Tourism and hospitality firms’ response to COVID-19: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and managers’ market recovery perception

de Lurdes Calisto, Maria; Costa, Teresa; Umbelino, Jorge Article Tourism and hospitality firms’ response to COVID-19: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and managers’ market recovery perception Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: de Lurdes Calisto, Maria; Costa, Teresa; Umbelino, Jorge (2024) : Tourism and hospitality firms’ response to COVID-19: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and managers’ market recovery perception, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2311112 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326031 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/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Tourism and hospitality firms’ response to COVID-19: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and managers’ market recovery perception Maria de Lurdes Calisto, Teresa Costa & Jorge Umbelino To cite this article: Maria de Lurdes Calisto, Teresa Costa & Jorge Umbelino (2024) Tourism and hospitality firms’ response to COVID-19: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and managers’ market recovery perception, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2311112, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2311112 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2311112 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 17 Feb 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 878 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 ManageMent | ReseaRch aRticle Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2311112 Tourism and hospitality firms’ response to COVID-19: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and managers’ market recovery perception Maria de lurdes calistoa , teresa costab and Jorge Umbelinoc aCentre for tourism Research, Development, and innovation (CituR), Centre for advanced studies in Management and economics (CeFage), estoril Higher institute for tourism and Hotel studies, estoril, Portugal; bCentre for tourism Research, Development, and innovation (CituR), Centre for Research in Business sciences (CiCe), instituto Politécnico de setúbal, setúbal, Portugal; cCentre for tourism Research, Development, and innovation (CituR), Centre for geographical studies (Ceg), estoril Higher institute for tourism and Hotel studies, estoril, Portugal ABSTRACT literature is prolific on how several crises have affected tourism and hospitality. however, those studies are primarily concerned with the impacts at the destination level and less with tourism businesses’ resilience and recovery. however, recently, some studies have addressed tourism resilience in a broader range, primarily because of how tourism and hospitality has been affected by cOViD-19. the pandemic had completely different characteristics from other disasters that affected tourism businesses previously—namely, its global range and long duration. When studying business recovery, it is relevant to investigate how managerial models and perceptions affected how t&h firms responded to the consequences of the pandemic. the purpose is to study how t&h firms’ entrepreneurial orientation and managers’ perception of the external environment, namely market recovery, relate to the actions taken during the pandemic. We conducted a cluster analysis to test our propositions considering two clustering variables: eO (entrepreneurial Orientation) and MRP (Market Recovery Perception). Results suggest three types of t&h firms exist and that these opted for different recovery actions during the cOViD-19 pandemic. Finally, our work presents a set of important theoretical and practical implications that can be useful to several stakeholders, namely academics and professionals. Introduction the cOViD-19 pandemic affected several economic activities and impacted businesses globally (su etal., 2021). tourism and hospitality (t&h) were among the most affected activities (islam et al., 2021). as highlighted by costa et al. (2021), literature is prolific on how other types of disasters have affected tourism activities in the past. those studies are mainly focused on localised events in space and time, such as terrorist attacks (e.g. tingbani et al., 2019), earthquakes and tsunamis (e.g. Orchiston & higham, 2016) or typhoons, storms, and floods (ghaderi et al., 2015). however, these are studies mostly concerned with the impacts at the destination level and less with tourism businesses’ resilience and recovery. Resilience refers to an organisation’s ability to recover from a crisis (Duchek, 2020). Recently, some studies have addressed tourism resilience in a broader range. For example, alebaki and ioannides (2017) studied the resilience of greece’s wine tourism sector from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. sheppard and Williams (2016) found that individual factors such as well-being and cognitive and behavioural competencies are an essential part of the resilience framework. Watson and Deller © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT Maria de Lurdes Calisto lurdes[email protected] Centre for tourism Research, Development, and innovation (CituR), Centre for advanced studies in Management and economics (CeFage) estoril Higher institute for tourism and Hotel studies, av. Condes de Barcelona, 808, 2769-510, estoril, Portugal. