Entrepreneurship orientation and management ties in the relationship between technological opportunism and innovation performance

Nugroho, Yanuar; Soewarno, Noorlailie Article Entrepreneurship orientation and management ties in the relationship between technological opportunism and innovation performance Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Nugroho, Yanuar; Soewarno, Noorlailie (2024) : Entrepreneurship orientation and management ties in the relationship between technological opportunism and innovation performance, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2413393 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326609 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 Entrepreneurship orientation and management ties in the relationship between technological opportunism and innovation performance Yanuar Nugroho & Noorlailie Soewarno To cite this article: Yanuar Nugroho & Noorlailie Soewarno (2024) Entrepreneurship orientation and management ties in the relationship between technological opportunism and innovation performance, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2413393, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2413393 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2413393 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 22 Oct 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 840 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 Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2413393 Entrepreneurship orientation and management ties in the relationship between technological opportunism and innovation performance Yanuar Nugrohoa and Noorlailie Soewarnob aFaculty of economics and Business, Faculty of Vocational studies, universitas airlangga, surabaya, east Java, indonesia; bFaculty of economics and Business, universitas airlangga, surabaya, east Java, indonesia ABSTRACT During economic crises, innovation performance becomes a critical driver of competitiveness. Technological opportunism is recognized within dynamic markets as a key driver for innovation development. However, gaps persist in understanding how technological flexibility, pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities, and resource optimization influence innovation performance. In order to fill these gaps, this study looks at the relationship between technical opportunism and innovation performance while taking managerial ties and entrepreneurial orientation into account as moderating factors. The study, which collected 93 questionnaires from managers, team leaders, branch leaders, and directors of Indonesian banks, finds a favourable and statistically significant correlation between technological opportunism and innovation performance. It was discovered that managerial ties and entrepreneurial inclination moderated this link. The findings contribute to bridging knowledge gaps in entrepreneurship, technology, and innovation, particularly within the banking industry. 1. Introduction In today’s rapidly evolving business environment, characterized by significant technological advancements and economic uncertainties, firms’ ability to innovate has become a critical determinant of their survival and success. The banking industry, in particular, faces unprecedented challenges due to the rise of digital technologies, increasing competition from fintech companies, and the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors necessitate a strategic focus on leveraging technological opportunism, entrepreneurial orientation, and strong management ties to sustain innovation and competitiveness. In the ever-changing landscape of the modern business world, entrepreneurial activity is an essential driving force for innovation, growth and competitiveness (Bruton et al., 2023). When top managers exhibit an entrepreneurial top management style in their strategic choices and management philosophy, the company is classified as an entrepreneurial enterprise—one of the ways to enhance its competitive advantage (Paek & Lee, 2018). Therefore, maintaining company performance during economic crises calls for adaptability in business practices, seizing business opportunities, optimizing resources, and developing innovative processes (Hasgall & Ahituv, 2018; Kuratko & Morris, 2018; La Nafie et al., 2014). Cooper (2019) found that the commercial success of new products can be influenced by a company’s strong R&D orientation and utilization of cutting-edge technology in new product products. In fast-moving markets, firms’ specific technological capabilities provide a relatively secure foundation for long-term strategies to achieve a competitive advantage (Feng et al., 2020). Entrepreneur-oriented companies are more dynamic, flexible, and opportunistic in seizing opportunities to improve company performance. A high degree of entrepreneurial orientation becomes important when considering the © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT noorlailie soewarno [email protected] Faculty of economics and Business, universitas airlangga, surabaya, east Java, indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2413393 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 26 April 2024 Revised 30 September 2024 Accepted 2 October 2024 KEYWORDS Entrepreneurship; innovation performance; managerial ties; technological opportunism; economy SUBJECTS Business, Management and Accounting; Corporate Governance; Management of Technology & Innovation; Organizational Studies; Entrepreneurship ENTREPRENEuRSHIP & INNOVATION | RESEARCH ARTICLE 2 Y. NuGROHO AND N. SOEWARNO level and agility of the technological turbulence that companies face today and the continued impact of digital technology on individuals and companies across industries. The digital transformation sweeping across industries has profoundly impacted the banking sector. Traditional banks are under pressure to adopt new technologies to enhance operational efficiency, improve customer experiences, and develop innovative financial products. The rise of fintech firms offering agile and customer-centric solutions pose a significant threat to established banks. Recognizing and responding to technological changes—termed technological opportunism—is vital for banks to maintain their competitive edge (J. Cho et al., 2024). Currently, technology is crucial for the success of companies because technology opportunism is the capacity to recognize and react to technology changes, which implies a rise in the value of competition (J. Cho et al., 2024). Determining the return on information technology investment is also essential (IT) as well as growing IT capacities (Melville etal., 2004) constitute significant additions to the field of information systems research and the resource-based view (RBV) because capabilities positively