following specific research questions are formulated. RQ1: To what extent do the dimensions of strategic orientation impacts on firm’s innovation capability and performance in a lower middle-income country? RQ2: To what extent do firm’s innovation capability drive firm performance in a lower middle-income country? RQ3: To what extent do firm’s innovation capability mediate the relationships between dimensions of strategic orientation and firm performance in a lower middle-income country? Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 2 of 18 The crux of this paper is that majority of available empirical (Capriati & Divella, 2020; Liu et al., 2022; Mendoza-Silva, 2021; Migdadi, 2022; Montreuil et al., 2021; Pufal & Zawislak, 2022; Siegenthaler, 2022) evidence suggest that strategic orientation and firm performance has been widely researched. There is the need to investigate extent to which organizational innovation capability mediates the relationship between strategic orientation and firm performance, particularly in the context of lower middle economy. The lower middle-income countries are mostly emerging economies, as such innovational capabilities are either employed at incremental or radical levels. It has been argued that economic growth and development in such markets require innovational capabilities. SMEs are the most dominant businesses in this market and a major source of employment, innovation, gross domestic products (GDP) and human capital development. In effect, exploring how innovational capabilities mediate the relationship between strategic orientation and firm performance is therefore timely and imperative to enhance sustainable firm growth and development. Moreover, there is the need to investigate how the dimensions of strategic orientations, for example, marketing, entrepreneurship and technological could be used to develop organizational innovation or competitive advantage and eventually improve the overall firm performance. This paper by implications, has provided a context specific strategic orientation model to enhance organizational innovation and firm performance. Moreover, the paper has provided contextual variables that impact on organizational innovation and firm performance which could go a long way to guide managers, owners and regulators in the SMEs sector to develop robust strategies to enhance the realization of SDGs. This paper has been structured into six sections as follows: the introduction, theoretical background and hypotheses development, materials and methods, results and discussions, conclusion, implications and limitations. 2. Literature review: theoretical and hypotheses development The RBV theory which serves as the main foundation of the present study has its origin from the theory of firm growth by Penrose (1959). Penrose argues that strategic orientation of firms entails integrated role between internal factors (capabilities) and the external environment (competitors). In his seminal Wenerfelt (1984) asserted that organizational strategic resources include tangibles (e.g., buildings, chairs, desks, documents, etc.) and intangible (employee skills) assets that are partially functionally interdependent. Barney (2000) divides firm resources into three categories, namely physical capital, which is used to value raw materials and technology, human capital, such as the intelligence, relationships, training and work experience that people have in the firm, and organizational capital, which are systems designed to manage and coordinate people in teams and in the firm environment. Central to this theoretical proposition is the idea that a firm’s performance in achieving sustainable corporate advantage is enhanced by the acquisition and management of valuable, rare, unique and irreplaceable (VRIN) resources and the ability to harness and apply them (Barney, 2001). The current study argues that that strategic orientation increases the competitive advantage of SMEs in a highly competitive environment. Resources and skills offer significant benefits to SMEs in terms of reduced transaction costs and access to external resources and skills. The RBV thus suggests that strategic orientation and organizational orientations have a positive impact on SMEs performance. In addition, sourcing and quality strategies appear to contribute to the sustainability and performance of SMEs. Global competitive innovation in the current high-tech era forces firms to build long-term relationships and software to demonstrate their capabilities by learning new knowledge and skills needed to achieve competitive advantage, which are referred to as organizational innovation capability. On the bases of the above, the present study postulate that strategic orientations such as marketing orientation, entrepreneurship orientations and marketing orientation are intangible resources that work together to enhance SMEs innovational capability which drives SMEs performance as demonstrated in the Figure 1. Number of prior studies (Charoensukmongkol, 2016, 2022; Ekawee & Charoensukmongol, 2020) have utilized RBV in related studies. 