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2311112 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. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 9 June 2023 Revised 14 January 2024 accepted 15 January 2024 KEYWORDS entrepreneurial orientation; tourism; hospitality; covid-19; recovery; environmental perception REVIEWING EDITOR Pablo Ruiz, Universidad de castilla-la Mancha, spain SUBJECTS environmental economics; hospitality; tourism 2 M. D. l. calistO etal. (2022) focus on the dependency of a region from t&h as a factor that results in lower resilience. however, they note that even within each region, there are pockets where the opposite is true, ‘where greater dependency enhanced economic resiliency’ (p. 1210). however, the cOViD-19 pandemic had completely different characteristics from other disasters that affected tourism previously—namely, its global range and long duration. no other crisis that affected t&h this century (e.g. terrorist attacks, epidemics, natural disasters) had a global range or lasted as long as the cOViD-19 pandemic. it is, therefore, relevant to investigate how managerial models and perceptions affect how t&h firms responded to the consequences of the pandemic. Managerial models might be entrepreneurial or traditional (stevenson & Jarillo, 2007). traditional management models can be suitable in routine and predictable environments but inadequate in adverse environments and crises (gibson & tarrant, 2010), especially in situations like the cOViD-19 pandemic. extant literature has shown that entrepreneurial resources are crucial to mitigating the cOViD-19 crisis’s adverse effects on business firms (scheidgen et al., 2021). Firms with higher entrepreneurial orientation (eO) may quickly adapt to unpredictable environmental changes (laskovaia etal., 2019) and, tend to be more proactive in seeking new opportunities and are more able to adapt to changing market conditions (Rauch et al., 2009). literature also shows that entrepreneurial activities can be an effective strategy for managing a crisis’s challenges (Boers & henschel, 2022; laskovaia et al., 2019; Zighan et al., 2022). For instance, laskovaia et al. (2019) have found the relevant role of entrepreneurial management in economic crisis, and Zighan etal. (2022) the role of eO in sMs resilience. Boers and henschel (2022) studied the eO of family firms during the pandemic. however, despite its potential for t&h, eO has surprisingly provoked little interest from t&h researchers. Fu et al. (2019, p. 2) suggest that future research should be focused on subfields of entrepreneurship literature applied to t&h. in the case of other crises, previous studies have shown that firms respond through organisational actions to adapt to shifting environmental pressures (chattopadhyay et al., 2001). however, managers act on perceptions (collier et al., 2004, p. 76), and ‘…even if their perceptions are totally inconsistent with reality, they are likely to act as if they were true’. therefore, managers’ perceptions of the external environment, including their market recovery perception (MRP) after a crisis, can influence their decision-making and strategic planning. however, Morrish and Jones (2020) claim that there is a relevant gap in the literature concerning recovery strategies those smaller firms employ. Kusa etal. (2022) concur that there are still many questions related to how managers cope with the challenges caused by crises, namely changes in market conditions that require further research and analysis. although recent papers have addressed cOViD-19 from a business recovery standpoint (e.g. caballero-Morales, 2021; Fabeil et al., 2020; Katare et al., 2021), including the case of t&h firms (e.g. sobaih et al., 2021; Yeh, 2021), few studies explore how t&h firms’ eO and MRP relate to the recovery actions taken during the pandemic. as Dias et al. (2022), who found entrepreneurship-related indicators relevant to selecting recovery strategies, pointed out, future research should focus on understanding how entrepreneurs may pursue specific strategies. these gaps are especially relevant due to the large scale of this crisis, making it dissimilar to other global shocks in terms of its impact on the macro and micro environments of t&h firms. to answer them, we strive to advance knowledge on entrepreneurship in t&h by answering the following research questions: ‘how do t&h firms differ in terms of entrepreneurial orientation and managers’ market recovery perception in the cOViD-19 pandemic context?’ ‘how different were those types of firms’ responses to the pandemic?’ Our study makes several contributions. First, we contribute to entrepreneurship studies in t&h by showing that these firms may be categorised into three types according to the interaction between eO and MRP. One type of firm presents high levels of both eO and MRP; another type is characterised by low eO and moderate MRP, and the third type shows high eO and low MRP. second, we spotlight how that interaction is related to the actions taken by firms to respond to the consequences of the pandemic. third, concerning practical implications, our work lists firms’ main actions to respond to the cOViD-19 pandemic, which may serve as a benchmark for t&h managers. Finally, we call on t&h managers and entrepreneurs to assess the level of eO in the face of potential future crises and be conscious of the role of their own perception on managerial decisions. cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 3 Our paper is organised as follows. the next two sections address how cOViD-19 affected t&h and how eO and MRP have been studied in the literature. the method, findings, and discussion sections follow. the paper concludes by presenting theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research. The consequences of COVID-19 for tourism and hospitality tourism is one of the most relevant social and economic activities and certainly one of the most promising for the future (Fletcher etal., 2017). Before the cOViD-19 pandemic, t&h contributed to more than 10% of the world’s gDP and provided more than three hundred million jobs worldwide (UnWtO, 2022). With its multifaceted consequences, tourism is vital to stimulate many other economic activities (Okafor & Yan, 2022). During the cOViD-19 pandemic, there was an entire stoppage in the tourist system; hotels, restaurants, entertainment establishments, and several tourist attractions were left without activity (gössling et al., 2020; niewiadomski, 2020). the pandemic caused a severe collapse in tourism (sigala & Utkarsh, 2021), from which some countries have not yet totally recovered. Many t&h firms closed, and many others significantly reduced their activities, with consequences on profits (Okafor & Yan, 2022). By its very definition, tourism is about movement. according to the United nations World tourism Organization, ‘tourism is a social, cultural and economic phenomenon involving the movement of people to countries or places outside their usual environment for personal or business/professional purposes’ (UnWtO, 2022). some travellers consider the tourism movement pleasurable, which is sometimes the main reason for travelling. For others, tourism movement is the price you pay to reach your desired destination. however, for both groups, it means an accepted risk of contagion, considering the lessons learned from other episodes of health crisis and more so from cOViD-19 (nazneen et al., 2022), as well as other risks. especially after the ‘episode of 9/11’, travellers had to familiarise themselves with security threats; security checkpoints at airports—the same at some ports and railway stations—have become routine and even expected (spalding, 2016). however, the magnitude of cOViD-19 raised another primary concern: health security, both at the terminals and in the various means of transportation. travelling became a decision that involved some reflection and private internal negotiation about the level of risk the traveller accepted (Valencia & crouch, 2008). now, in most destinations, life has returned to its pre-cOViD-19 context. indeed, most people were eager to ‘get their lives back’, which often implied their right to travel and be a tourist (Zhang et al., 2021). in some cases, it meant the so-called revenge tourism. however, for some people who avoid all kinds of risks—usually older adults, but not just these—the management of health-related risks is, in many cases, still a critical factor in their travelling decisions (Fotiadis etal., 2021)—visiting one place and not another, accepting or avoiding high season, among others. therefore, tourism after cOViD-19 is still a mystery to be solved (Deep et al., 2021). Despite the sector’s apparent recovery, some questions remain open. Will both sides of the tourism system, demand and supply, return to the old methods and practices for the products and destinations already known (following the idea that a successful model must not be changed)? alternatively, will they tend to take this opportunity to reinforce some new solutions, for example, related to sustainability and sound environmental practices, or accessibility for all (Wee et al., 2021), or to an increased use of technology to facilitate contactless interactions and a focus on health and safety measures (Rahimizhian & irani, 2020)? in this study, we focus on the side of supply and how managerial models and perceptions may be relevant to studying how t&h firms responded to cOViD-19, hopefully shedding some light on preparing for future crises. The external environment and entrepreneurial orientation eO refers to a tendency to engage in innovation, proactiveness, and risk-taking (Wang et al., 2020). it relates to processes, practices, and decision-making activities that lead to new products, services, technological innovations, markets, or business model innovations (covin & Wales, 2019). eO is essential for firms where innovation is an important source of differentiation and a determinant of competitiveness. 