oriented technological opportunism that enables companies to compete better (Cao et al., 2019; Maklan et al., 2015). Previous investigations uncover that with technological advancement, technological opportunism empowers companies to strategically manage and take advantage of chances to oversee technology advancements through creative organizational practices and strategic management (Faraj & Leonardi, 2022). Enterprise-level advances in technical innovation have resulted in changed business strategies (Danvila-del-Valle et al., 2019) and have been connected to handling and product innovation (Geldes etal., 2017), in addition to innovative performance (Valdez-Juárez & Castillo-Vergara, 2021). In this regard, the significance is that since the two are so essential to a company’s performance, it is acknowledged that entrepreneurship and innovation complement each other. Technical innovation must satisfy market demands, and entrepreneurship is necessary for a business to succeed. While it is acknowledged that opportunistic technology companies are perfectly positioned to look into and take advantage of possible opportunities (urban & Maphumulo, 2022), there is frequently a need for arrangement between dynamic qualities, like an entrepreneurial mindset, within businesses to strategically use recently developed (Gomezel & Rangus, 2018). Because of earlier research, the moderating impact of entrepreneurial orientation must be considered. Kusa et al. (2021) examined the presumptions underlying the link between performance and entrepreneurial attitude. In conclusion, the interplay between technological opportunism, entrepreneurial orientation, and management ties is pivotal for enhancing innovation performance in firms. This study aims to address gaps in the literature by examining how these factors influence innovation performance in the banking industry, focusing on Indonesian banks. In addition to technological and entrepreneurial capabilities, robust management ties are essential for accessing critical resources, information, and networks to enhance innovation performance. Business and political connections provide the social capital to navigate complex regulatory environments, secure strategic partnerships, and leverage external expertise (Chen et al., 2018). In the Indonesian context, where regulatory and market conditions can be particularly challenging, strong management ties are indispensable for fostering an environment conducive to innovation. Managerial ties have long been considered a source of social capital, represented by the connections and networks of interactions among businesses that produce economic action (T. Lee, 2019). The finding suggests that directors give social capital connected to the organization to attain commerce objectives. Administrative ties are isolated into two sorts: commerce ties, which include connections with the best directors in other companies, such as buyers, providers, and competitors, which are called level connections; and political ties, which incorporate associations with government authorities, which are called vertical associations (J. J. Wang et al., 2020). Administrative ties offer business visionaries important assets, mastery, data, and benefits such as elite openings and authenticity (W. Zhang et al., 2020). Administrative ties moreover upgrade arrange part trade and collaboration by bringing down exchange costs and lessening advantage (Fox et al., 2020). As a result, administrative ties play a vital part in improving the survival and development of modern wanders (Landry et al., 2018). Business visionaries can improve product development, seize opportunities, and gain a competitive edge with the assistance of administrative ties, but this support can take many different forms (H. Cho et al., 2019). Luo etal. (2012) looked at the application of managerial relationships within the company, with conflicting results regarding the connection between managerial ties and company performance (Abugre, COGENT BuSINESS & MANAGEMENT 3 2020). Numerous studies demonstrate that management ties improve a firm’s ability to perform because they support the development of robust networks, intricate societal linkages, and acquiring rare and valuable resources from networks within the organization or the external environment (Chen etal., 2018). However, due to unethical behaviour and a lack of accountability, some studies discovered that management ties negatively impact corporate performance (Z. Li, 2022). Lepore et al. (2019) claimed that different ownership structures affect a company’s performance regarding managerial connections. According to the research, corporations are more prone to rely on management ties when forming exchange agreements with more significant environmental uncertainty (Yung & Root, 2019). Thus, this study establishes management bonds that underpin the relationship between technological opportunism and innovation performance and regulates the kinds of research objects in banking companies that exhibit a high degree of technological opportunism, particularly in the provision of financial services. The Indonesian banking sector is uniquely positioned at the crossroads of rapid technological change and economic growth. As one of Southeast Asia’s largest economies, Indonesia’s banking industry is critical in facilitating financial inclusion and economic development. However, it also faces distinct challenges, including regulatory hurdles, a diverse customer base, and the need for technological upgrades. This study intends to give practical insights to assist Indonesian banks in improving their innovation performance and overall competitiveness by examining the relationship between technological opportunism, entrepreneurial attitude, and managerial relationships. Furthermore, this study seeks to fill gaps in the literature by investigating the impact of these factors on innovation performance within the Indonesian banking sector. This research is in line with urban and Maphumulo (2022), which calls for a more thorough empirical comprehension of technological opportunism and empirical evidence that entrepreneurial attitude is a crucial strategic component for businesses; nevertheless, certain studies also yield inconsistent performance outcomes. Few prior studies have examined the moderating effect of entrepreneurial orientation on technological opportunism on company performance, which explains the influence of entrepreneurial orientation in the relationship between technological opportunism and company performance. By analyzing the moderating effects and interrelationships of each dimension of entrepreneurial orientation, this study makes theoretical and practical contributions, expanding the scope of entrepreneurial orientation experimentally from