2.1. Strategic orientation and SMEs performance Strategic orientation has been variously studied and reported (Chevrollier et al., 2020; Akter et al., 2021; Ibarra-Cisneros et al., 2021; Obel & Gurkov, 2021, 2021; Vlasic, 2022). Nevertheless, the Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 3 of 18 results have generally been mixed and inconclusive. The present study argues that strategic orientation has direct effect on firm performance base on the assumptions of RBV theory. Strategic orientation focuses on how a company should respond to external influences such as competitors, consumers, and technology (Asghari & Amani, 2016). Strategic orientation describes the business behaviour of a company (Abdulrab et al., 2021; Hassan & Samour, 2016; Rasyid & Linda, 2019) and according to Uzoamaka et al. (2020), strategic orientation is the strategic direction that a company should take to continuously improve its performance in order to gain a competitive advantage over others. Again, Nganga (2017) argued that strategic orientation is a strategic choice, strategic disposition, strategic direction, and strategic adaptation. In this paper we have defined strategic orientation as the process of creating business direction and adapting to the external environment changes in order to develop a competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship orientation is core component of strategic orientation which entails proactiveness, innovativeness, risk-taken, competitive aggression and, autonomy (Charoensukmongkol, 2016, 2022; Ekawee & Charoensukmongol, 2020; Novotna, 2021). The arguments presented here are based on the proposition that strategic orientation drives firm performance. Therefore, the study proposes as follows: H1: Entrepreneurship orientation has significant and positive effect on SMEs performance H2: Marketing orientation has positive and significant effect on SMEs performance H3: Technological orientation has positive and significant effect on SMEs performance 2.2. Strategic orientation and organizational innovation capability Deducing from the RBV theory, prior studies (See; Adiguzel & Sonmez Cakir, 2022; Huo & Li, 2022; Nassani & Aldakhil, 2021; Vlasic, 2022) have argued that strategic orientation could readily build robust organizational innovative capacity in the form of competitive advantage. Strategic orientation provides the direction and culture that a firm adopts to conduct its business and gain competitive advantage (Zhani et al., 2021). It ultimately leads to lower products is a management philosophy that emphasizes their growth, lower productivity and loss of market share in pursuit of higher performance, work on imported food and competitive advantage can create value and a set of beliefs (Jassmy et al., 2018). In their study, Hollen et al. (2013) define organizational innovation as new to a company, for It involves setting up, motivating employees, coordinating activities and decisions, arising through new interorganizational relationships, and conceptualizing it as firm-specific management activities aimed at achieving organizational goals. According to Rietveldt and Goedegebuure (2014), a network is a relationship linked by exchange. Networking is a formal process of interconnection in which channels are created through which information about other individuals and groups can be easily collected, validated and tested to the benefit of the organization (Mano, 2014). The arguments presented here are based on the proposition that strategic orientation drives SMEs innovation. Therefore, the study proposes as follows: Entrepreneurship Orientation Marketing Orientation Technological Orientation Organizational Innovation Capability SMEs Performance H1 H2 2 H3 H6 H5 H4 H7 H8-10 Mediating Effects Figure 1. Research Framework. Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 4 of 18 H4: Entrepreneurship orientation has positive and significant effect on SMEs innovation capability H5: Marketing orientation has positive and significant effect on SMEs innovation capability H6: Technological orientation has positive and significant effect on SMEs innovation capability 2.3. Organizational innovation capability and SMEs performance The final proposition of the paper is that organizational innovation drives firm’s performance (Iqbal et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022; Mendoza-Silva, 2021; Migdadi, 2022; Pufal & Zawislak, 2022). Fan et al. (2022)) asserted that organizational innovation new approaches used by firms in three areas. Organizational innovation capability entails business practices, work organization and external relationships. Besides, Demircioglu (2016) suggested that organizational innovation capability is ability to generate ideas, new products, methods, services, processes, technologies and strategies introduced by an organization. Organizational innovation includes changes in business practices, workplace organization, and external relationships (Gibson et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2015). Nandram (2016) define