4 M. D. l. calistO etal. Developing products, processes, and organisational innovations supported by new technologies requires an entrepreneurial orientation. therefore, these developments are essential indicators of eO (Jiang et al., 2018). the study of eO emerged within the research on strategic orientation. according to Matsuno et al. (2002), ‘the literature reveals several different terms, such as entrepreneurial proclivity (e.g. Pellissier & Van Buer, 2011), entrepreneurial orientation (e.g. lumpkin & Dess, 1996), and entrepreneurial management (e.g. stevenson & Jarillo, 2007), that are used interchangeably to describe the equivalent generalised concept’ (p. 19). eO conceptualisation has been evolving, and its study has increased recently (Freixanet etal., 2021; Wales etal., 2021). Despite all this interest, there is still no consensus in the literature about the eO construct. seminal studies measured eO using three dimensions: innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking (Miller, 1983). later, two more dimensions were introduced: autonomy and competitive aggressiveness (lumpkin & Dess, 1996). literature reviews show that some authors use only three dimensions (e.g. amin, 2015; chenuos & Maru, 2015), while others use five (e.g. Zehir etal., 2015). notwithstanding, several studies have examined the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (eO) and performance. although some contradictory empirical results exist, Rauch et al. (2009), in their meta-analysis, found that eO was positively related to performance. Other studies show that internal and external moderators affect the eO-performance relationship (Freixanet et al., 2021). some of these moderators are the environment (escribá-esteve etal., 2008), national culture (Brettel etal., 2015), networking (su et al., 2015), and open innovation (Freixanet et al., 2021), to name a few. Previous research has shown that firms with higher entrepreneurial orientation have been more innovative and effective when dealing with crises and emergencies (soininen et al., 2012). More proactive and innovative firms have greater chances to survive economic crises. in the t&h literature, the role of entrepreneurial orientation in dealing with the uncertainty of the tourism sector has been highlighted in previous research (tang etal., 2020). Despite the different perspectives on the contribution of the various dimensions of eO to performance, some authors (e.g. hjalager, 2010; tajeddini, 2011) conclude that innovative activities significantly and positively affect performance in the hotel industry. More recently, tajeddini et al. (2020) confirmed eO as a predictor of performance in t&h. the external environment is also an essential factor influencing firms’ performance. During the last decade, researchers have maintained their interest in exploring relationships between the environment and eO or between eO and performance as affected by the external environment (Martins & Rialp, 2013; tajeddini et al., 2020). For these authors, eO emerges as a resource or a vital catalyst for entrepreneurs to operate successfully in competitive, uncertain, and dynamic environments. entrepreneurial orientation has been shown to improve firm performance in shifting and changing environments (Rosenbusch etal., 2013). More recently, Zighan et al. (2022) showed how sMes’ eO helped in understanding and developing mitigation actions against the hardships of the pandemic. in t&h literature, some studies have identified specific factors in the external environment that may impact eO. For example, tajeddini et al. (2020) found the role of environmental dynamism. similarly, taheri et al. (2019) studied eO in market turbulence, and Fadda and sørensen (2017) studied how destination attractiveness and eO influence firm performance. also, in their studies of sMes, Martins and Rialp (2013) conclude that eO’s impact on profitability is higher when there is an eO-external environment fit. Managers’ perception of market recovery and entrepreneurial orientation Market recovery has been a concern of academics in many previous disasters that affected tourism (e.g. Bujosa et al., 2015; carlsen & hughes, 2008; carlsen & liburd, 2008; Mair et al., 2016; Walters & Mair, 2012). Despite the large body of research on tourism marketing recovery strategies after crises or disasters, mainly concerning disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and influenza, market recovery in tourism has become a top priority during the pandemic when how to develop effective recovery strategies has become an urgent issue (luo et al., 2021). the strategic management literature stresses the role of managerial perception in decision-making and strategy formulation (Özleblebici & Çetin, 2015). On the other hand, the managerial cognition literature suggests that because of bounded rationality, top managers develop subjective representations of the environment that guide their strategic decisions and firm action (Fiol & O’connor, 2003). More cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 5 specifically, it is accepted by many scholars that the way managers perceive the environment is more important than the actual environment (Freel, 2005). this happened with cOViD-19 since, to some extent, t&h managers could not objectively predict how the external environment would evolve in many of its components (e.g. the number of cOViD-19 cases, regulatory decisions on travel restrictions, and consumer behaviour). therefore, managers develop individual perceptions of uncertainty, including those related to market recovery (MRP). On the other hand, some firms engage in more entrepreneurial activities than others. One of the reasons for this may be in managerial