the realms of entrepreneurship, technology, and innovation. In addition, this study focuses on the banking sector to understand how managerial relationships moderate the impact of innovation performance because testing in different industrial sectors allows for a more dynamic context consistency (Ali et al., 2017). Furthermore, this study explores the cultural aspects of technology access and use among banking managers in urban and rural areas in Indonesia. The analysis will help determine if there are disparities in technology use based on geographical location. understanding these differences can assist banks in developing more targeted strategies for technological innovation based on the specific conditions of each region. This study enhances the understanding of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) by integrating it with technological opportunism (TO), place of origin, and management ties (MT). Previous research has established EO as a critical driver of firm performance (Basco etal., 2020). However, including TO as a mediating variable provides a nuanced view of how EO influences innovation performance. This study extends the EO literature by illustrating that firms with a solid entrepreneurial orientation are better equipped to exploit technological opportunities, boosting their innovation performance (urban, 2019). In addition, technological opportunism has been recognized as a crucial factor for firms to maintain competitive advantage in rapidly changing environments (Saemundsson & Holmén, 2011). This research contributes to the strategic management literature by demonstrating the mediating role of TO in the EO-innovation performance relationship. The findings suggest that firms proactive in identifying and exploiting technological opportunities can enhance their innovation capabilities, thereby achieving superior performance outcomes. The inclusion of management ties as a moderating variable underscores the importance of relational networks in innovation processes. Management ties, characterized by solid relational ties among managers, facilitate knowledge sharing and coordinated efforts essential for innovation (Khan et al., 2023). This 4 Y. NuGROHO AND N. SOEWARNO study contributes to the social capital literature by emphasizing management ties’ role in enhancing EO and TO’s positive effects on innovation performance. This study provides managers and policymakers with a clearer grasp of the intricate linkages between technological opportunism and other factors, which has significant implications for practice and policy, entrepreneurial orientation, management bonding, and innovation performance. These findings can help organizational leaders identify and take advantage of opportunities to oversee technology advancements that will improve business performance. Technology-based banking solutions and value-added services that increase client loyalty require the banking industry to innovate and become entrepreneurial, and technological opportunism is essential to this. 2. Literature and hypothesis development 2.1. The relationship between technological opportunism and performance The approach of dynamic capabilities highlights firm advantage that establishes originality (unequalled) capabilities to reconfigure essential firm assets in response to technological and market changes (Muneeb et al., 2023). Theoretically rooted in dynamic capabilities theory, technological opportunism allows businesses to use various aspects of their strategy and the technical know-how and infrastructure required to cater to distinct market niches (urban & Maphumulo, 2022). Technological opportunism is one of the dynamic characteristics that organizations can leverage to fulfil the demands of many markets and leverage multiple areas of innovation (J. Cho etal., 2024). Technical opportunistic organizations possess technical sensing competence—the ability to comprehend and gather knowledge about new technological developments—and the technological response capability, or the ability to recognize and differentiate between new technologies. These businesses constantly search for information regarding new technical advancements that they perceive as having the potential to be growth sources (Snihur & Wiklund, 2019), be proactive in responding to cutting-edge technologies (Akpan et al., 2021), and are also capable of reshaping corporate plans to take advantage of openings or lower the danger that these new technologies present. Through this monitoring and responding process, businesses may integrate new technology into creative new products and lead the market ahead of their rivals, creating a long-lasting competitive edge (F. Li, 2020) and prevalent company accomplishment (Berawi etal., 2020). In this regard, the detecting and reaction measurements of technological opportunism recommend that companies make asset assignments and investment capabilities in physical resources, specialized competencies, and technology development so that these capabilities are inserted successfully all throughout the organization. The dynamic capabilities approach emphasizes the firm’s advantage, forming the original (unmatched) ability to reconfigure essential firm assets in response to technological and market changes (J. M. Lee et al., 2021). The study results displayed by Tian et al. (2021) agree with the discoveries distinguished by Elidemir etal. (2020), where supplementary capabilities, which contribute to protecting mechanical capabilities from rival imitation, explain how creative advantage affects the core competitive advantage. Furthermore, technologically opportunistic firms can manage technology advancements, seek out competitive advantages, and comprehend the fundamental impact of technological change on operational and strategic choices (Fabrizio et al., 2022). In this case, technology-savvy businesses’ adaptability and agility allow for integrating acknowledged novel advancements into product and benefit development cycles (Faraj & Leonardi, 2022). It frequently creates the possibility of increased margins when combined with higher costs, and eventually, the degree of technological opportunism will improve business performance (Opazo-Basáez et al., 2022). In order to build and maintain a company’s long-term capabilities and performance, particularly inventive performance, technological opportunism is essential (Y. Zhang et al., 2019). According to earlier research findings, corporate functions benefit from developing technology-based sensing and response capabilities. Sensing and response capabilities are complementary in supporting and improving innovation performance (Valdez-Juárez et al., 2024). In addition, innovation performance in a growing market with rapid fluctuations (Genc etal., 2019) encourages