organizational innovation practices (OIP) as new knowledge that is incorporated into process, product, and service development. Innovation is a creative process that focuses on going beyond conventional practices and finding new ways of doing or managing things (Bocken et al., 2013; Ludmila and Stanislava (2015); Suriyapperuma et al. (2015); Valencia and Cazares (2016). In this paper we define organizational innovation capability as the ability of firm to design new market, new process, new product, new suppliers while adjusting to the external environmental threats. The arguments presented here are based on the proposition that strategic orientation drives SMEs innovation. Therefore, the study proposes as follows: H7: SMEs innovation has significant and positive effect on SMEs performance H8: SMEs innovation significantly mediate in between entrepreneurship orientation and SMEs performance H9: SMEs innovation significantly mediate in between marketing orientation and SMEs performance H10: SMEs innovation significantly mediate in between technological orientation and SMEs performance 3. Research methodology 3.1. Population and sampling procedure Population in the context of this paper defines individuals or groups who have expertise or working knowledge on the issues being investigated. The target group of the study consisted of Ghanaian SMEs. The main criteria for inclusion in the sample were: i) SMEs duly registered and operating in Ghana, ii) SMEs that is a number of at least one regulatory body e.g., Association of Ghana Industry (AGI), Ghana Enterprise Agency (GEA) among others. The samples for the study were estimated using the Rule of Ten (Hair et al., 2017). Which requires that the minimum number of survey participants should not be less than total number of paths directed towards a latent variable which according to the survey is 100 (e.g., 10-paths × 10). Meanwhile, for the robustness and validity purpose 250 questionnaires were administered to the participants, out of which 225 responses were received. Further checked such as completeness, non-response and incomplete questionnaires reduced the sample to 219 useful responses recording 87.6% response rate. The 219 SMEs in Ghana were selected using a stratified sampling strategy. To effectively select the participants strata was formed using the target participating sectors e.g., mining, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, oil and gas, and hospitality. The actual participants were then randomly selected until the Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 5 of 18 219 total samples were attained. This type of sampling technique is very effective towards sampling errors eradication and fairness in the sample representatives. 3.2. Survey design This paper is anchored on quantitative research approach and positivist’s ontology with the aim of analysing the implications of strategic orientation on firm performance, and to develop a model to explain the mediating role of organizational innovation on the relationship between strategic orientation and firm performance with a focus on a lower middle-income country where such studies are largely unexplored. Prior studies (K. M. Appiah, 2022; M. K. Appiah et al., 2022; Appiah, Tettevi, et al., 2022; 2022) asserted that one of the uniqueness of quantitative research approach is its ability to support statistical modelling and hypotheses testing. Besides, it focuses on numerical data rather than textual. Again, our chosen research approach is consistent with survey design. Surveys allows research problems to be translated into questionnaires which are used to elicit information from large pool of participants. This strategy is cost effective and saves a lot of time. (Zikmund et al., 2012). 3.3. Constructs, measures and data collection Table 1 presents names of constructs and their measurements for the paper. We designed the questionnaire based on previous literature. For example, items measuring strategic orientation were adapted and modified from Li and Zhou (2010) and Panda (2014), organizational innovation capability were adapted and modified from Wang and Chen (2013) and SMEs performance measures were adapted and modified from Wang and Chen (2013). Strategic orientation was measured with three sub-constructs and 12 items, organizational innovation capability was measured using two sub-constructs and 8items while SMEs performance was measured using two subconstructs and seven items. Structured questionnaires were used because they are often used in behavioural science research to determine intentions, preferences, attitudes and opinions. Several other authors, including (K. M. Appiah et al., 2021; K. M. P. Appiah et al., 2021; Appiah et al., 2022), argued that there is very effective in modelling and straightforward to use. All constructs were measured using point Likert’s Scale. The highest point of the scale was 5 -implies strongly agree while 1-implies strongly disagree. This paper involves the use of human participants, as result all the recommended ethical protocols were duly followed. These