perceptions of the competitive environment, based on the view that these perceptions influence how managers frame the issues facing their firm and its actions (simsek etal., 2007). Firms with higher eO are more proactive in seeking new opportunities and can better adapt to changing market conditions (Rauch etal., 2009). there is also evidence to suggest that firms with high levels of eO may be more resilient during times of market downturn. For instance, covin and slevin (1991) propose that eO is positively related to a firm’s effort to predict market trends and is more positively associated with firm performance among firms that emphasise predicting trends. Due to their innovative and proactive approach to business, these firms may better weather the storm and emerge stronger on the other side. in t&h literature, there are also studies on how managers’ perceptions of the environment influence their strategic decisions (Jogaratnam & Wong, 2009), including entrepreneurial activities (Jogaratnam, 2002) and its influence on firm performance (Köseoglu et al., 2013). Finally, for lópez-gamero etal. (2010), proactive environmental management influences financial performance, and financial performance impacts proactive environmental management. Overall, the general literature suggests that eO can positively impact firms’ performance during environmental uncertainty and that managerial perceptions can influence their engagement in eO behaviours. in t&h literature, results point in the same direction. t&h firms have had to take recovery actions to adapt to the changing market conditions and mitigate the pandemic’s adverse effects. One expects those actions to vary according to each firm’s interaction between its eO and MRP. therefore, based on the review of the literature, we developed the following propositions to be tested: P1—t&h firms may be organised into different types according to the combination of the level of eO with the level of MRP. P2—Recovery actions differ across the resulting types of t&h firms, as the combination of each company’s level of eO and MRP will translate, in practice, into specific choices of recovery actions. the first proposition will be tested using cluster analysis, and the second by comparing the companies’ actions in each of the resulting clusters. Methods the study follows a deductive research approach. a quantitative research strategy and a descriptive research design were used. Data was collected through a survey of t&h managers. Research instrument and variables the questionnaire measured entrepreneurial orientation (eO) and market recovery perception (MRP). the questionnaire included a list of potential recovery actions. three characterisation variables were included: sector, firm size, and firm age. Entrepreneurial orientation/proclivity this study used Matsuno et al. (2002) 3-dimensional scale. although the authors prefer the term ‘entrepreneurial proclivity,’ they define it as ‘the organisation’s predisposition to accept entrepreneurial processes, practices, and decision making, characterised by its preference for innovativeness, risk taking, and proactiveness’ (Matsuno etal., 2002, p. 19). Respondents rated their firm’s eO using a 5-point likert-type scale. One item had to be removed from the eP scale in our sample due to non-significant factor 6 M. D. l. calistO etal. loadings. after the removal of that item, the scale presented adjustment indexes within the critical values: comparative fit index (cFi) = .924 (>0.9), and Bentler-Bonett normed Fit index (nFi) = .904 (>0.9). Market recovery perception according to Wernerfelt and Karnani (1987), perceived environmental uncertainty can be measured based on four dimensions: demand, supply, the intensity of competition, and external factors. in this paper, we decided to focus on the uncertainty of market recovery, which depends on external factors (to the industry), one of those four dimensions. therefore, respondents were asked how they agreed with the following statement: ‘Firm’s managers consider that, in 6 months, the sector will register demand levels at least equal to 2019,’ using a 5-point likert-type scale. Recovery actions Respondents were asked to choose from a list of 13 possible actions, the three most relevant the firm had taken to recover business during the pandemic’s peak. Respondents could also answer ‘none’ or add new actions not considered in the list. the list of actions provided was based on costa et al. (2021). Firm size Firm size was measured in five ranks: (1) from 10 to 14 employees; (2) from 15 to 29 employees; (3) from 30 to 49 employees; (4) from 50 to 249 employees; and (5) 250 or more employees. Firm size was included in our study because smaller companies were more affected by cOViD-19 due to their limited resources when compared with large companies (Pedauga et al., 2021). Firm age Firm age corresponds to the difference between 2021 and the year of the firm’s foundation. this variable was included because as firms age, they tend to be less entrepreneurial (gürbüz & aykol, 2009). Sample We chose to study t&h firms in Portugal due to the country’s increasing relevance as a tourism destination. Portugal ranked 16th globally in the travel & tourism Development index (World economic Forum, 2022) in 2021; it was named the Leading Destination in Europe for four consecutive years (2017–2020) and again in 2022 and 2023 at the World Travel Awards.1 to arrive at our sample, we used the Portuguese tourism national Registry (PtnR),2 which includes different t&h sectors. two emails were sent inviting to participate in the study, the first in July 2021 and the second in september 2021. a total of 69 firms with 10+ employees participated in the study. these are firms from the accommodation sector (69.6%), travel agencies/tour operators (5.8%) and amusement and recreation activities (8.7%). 