companies to be opportunistic towards technology COGENT BuSINESS & MANAGEMENT 5 along with capabilities needed to improve their performance (urban, 2019). Based on these findings, technological opportunism can affect innovation performance. H1: Technological opportunism enhances the performance of innovation 2.2. Entrepreneurial orientation Traditional businesses’ organizational structures are altered by digital technology, opening up new avenues for entrepreneurship (Garcez et al., 2022). Most of the research discusses entrepreneurial orientation; its three main facets are initiative, risk-taking, and proactivity (Wales, 2016). Being proactive is the ability to anticipate needs and make necessary adjustments while being innovative, which shows the ability to create value by developing new goods or processes. Risk-taking is associated with a company’s ability to take calculated risks and experiment (Guo & Jiang, 2020). Several studies (Rüsch et al., 2019; X. Wang et al., 2020) show that the adoption of an entrepreneurial orientation provides the ability for companies to assess strategic decision-making via an entrepreneurial perspective, utilizing many established connections to diverse performance metrics. All three dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation are essential to comprehending the entrepreneurial process, and they can occur in different combinations depending on the kind of entrepreneurial opportunity the firm is pursuing. Entrepreneurial orientation has been linked to improved firm performance to this extent (McGee & Peterson, 2019). One prerequisite for the success of an organization is an entrepreneurial mindset. Tantawy et al. (2021) showed that any company with a solid entrepreneurial attitude tends to be creative and supportive of inventive efforts in creating new goods and services, particularly in new opportunities and technology advancements. Burnette et al. (2020) demonstrates a favourable correlation between strategic learning skills and an entrepreneurial mindset, primarily reflective of the technological responsiveness and sensory capacities businesses require to obtain a competitive edge. Rosique-Blasco et al. (2018) show how introducing entrepreneurship is associated with active abilities and global implementation. Liu and Wang (2022) also appear that entrepreneurial introduction emphatically moderates the connection between small business performance and market orientation in China’s transition economy. Subsequent findings illustrate the relationship between company performance and entrepreneurial orientation, outlining the peculiarities of possible elements in economic change. Research suggests that entrepreneurial orientation positively moderates the relationship between market orientation and the performance of small firms in China’s transition economy. Conversely, other studies indicate that information creation capabilities influence the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance (Santoro et al., 2021). The conclusions of Liu and Wang (2022) explain entrepreneurial orientation as a mediator in measuring company performance, which outlines the uniqueness of contingency variables in economic transitions. Businesses prioritizing entrepreneurship are more likely to embrace new technologies to gain first-mover advantage. Entrepreneurship drives value creation and economic wealth (Ofori-Sasu et al., 2023). Recognizing the fast improvement of technology demands the company’s capacity to find fresh changes brought on by imbalances. Companies must effectively create and use risk-taking strategies in the context of emerging markets in an entrepreneurial orientation to meet customer demands. Putniņš and Sauka (2020) demonstrate that taking risks substantially influences a company’s performance, but (Lwamba et al., 2014) discover that their entrepreneurial approach positively impacts Kenyan producers’ financial performance. In addition, as the environment grows more dynamic and complicated, businesses need to plan and adopt proactive aspects of an entrepreneurial mindset to function in a confusing and unorganized setting (Sánchez-García etal., 2022). It makes it evident that chances abound and that performance should be better for businesses with more excellent entrepreneurial orientation to seize these new opportunities with zeal in a dynamic environment where demand levels vary quickly. McCarthy et al. (2018) highlight entrepreneurial orientation in an unsupportive environment such as an economic crisis; innovation in the dimension of entrepreneurial orientation becomes significant. The above research’s findings can be inferred that in many situations, a company must be excellent in the entrepreneurial orientation dimension to achieve capabilities and use technological opportunism 6 Y. NuGROHO AND N. SOEWARNO to generate more excellent value or enhance innovation performance. It demonstrates how entrepreneurial orientation affects the connection between technological opportunism and the company’s innovation performance. Consequently, this line of inquiry extends to the point wherein technological opportunism capacities are frequently considered complementary to entrepreneurial orientation and generate the skills needed to enhance innovation performance within firms. H2: The relationship between technological opportunism and innovation performance is strengthened by entrepreneurial orientation. 2.3. Management ties There are two categories of managerial ties: business ties, or connections with top managers in other businesses, such as suppliers, buyers, and rivals, and political ties, or connections with public officials; these are referred to as vertical ties. It has long been understood that managerial relationships are a source of social capital, reflected in the networks and connections between businesses that spur economic activity (Zhu, 2020). The research suggests that to accomplish organizational objectives, managers should offer social capital linked to their network. Over the past few decades, web-based apps, technologies, and social media have become standard in all businesses. Businesses can use the Internet to reach clients anywhere (Lo & Campos, 2018). Many online apps and webs, including social networking sites, blogs, forums, microblogs, photo and video sharing, product and service evaluations, evaluative communities, and social games, are examples of technological opportunism. The existence of technological opportunism, such as social media, provides experiences and engages quickly with external entities (Lo & Campos, 2018). Therefore, managerial ties have received much attention from previous researchers (Huynh et al., 2021; T. Lee, 2019; W. Zhang et al., 2020). Social network theory states that management connections give entrepreneurs