include; informed content, voluntary participation, respect for human right and protection from harm. Ethical Review Committee of the Kumasi Technical University approved the measurement instruments. Table 1. Constructs and Measurements Constructs Number of Items Type of Scale Sources Strategic Orientation Sub-constructs (Marketing orientation; Technology orientation and Entrepreneurship orientation) 12 items 5-Point Likert-Type Scale Li and Zhou (2010); Panda (2014) Organizational Innovation Capability Sub-constructs Radical innovative capability Incremental innovative capability 8 items 5-Point Likert-Type Scale Wang and Chen (2013) SMEs Performance Sub-constructs Financial Performance Customer Service Performance 7 items 5-Point Likert-Type Scale Yang et al. (2009); Ngo and O’Cass (2013); Lin et al. (2018) Source: Authors compilations Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 6 of 18 3.4. Analytical Technique The mediation analysis has been conducted using Andrew Hayes Macro Process and SPSS version 23. Analyses were conducted at two levels. Firstly, the validity of the measurements has been determined through discriminant and convergent approaches. Secondly, the T-values have been used to test the hypotheses of the model. The composite reliability and factor loadings have been used to evaluate convergent validity. The result has been validated using AVEs score. Nevertheless, discriminant validity has been assed using AVEs estimates based on Fornell and Larcker approach as showed in the Table 2. Direct and indirect effects. The impact of strategic orientation on SMEs performance was determine using direct effect model (without the mediator) and an indirect effect (with mediator) model (organizational innovation capability). The mediation analysis was based on the procedure of Baron and Kenny (1986) and Sobel (1982). According to Sobel, a variable can be considered a mediator to the extent that it transfers the effect of a given independent variable (IV) to a given dependent variable (DV). In general, Sobel argues that mediation exists if (1) the IV has a significant effect on the mediator, (2) the IV has a significant effect on the DV in the absence of the mediator, (3) the mediator has a significant unique effect on the DV, and (4) the effect of the IV on the DV decreases when the mediator is included in the model. 4. Results 4.1. Convergent validity, discriminant validity and, multicollinearity test Prior to the structural analyses and testing of hypotheses, the paper has assessed the model for possible violation of construct validity and multicollinearity assumption. Factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, scores were used to assess convergent validity. To validate convergent validity, the average variance extracted scores were assessed. As showed in Table 2 all the factor loadings are higher than the recommended 0.7 which is acceptable for the model. Likewise, Cronbach Alpha and Composite Reliability scores are higher than the minimum recommended 0.7. Moreover, AVE scores are far higher than the minimum recommended 0.5. These scores imply that the model has acceptable convergent validity score. As indicated in Table 3, Fornell and Larcker (1981) criteria has been used to determine discriminant validity using square roots of the AVE estimates. The square roots of the AVE estimates are far higher than the intra-construct correlation co-efficients suggesting an acceptable discriminant validity. Again, the study has revealed Table 4 that there is no major multicollinearity problem in the model as VIF scores are within the acceptable limit (e.g., VIF<5) (Hair et al., 2017). 4.2. Path Co-Efficients and hypotheses testing As showed in the Table 5, the predictive power of the hierarchical regression models ranged from 0.864 to 0.957 suggesting that between 86.4% and 95.7% changes in SMEs performance are caused by the variables used in the models. The score further suggest that the models are strong suitable for its purposes. Moving on with the individual direct and indirect effects, the results have showed that entrepreneurial orientation has significant and positive effect on firm performance (β = 0.326, t-value = 2.030). Again, market orientation has significant and positive effect on firm performance (β = 0.593, t-value = 6.500). Also, technology orientation has significant and positive effect on firm performance (β = 0.777, t-value = 6.958). Moreover, entrepreneurial orientation has significant and positive effect on organizational innovation capability (β = 1.149, t-value = 11.860). Furtherance, market orientation has significant and positive effect on organizational innovation capability (β = 0.354, t-value = 6.417). Furthermore, technology orientation has significant and positive effect on organizational innovation capability (β = 0.624, t-value = 9.248). Again, organizational innovation capability has significant and positive effect on firm performance (β = 0.855, t-value = 25.302). Expectedly, organizational innovation capability significantly mediates the relationship