11 firms confirmed to belong to t&h but did not indicate the subsector. the mean age of firms is 26 years. 25% of firms are less than 9.5 years of age, and 25% have more than 38 years. approximately 50% of firms are very small (10 to 29 employees), 21.7% have 30 to 49 employees, and 18.8% are medium-sized. Five are large firms (7.2%) with 250 or more employees. We chose to rely on single key informants for our data collection, following huber and Power (1985) guidelines for obtaining quality data from single informants. We targeted senior managers since they are the most knowledgeable regarding their firm’s strategies, namely its entrepreneurial orientation (covin & Wales, 2019). Findings and discussion We conducted a cluster analysis to test our propositions considering two clustering variables: eO and MRP. three clusters emerged according to different combinations of the level of eO with the level of MRP (Figure 1). therefore, evidence from results allows the validation of P1—T&H firms may be organised into different types according to the combination of the level of EO with the level of MRP. the confirmed clusters cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 7 correspond to firms with high eO + high MRP (cluster 1; 20 firms), low eO + Moderate MRP (cluster 2; 31 firms), and high eO + low MRP (cluster 3; 18 firms). When investigating which variables distinguish between the different types of firms, we found that these included the two clustering variables - eO (sig. < 0.001) and MRP (sig. < 0.001). these results are consistent with other authors, considering that eO depends on the external environment (Martins & Rialp, 2013; tajeddini et al., 2020) and how managers perceive it (simsek et al., 2007). Firm size (sig. = 0.456) and firm age (sig. = 0.305) are not significantly different between clusters. concerning firm size, this result might be related to the characteristics of the sample in this study, where the majority is small. Regarding firm age, our results do not reveal differences in eO according to age; cluster 2 (low eO) is not significantly different from clusters 1 and 3 (high eO) regarding firm age. this result is contrary to what would be expected according to the literature (gürbüz & aykol, 2009). to test our second proposition, we compared the actions taken by the firms in each cluster. table 1 presents the actions taken by each cluster and the totality of the sample. in table 1, the actions taken by more than 50% of each cluster’s members are highlighted. When looking at the results for the whole sample (last column, to the right), one may observe that the most common actions adopted by most t&h firms were sanitation measures, marketing communication actions, and product/service changes. We should notice that, in Portugal, many sanitation measures were mandatory. however, many firms took additional sanitation measures to obtain the clean & safe badge from turismo de Portugal (the Portuguese national tourism Board), a badge given to firms that complied with the suggested measures. Regarding marketing communication actions and product/ service changes, results are congruent with Mair et al. (2016), who found in their literature review that marketing strategies should be a primary focus in the disaster recovery phase. Differences can be observed between clusters regarding the chosen recovery actions, giving support to P2—Recovery actions differ across the resulting types of T&H firms, as the combination of each company’s level of EO and MRP will translate, in practice, into specific choices of recovery actions. One of those 5791113151719 0 1 2 3 4 5 Cluster 3Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Market-recovery percepon Entrepreneurial proclivity Figure 1. Clusters according to entrepreneurial orientation × market recovery perception. Table 1. actions taken by firms in each cluster—in percentage. type of actions Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 total sample no measures taken 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 investment in new equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 increase in price 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 attracting new markets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 investment in new technologies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Partnership development 50.0 35.5 27.8 37.7 Remodeling / Construction works 35.0 19.4 11.1 21.7 Change in operational processes 40.0 45.2 38.9 42.0 Lowering price 5.0 22.6 33.3 20.3 Product/service changes 60.0 45.2 61.1 53.6 sanitation measures 70.0 77.4 66.7 72.5 Changes in staff profile (e.g. skills) 20.0 9.7 22.2 15.9 Changes in staff size 55.5 45.2 44.4 47.8 Marketing communication 75.0 67.7 77.8 72.5