the necessary resources, know-how, information, and advantages like first dibs and credibility (W. Zhang et al., 2020). Because managerial ties reduce transaction costs, they also promote network interchange and collaboration (Sheng et al., 2011). Therefore, relationships with managers are crucial for improving the survival of those affected by the utilization of technology (Y. Zhang et al., 2019). Executive interactions with external entities within the company’s work environment are called managerial bonds. There are two categories of managerial ties: business ties, or connections with top managers in other businesses, such as suppliers, buyers, and rivals, and political ties, or connections with government officials; these are referred to as vertical ties. Relations between managers have historically been considered a source of social capital, which is communicated within the joins and systems of connections between firms that generate economic action (T. Lee, 2019). It implies that managers give social capital in addition to their plans to achieve economic goals. The use of web-based technologies, applications, and social media have become standard practice in all companies within the last few decades. Companies use the Internet to reach their clients anytime and anywhere (Lo & Campos, 2018). Various online applications and networks, such as social networking sites, blogs, events, microblogs, photo and video sharing, item and benefit surveys, evaluation communities, and social games, can be used for technological opportunism. The presence of technological opportunism, such as social media, gives experiences and engages rapidly with external entities (Appel etal., 2020). Subsequently, managerial ties have received much attention from previous researchers (Huynh etal., 2021; T. Lee, 2019; W. Zhang etal., 2020). Social network theory states that management links provide valuable resources, knowledge, and advantages to business people, including legitimacy and access to extraordinary opportunities (W. Zhang et al., 2020). Because managerial ties reduce transaction costs, they also promote network interchange and collaboration (Sheng et al., 2011). Conversely, social media is a communication tool that helps businesses accomplish various organizational objectives, such as public relations, marketing, branding, customer service, human resources, and problem-solving. Moreover, social media influences consumer loyalty, brand awareness, company brand positioning, and purchase decisions (Nisar & Whitehead, 2016). Businesses have found that social media is a helpful tool for connecting with a large number of potential customers, sharing company information, and adding value to organizations regarding the utility of social media (Shawky et al., 2020). COGENT BuSINESS & MANAGEMENT 7 Companies’ acceptance of technology can build excellent networks between businesses, clients, and vendors (Siamagka et al., 2015). However, regarding strategic orientation, the effect of technology adoption on enhancing business performance is rarely considered when considering management engagement. However, in several previous studies, previous researchers found that the MSME industry that prioritizes technological opportunism has no statistically substantial impact on the success of businesses (Karami & Tang, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2022). In the meantime, additional research on Vietnamese SMEs shows that technology adoption positively impacts company execution (Luu & Ngo, 2019). Lee and Chu (2017) give proof of constructive interaction between management bonding and implications for technological opportunism on company performance in a family business sample test. Nevertheless, this association loses significance when examining a sample of non-family businesses. As a result, the research on technological opportunism’s effects on performance needs to be more conclusive. Companies can boost product innovation, seize opportunities, and achieve competitive advantages through managerial ties advantage (Gao et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the empirical findings that are now available differ throughout market situations, making it difficult to determine if business and political links improve or worsen firm performance (Luo et al., 2012). The effect of technology adoption on business performance varies depending on the type or ownership structure (Luo et al., 2012). Management relationships can potentially threaten the effectiveness of management bonding actions because building and maintaining managerial relationships require significant investment, which can burden businesses with limited finances, especially in the post-crisis economic transition period. Meanwhile, several companies in economic transition invest a lot in management connections, hoping to perform better (Nguyen et al., 2022). More investigation into how technology adoption might raise social capital from management links is necessary, given the possible risk of the effect on innovation performance influenced by management ties. Therefore, this study uses one type of company, a banking company, because of its competitive character in adopting technology. Furthermore, companies with high technological opportunities will improve their performance through management ties. No matter how well the technology is adopted or developed, good social relations with external parties are needed to be a beneficial technology investment. H3: Management ties increase the influence between Innovation performance and technological opportunism. 2.4. Place of origin Research examining the impact of rural and urban leadership on innovation performance reveals the unique challenges and opportunities encountered by companies in these diverse settings. Rural leaders often contend with resource limitations, while urban leaders benefit from robust infrastructures and advanced technology access. Social, organizational, and community-based factors are found to be influential in driving innovation in rural areas, whereas urban leaders thrive on dynamic networks and enriching environments (Yin etal., 2022). Despite urban firms generally having greater resources, rural firms have demonstrated superiority in specific sectors (Fernandes et al., 2015; Phillipson et al., 2019). This underscores the significant disparities in innovation performance between urban and rural leaders. H4: Place of origin increase the influence between Innovation performance and technological opportunism. This study comprises of one independent variable, two moderating variables, and one dependent variable. Prior studies, such as Wang et al. (2020), have employed two moderating variables (Figure 1). 