between market orientation and firm performance (β = 0.431, t-value = 4.391). Similarly, organizational innovation capability significantly mediates relationship between technology orientation and firm performance (β = 0.495, t-value = 3.764). However, organizational innovation capability does not significantly mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance (β=-0.156, tvalue = −0.737). As illustrated in Table 6, all the hypotheses of Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 7 of 18 6.3. Limitations This paper has some limitations which could be used as bases for further knowledge acquisition and disseminations. Foremost, this paper focused on strategic orientation and firm performance and the mediating role of organizational innovation capability. It is suggested that future studies should consider multi-mediation model. Besides, there is the need to test the moderating effect of top leadership commitment on the relationship between strategic orientation and firm performance. Again, this study adopted cross sectional survey strategy, it is strongly recommended that future studies should consider using longitudinal study and compare the outcome. Also, there is the need to conduct a comparative study between strategic orientations of multinational corporations and local SMEs. Furthermore, future researchers should endeavor to use mixed method research approach since one automatically offset the weakness of the other. Moreover, future studies should adopt qualitative research approach to explore strategic orientation in new and emerging specific markets. Again, there is the need for key informant interviews with SMEs regulatory bodies to explore policy options to enhance SMEs sustainable growth and development. Author details Marian Maclean 1 Michael Karikari Appiah 2 E-mail: [email protected] Joyce Francisca Addo 3 1 Management Studies Department, Kumasi Technical University, Kumasi, Ghana. 2 School of Sustainable Development, University of Environment and Sustainable Development, Somanya, Ghana. 3 Faculty of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development, Kumasi Technical University, Kumasi, Ghana. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Citation information Cite this article as: Implications of strategic orientation on firms’ performance in a lower middle-income country: Does organizational innovation capability matter?, Marian Maclean, Michael Karikari Appiah & Joyce Francisca Addo, Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366. References Abbas, J., Raza, S., Nurunnabi, M., & Minai, M. S. (2019). The impact of entrepreneurial business networks on firms’ performance through a mediating role of dynamic capabilities. Sustainability, 11(11), 3006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113006 Abdulrab, M., Al-Mamary, Y. H. S., Alwaheeb, M. A., Alshammari, N. G. M., Balhareth, H., & Al-Shammari, S. A. (2021). Mediating role of strategic orientations in the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance of Saudi SMEs. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(4), e20211113. https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2021.029 Adiguzel, Z., & Sonmez Cakir, F. (2022). Examining the effects of strategic orientation and motivation on performance and innovation in the production sector of automobile spare parts. European Journal of Management Studies, 27(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/EJMS-01-2022-0007 Akter, S., Hossain, M. A., Lu, Q. (., & Shams, S. M. R. (2021). Big data-driven strategic orientation in international marketing. International Marketing Review, 38(5), 927–947. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-11-2020-0256 Appiah, K. M. (2022). A simplified model to enhance SMEs’ investment in renewable energy sources in Ghana. International Journal of Sustainable Energy Planning and Management, 35, 83–96. https://doi.org/10. 54337/ijsepm.7223 Appiah, M. K., Akolaa, R. A., & Ayisi-Addo, A. K. (2022). Modeling the impact of macroenvironmental forces on investment in renewable energy technologies in Ghana: The moderating role of Entrepreneurship orientation dimensions. Cogent Economics & Finance, 10(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022. 2071387 Appiah, K. M., Boateng, F., Abugri, A., & Barnes, S. (2022). Modeling the implications of sustainable supply chain practices on sustainable performance in Ghana’s petroleum industry: The role of stakeholders’ pressure. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 15(1), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038. 2022.2149875 Appiah, K. M. P., B, T., Sanusi, A. N., & Tan, A. W. K. (2021). Identifying and prioritizing factors of the formation of investment strategy in the Ghana’s downstream oil and gas industry. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021. 1948795 Appiah, K. M., Sedegah, D., & Akolaa, A. R. (2021). The implications of macroenvironmental forces and SMEs investment behaviour in the energy sector: The role of supply chain resilience. Heliyon, 7(7), e08426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08426 Appiah, K. M., Tettevi, P. K., Amaning, N., & Opoku Ware, E. (2022). Modeling the implications of internal audit effectiveness on value for money and sustainable procurement performance: An application of structural equation modeling. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2022.2102127 Asghari, A. F., & Amani, R. (2016). “Surveying the influence of market and innovation orientation on E-Loyalty (Case Study: An Iranian Company). Journal of Administrative Management”, Education + Training, 12(4), 43–50. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Blaique, L., Abu-Salim, T., Asad Mir, F., & Omahony, B. (2022). The impact of social and organisational capital on service innovation capability during COVID-19: The mediating role of strategic Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 14 of 18 environmental scanning. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EJIM-01-2022-0023 Bocken, N., Strupeit, L., Whalen, K., & Nubholz, J. (2019). A review and evaluation of circular business model innovation tools. Sustainability, 11(8), 2210. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su11082210 Cao, T. T., Le, P. B., & Nguyen, N. T. M. (2022). Impacts of high-involvement HRM practices on organizational innovation capability: The mediating mechanism of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. International Journal of Innovation Science, 14(5), 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-05-2021-0091 Capriati, M., & Divella, M. (2020). Firms’ organisational capabilities and innovation generation: The case of Italy. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 31 (6), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599. 2020.1823674 Charoensukmongkol, P. (2016, June). The interconnections between bribery, political network, government supports, and their consequences on export performance of small and medium enterprises in Thailand [Las interconexiones entre sob. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 259–276. Charoensukmongkol, P. (2022). Does entrepreneurs’ improvisational behavior improve firm performance in time of crisis? Management Research Review, 45 (1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-12-2020- 0738 Chevrollier, N., Zhang, J., van Leeuwen, T., & Nijhof, A. (2019). The predictive value of strategic orientation for ESG performance over time. Corporate Governance, 20(1), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/ CG-03-2019-0105 Demircioglu, M. A. (2016). Organizational Innovation. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-31816-5_3017-1 Direction, S. (2021). Strategic orientations and business success: The key role of internal marketing. Strategic Direction, 37(6), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/SD-04- 2021-0045 Ekawee, V., & Charoensukmongol, P. (2020). Interaction effect of entrepreneurial orientation and stakeholder orientation on the business performance of firms in the steel fabrication industry in Thailand. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 12(4), 453–473. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-05-2019-0072 Fan, F., Zhang, X., & Wang, X. (2022). Are there political cycles hidden inside collaborative innovation efficiency? An empirical study based on Chinese cities. Science & public policy, 49(3), 532–551. https://doi. org/10.1093/scipol/scac005 Gibson, C. H., III, H, J., & Buckley, M. R. (2014). Understanding the role of networking in organizations. Career Development International, 19(2), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-09-2013-0111 Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage. Hassan, L., & Samour, S. (2016). Capital Structure and Firm Performance: Did the Financial Crisis Matter? - A cross-industry study, Master’s Thesis, Uppsala University. Hollen, R. M. A., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. The role of management innovation in enabling technological process innovation: An inter-organizational perspective. (2013). European Management Review, 1091), 10(1), 35–50. available at. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12003 Huo, M., & Li, C. (2022). Impact of managerial power on enterprise innovation performance: The mediating roles of financing constraints and strategic orientation. Chinese Management Studies, 17(3), 637–659. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-06-2021-0249 Ibarra-Cisneros, M. -A., Demuner-Flores, M. D. R., & Hernández-Perlines, F. (2021). Strategic orientations, firm performance and the moderating effect of absorptive capacity. Journal of Strategy and Management, 14(4), 582–611. https://doi.org/10. 1108/JSMA-05-2020-0121 Iqbal, S., Rasheed, M., Khan, H., & Siddiqi, A. (2021). Human resource practices and organizational innovation capability: Role of knowledge management. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 51(5), 732–748. https://doi. org/10.1108/VJIKMS-02-2020-0033 Jassmy, K., Banacu, C., & Bhaya, Z. (2018). Strategic orientation for improving financial performance case study in Al-Qadissiya governorate banking. Management and Economics Review, 2(1), 147–164. Lin, Y., Luo, J., Ieromonachou, P., Rong, K., & Huang, L. (2018). Strategic orientation of servitization in manufacturing firms and its impacts on firm performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2017-0485 Liu, G., Liu, W., & Ko, W. W. (2022). Organisational capabilities and small and medium sized firms’ attainment of innovation outcomes: The moderating roles of exports and formal business networks. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 42(7), 1022–1060. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJOPM-09-2021-0600 Li, J. J., & Zhou, K. Z. (2010). How foreign firms achieve competitive advantage in Chinese emerging economy: Managerial ties and market orientation. Journal of Business Research, 63(8), 856–862. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.06.011 Ludmila, S., & Stanislava, G. (2015). The Application of Business Network Approach for Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) with regard to their Buying Behavior. Journal of Competitiveness, 7(3), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2015.03.05 Mano, R. (2014). Networking modes and performance in israel’s nonprofit settings. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(4), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/ nml.21104 Mendoza-Silva, A. (2021). Innovation capability: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3), 707–734. https://doi. org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2019-0263 Migdadi, M. M. (2022). Knowledge management processes, innovation capability and organizational performance. International Journal of Productivity & Performance Management, 71(1), 182–210. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2020-0154 Montreuil, V. -L., Lauzier, M., & Gagnon, S. (2021). A closer look at determinants of organizational capability to innovate (OCI): A dynamic capabilities perspective. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3), 820–847. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2019- 0127 Nandram, S. S. (2016). Organizational innovation by integrating simplification. Springer International Pu. Nassani, A. A., & Aldakhil, A. M. (2021). Tackling organizational innovativeness through strategic orientation: Strategic alignment and moderating role of strategic flexibility. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(3), 847–861. https://doi.org/10. 1108/EJIM-04-2021-0198 Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 15 of 18 Nganga, Z. (2017). Influence of strategic orientation on performance of telecommunication firms in Kenya. In A Research Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Award of Of the Degree of Master of Business Administration. School Of Business, University Of Nairobi. Ngo, L. V., & O’Cass, A. (2013). Innovation and business success: The mediating role of customer participation. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1134–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012. 03.009 Novotna, L. (2021). Business networking as a tool of the information and knowledge management of the owners of small and middle enterprises – Case of study. Hradec Economic Days, Obel, B., & Gurkov, I. (2021). Strategic orientation of the firm towards its stakeholders and inclination towards sustainability – the conceptual framework. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31 (2), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-04-2021- 2721 Owusu, D., Mensah, I., Amenumey, E. K., & Mensah, R. D. (2019). Effect of strategic orientation on performance of star-rated hotels in Ghana. Journal of Business and Enterprise Development, VOLUME 8(2019), 143–176. https://doi.org/10.47963/jobed.2019.05 Panda, D. K. (2014). Managerial networks and strategic orientation in SMEs. Journal of Strategy and Management, 7(4), 376–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/ jsma-12-2013-0071 Pufal, N. A., & Zawislak, P. A. (2022). Innovation capabilities and the organization of the firm: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 33(2), 287–307. https://doi.org/10. 1108/JMTM-02-2021-0054 Rasyid, R., & Linda, M. R. (2019). Ownership structure, capital structure and firm performance: A Case in Indonesia. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 97. Rietveldt, L., & Goedegebuure, R. (2014). The influence of network relationships on the internationalization process of SMEs: A multiple case-study of Ethiopian SMEs. Maastricht School of Management. Working Paper, No.2014/08. Siegenthaler, B. R. (2022). Evaluating the Organization’s Innovation Capability: A New Guiding Methodology. Edpacs, 65(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07366981.2021.1913697 Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. Suriyapperuma, H. P. A. Y., S, M., & Khatibi, A. (2015). The impact of business networking on SME Performance: Development of a conceptual framework. International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, 4(2). Uzoamaka, N. -O.P., Ifeoma, A. R., & Nosike, C. J. (2020). Strategic Orientation Dimensions: A Critical Review. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), 4(9). Valencia, A. V., & Cazares, C. T. (2016). Academic and research networks management: Challenges for higher education institutions in Mexico. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0013-2 Vlasic, G. (2022). Comparative analysis of the role of strategic orientation, strategic performance metric focus and strategic audacity in driving firm performance: Family businesses vs nonfamily businesses. Journal of Family Business Management, 13(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-03-2022-0048 Walker, R. M., Chen, J., & Aravind, D. (2015). Management innovation and firm performance: An integration of research findings. European Management Journal, 33 (5), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.07. 001 Wang, D., & Chen, S. (2013). Does intellectual capital matter? High-performance work systems and bilateral innovative capabilities. International Journal of Manpower, 34(8), 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJM-07-2013-0167 Yang, C. -C., Marlow, P. B., & Lu, C. -S. (2009). Assessing resources, logistics service capabilities, innovation capabilities and the performance of container shipping services in Taiwan. International Journal of Production Economics, 122(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.03.016 Zhani, N., Mouri, N., & Hamndi, A. (2021). Can a technology firm desire too much of a good thing? The double-edged sword effects of technology orientation on performance. European Business Review, 33(5), 725–741. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR- 07-2020-0179 Zikmund, W. G., Babin, J., Carr, J., & Griffin, M. (2012). Business Research Methods: With Qualtrics Printed Access Card”. Cengage Learning. Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 16 of 18 Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire I respectfully, request you to be part of this research by completing the attached questionnaire. This questionnaire is aimed to be filled in by business owners, business units’ heads, and CEO’s. Most of the items are rating scales. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about your business? (1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree). Tick as appropriate Strategic Orientation 1 2 3 4 5 Strategic Orientation (1) We constantly monitor our level of commitment and orientation to serve the customer needs (2) Our business objectives are primarily driven by customer satisfaction (3) Our business objectives are driven by creating greater customer value (4) Our competitive strategies are based on our understanding of customer needs (5) We constantly monitor our level of commitment and orientation to serve the customer needs Entrepreneurship orientation (1) We value the simplely and risk-reducing management process much more highly than leadership initiative for change (2) Our top managers are likely to “play it safe” (3) Our managers like to implement plans only if they are certain that they will work Technological Orientation (1) We use sophisticated technology in our new product development (2) Our new products are always the state-of-the-art technology (3) We actively solicit and develop technologically advanced new products (4) Technical innovation, based on research results, is readily accepted in the organization Organizational Innovation Capability (1) Our company has the capability of innovations that reinforce the prevailing product/service lines. (2) Our company has the capability of innovations that reinforce the existing expertise in prevailing products/services. (Continued) Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 17 of 18 (Continued) Strategic Orientation 1 2 3 4 5 (3) Our company has capability to ensure innovative learning (4) Our company has the capability of innovations that reinforce how it currently competes. (5) Our company has the capability of innovations that make the prevailing product/service lines obsolete. (6) Our company has the capability of innovations that fundamentally change the prevailing products/services. (7) Our company is among the first to adopt new technologies in our industry (8) Our company has the capability of innovations that make the existing expertise in prevailing products/services obsolete. Firm Performance (1) Our company profit margin has increased as a result of corporate strategy (2) Our company returns on investment has increased as a result of corporate strategy (3) Our company return on assets has increased as a result of our commitment towards corporate strategy activities (4) Our company market share has increased through corporate strategy (5) Our company cost components have decreased through corporate strategy (6) Our company flexibility in the production processes has increased (7) Our company has increased in consistency in meeting the needs of customers Maclean et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2211366 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211366 Page 18 of 18