3. Methodology A questionnaire survey was used to target respondents and gather primary data. The study’s exclusive industry environment is its primary focus, banking companies because controlling the type of company and the banking industry is necessary. A questionnaire survey was conducted to gather primary data and reach the intended respondents. The particular industry setting that this study is focused on is 14 Y. NuGROHO AND N. SOEWARNO References Abawa, A., & Obse, H. (2024). Organizational culture and organizational performance : Does job satisfaction mediate the relationship ? Cogent Business & Management, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2324127 Abugre, J. B. (2020). The moderating role of affective interpersonal conflict on managerial decision-making and organizational performance in private sector organizations: A study of Ghana. Journal of African Business, 21(1), 20– 41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2019.1596707 Akpan, I. J., Soopramanien, D., & Kwak, D.-H. A. (2021). Cutting-edge technologies for small business and innovation in the era of COVID-19 global health pandemic. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 33(6), 607–617. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2020.1799294 Alegre, J., Chiva, R., & Lapiedra, R. (2009). Measuring innovation in long product development cycle industries: An insight in biotechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(4), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09537320902819247 Ali, Z., Sun, H., & Ali, M. (2017). The impact of managerial and adaptive capabilities to stimulate organizational innovation in SMEs: A complementary PLS–SEM approach. Sustainability, 9(12), 2157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122157 Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020). The future of social media in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00695-1 Basco, R., Hernández-Perlines, F., & Rodríguez-García, M. (2020). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance: A multigroup analysis comparing China, Mexico, and Spain. Journal of Business Research, 113, 409– 421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.020 Berawi, M. A., Suwartha, N., Asvial, M., Harwahyu, R., Suryanegara, M., Setiawan, E. A., Surjandari, I., Zagloel, T. Y. M., & Maknun, I. J. (2020). Digital innovation: Creating competitive advantages. International Journal of Technology, 11(6), 1076. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v11i6.4581 Bruton, G. D., Pryor, C., & Cerecedo Lopez, J. A. (2023). Lean start-up in settings of impoverishment: The implications of the context for theory. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231204869 Buli, B. M. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and performance of SMEs in the manufacturing industry. Management Research Review, 40(3), 292–309. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-07-2016-0173 Burnette, J. L., Pollack, J. M., Forsyth, R. B., Hoyt, C. L., Babij, A. D., Thomas, F. N., & Coy, A. E. (2020). A growth mindset intervention: Enhancing students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and career development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(5), 878–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719864293 Cao, G., Duan, Y., & Cadden, T. (2019). The link between information processing capability and competitive advantage mediated through decision-making effectiveness. International Journal of Information Management, 44, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.003 Chen, M., Liu, H., Wei, S., & Gu, J. (2018). Top managers’ managerial ties, supply chain integration, and firm performance in China: A social capital perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 74, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. indmarman.2018.04.013 Cho, H., Lee, P., & Shin, C. H. (2019). Becoming a sustainable organization: Focusing on process, administrative innovation and human resource practices. Sustainability, 11(13), 3554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133554 Cho, J., Jeong, I., Kim, E., & Cho, H. E. (2024). Seizing the moment in the flux of Industry 4.0: Technological opportunism, innovativeness and new product performance in international markets. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(4), 1134–1159. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2022-0181 Chung, H. F. L., Wang, C. L., Huang, P., & Yang, Z. (2016). Organizational capabilities and business performance: When and how does the dark side of managerial ties matter? Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 70–82. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.02.014 Cooper, R. G. (2019). The drivers of success in new-product development. Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 36– 47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.005 Danvila-del-Valle, I., Estévez-Mendoza, C., & Lara, F. J. (2019). Human resources training: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 101, 627–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.026 Elidemir, S. N., Ozturen, A., & Bayighomog, S. W. (2020). Innovative behaviors, employee creativity, and sustainable competitive advantage: A moderated mediation. Sustainability, 12(8), 3295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083295 Fabrizio, C. M., Kaczam, F., de Moura, G. L., da Silva L. S. C. V., da Silva, W. V., & da Veiga, C. P. (2022). Competitive advantage and dynamic capability in small and medium-sized enterprises: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 16(3), 617–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00459-8 Faraj, S., & Leonardi, P. M. (2022). Strategic organization in the digital age: Rethinking the concept of technology. Strategic Organization, 20(4), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270221130253/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/1 0.1177_14761270221130253-FIG1.JPEG Feng, B., Sun, K., Chen, M., & Gao, T. (2020). The impact of core technological capabilities of high-tech industry on sustainable competitive advantage. Sustainability, 12(7), 2980. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072980 Fernandes, C., Ferreira, J. J., & Marques, C. S. (2015). Innovation management capabilities in rural and urban knowledge intensive business services: Empirical evidence. Service Business, 9(2), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11628-013-0225-7 COGENT BuSINESS & MANAGEMENT 15 Fox, A. M., Stazyk, E. C., & Feng, W. (2020). Administrative easing: Rule reduction and medicaid enrollment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13131 Gao, Y., Shu, C., Jiang, X., Gao, S., & Page, A. L. (2017). Managerial ties and product innovation: The moderating roles of macroand micro-institutional environments. Long Range Planning, 50(2), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lrp.2016.11.005 Garcez, A., Silva, R., & Franco, M. (2022). Digital transformation shaping structural pillars for academic entrepreneurship: A framework proposal and research agenda. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1159–1182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10638-5 Geldes, C., Felzensztein, C., & Palacios-Fenech, J. (2017). Technological and non-technological innovations, performance and propensity to innovate across industries: The case of an emerging economy. Industrial Marketing Management, 61, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.10.010 Genc, E., Dayan, M., & Genc, O. F. (2019). The impact of SME internationalization on innovation: The mediating role of market and entrepreneurial orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 82, 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. indmarman.2019.01.008 Gomezel, A. S., & Rangus, K. (2018). An exploration of an entrepreneur’s open innovation mindset in an emerging country. Management Decision, 56(9), 1869–1882. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2017-0382/FuLL/PDF Guo, Z., & Jiang, W. (2020). Risk-taking for entrepreneurial new entry: Risk-taking dimensions and contingencies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(2), 739–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00567-8 Hasgall, A., & Ahituv, N. (2018). Implementing continuous adaptation to technology innovation in complex adaptive organizations. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 29(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2018.04.004 Huynh, T. L. D., Ahmed, R., Nasir, M. A., Shahbaz, M., & Huynh, N. Q. A. (2021). The nexus between black and digital gold: Evidence from uS markets. Annals of Operations Research, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10479-021-04192-z Jin, J., Guo, M., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Selective adoption of open innovation for new product development in high-tech SMEs in emerging economies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(2), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TEM.2019.2948739 Karami, M., & Tang, J. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and SME international performance: The mediating role of networking capability and experiential learning. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 37(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242618807275 Kay, K. (2022). The risk of bias in denoising methods: Examples from neuroimaging. PLoS One, 17(7), e0270895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270895 KPMG. (2018). The pulse of Fintech 2018: Global report on Fintech investment trends. https://kpmg.com/au/en/home/ insights/2017/04/pulse-of-fintech.html Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2018). Corporate entrepreneurship: A critical challenge for educators and researchers. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737291 Kusa, R., Duda, J., & Suder, M. (2021). Explaining SME performance with fsQCA: The role of entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneur motivation, and opportunity perception. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(4), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2021.06.001 Nafie, N.L., Nimran, u., Al Musadieq, M., & Suyadi, I. (2014). Organizational internal factors, corporate entrepreneurship, and organizational performance. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(36), 83–97. Landry, P. F., Lü, X., & Duan, H. (2018). Does performance matter? Evaluating political selection along the Chinese administrative ladder. Comparative Political Studies, 51(8), 1074–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017730078 Lee, J. M., Narula, R., & Hillemann, J. (2021). unraveling asset recombination through the lens of firm-specific advantages: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of World Business, 56(2), 101193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jwb.2021.101193 Lee, T. (2019). Management ties and firm performance: Influence of family governance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 10(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.12.003 Lee, T., & Chu, W. (2017). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: Influence of family governance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 8(4), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.09.002 Lepore, L., Di Vaio, A., Sorrentino, M., & Palladino, R. (2019). Ownership structures and corporate performance: A literature review [Paper presentation]. New Challenges in Corporate Governance: Theory and Practice, 190–205. https:// doi.org/10.22495/ncpr_35 Li, F. (2020). The digital transformation of business models in the creative industries: A holistic framework and emerging trends. Technovation, 92–93, 102012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.12.004 Li, Z. (2022). Characteristics and trends in unethical pro-organizational behavior research in business and management: A bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(877419). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.877419 Liu, Y., & Wang, M. (2022). Entrepreneurial orientation, new product development and firm performance: The moderating role of legitimacy in Chinese high-tech SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(1), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2020-0204 Lo, F.-Y., & Campos, N. (2018). Blending Internet-of-Things (IoT) solutions into relationship marketing strategies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.029 16 Y. NuGROHO AND N. SOEWARNO Luo, Y., Huang, Y., & Wang, S. L. (2012). Guanxi and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00273.x Luu, N., & Ngo, L. V. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and social ties in transitional economies. Long Range Planning, 52(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.04.001 Lwamba, N. M., Bwisa, H., & Sakwa, M. (2014). Exploring the effect of corporate entrepreneurship on financial performance of firms: Evidence from Kenya’s manufacturing firms. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(1), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v4-i1/534 Maklan, S., Peppard, J., & Klaus, P. (2015). Show me the money: Improving our understanding of how organizations generate return from technology-led marketing change. European Journal of Marketing, 49(3/4), 561–595. https:// doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2013-0411 McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., & Lamin, A. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation in a hostile and turbulent environment: Risk and innovativeness among successful Russian entrepreneurs. European Journal of International Management, 12(1/2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2018.089033 McGee, J. E., & Peterson, M. (2019). The long‐term impact of entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 720–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12324 Melville, N., Kraemer, K., Gurbaxani, V., (2004). Review: Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148636 Muneeb, D., Ahmad, S. Z., Abu Bakar, A. R., & Tehseen, S. (2023). Empowering resources recombination through dynamic capabilities of an enterprise. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 36(1), 1–21. https://doi. org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2021-0004 Nguyen, A. T. H., Nguyen, P. V., & Do, H. T. S. (2022). The effects of entrepreneurial orientation, social media, managerial ties on firm performance: Evidence from Vietnamese SMEs. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 6(1), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.9.004 Nisar, T. M., & Whitehead, C. (2016). Brand interactions and social media: Enhancing user loyalty through social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 743–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.042 Ofori-Sasu, D., Dzisi, S., & Abor, J. Y. (2023). Entrepreneurship, foreign direct investments and economic wealth in Africa. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2172040 Opazo-Basáez, M., Vendrell-Herrero, F., & Bustinza, O. F. (2022). Digital service innovation: A paradigm shift in technological innovation. Journal of Service Management, 33(1), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2020-0427 Paek, B., & Lee, H. (2018). Strategic entrepreneurship and competitive advantage of established firms: Evidence from the digital TV industry. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(4), 883–925. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11365-017-0476-1 Phillipson, J., Tiwasing, P., Gorton, M., Maioli, S., Newbery, R., & Turner, R. (2019). Shining a spotlight on small rural businesses: How does their performance compare with urban? Journal of Rural Studies, 68, 230–239. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.09.017 Presutti, M., & Odorici, V. (2019). Linking entrepreneurial and market orientation to the SME’s performance growth: The moderating role of entrepreneurial experience and networks. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(3), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0533-4 Putniņš, T. J., & Sauka, A. (2020). Why does entrepreneurial orientation affect company performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), 711–735. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1325 Ravi, H., & Vedapradha, R. (2023). Artificial intelligence service agents: A silver lining in rural India. Kybernetes, 53(8), 2662–2678. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2022-1239 Rodrigo, M. F., Molina, J. G., Losilla, J.-M., Vives, J., & Tomás, J. M. (2019). Method effects associated with negatively and positively worded items on the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12): Results from a cross-sectional survey with a representative sample of Catalonian workers. BMJ Open, 9(11), e031859. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031859 Rosique-Blasco, M., Madrid-Guijarro, A., & García-Pérez-de-Lema, D. (2018). The effects of personal abilities and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(4), 1025– 1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0469-0 Rüsch, S., Lachmann, M., Wilkesmann, M., & Bastini, K. (2019). The effects of entrepreneurial orientation on strategy choice and management control in nonprofit organizations. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(3), 153– 168. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(3).2019.13 Ryu, S.-L., & Won, J. (2022). The value relevance of operational innovation: Insights from the perspective of firm life cycle. Sustainability, 14(4), 2058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042058 Saemundsson, R. J., & Holmén, M. (2011). Yes, now we can: Technological change and the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 22(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. hitech.2011.09.003 Sánchez-García, E., Marco-Lajara, B., Seva-Larrosa, P., & Martínez-Falcó, J. (2022). Driving innovation by managing entrepreneurial orientation, cooperation and learning for the sustainability of companies in the energy sector. Sustainability, 14(24), 16978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416978 Santoro, G., Thrassou, A., Bresciani, S., & Giudice, M. D. (2021). Do knowledge management and dynamic capabilities affect ambidextrous entrepreneurial intensity and firms’ performance? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(2), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2907874 COGENT BuSINESS & MANAGEMENT 17 Schmidt, J. I., Hausner, V. H., & Monz, C. (2021). Building adaptive capacity in a changing Arctic by use of technology. Ecology and Society, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12605-260401 Seo, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation performance: Insights from Korean ventures. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(4), 675–695. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2019-0023 Shawky, S., Kubacki, K., Dietrich, T., & Weaven, S. (2020). A dynamic framework for managing customer engagement on social media. Journal of Business Research, 121, 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.030 Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. (2011). The effects of business and political ties on firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.1.1 Siamagka, N.-T., Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N., & Valvi, A. (2015). Determinants of social media adoption by B2B organizations. Industrial Marketing Management, 51, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.05.005 Snihur, Y., & Wiklund, J. (2019). Searching for innovation: Product, process, and business model innovations and search behavior in established firms. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.05.003 Tantawy, M., Herbert, K., McNally, J. J., Mengel, T., Piperopoulos, P., & Foord, D. (2021). Bringing creativity back to entrepreneurship education: Creative self-efficacy, creative process engagement, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 15, e00239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00239 Tian, H., Otchere, S. K., Dogbe, C. S. K., Addy, W. O., & Hammond, F. (2021). New product creativity mediating the relationship between organizational bricolage and the competitive advantage of SMEs. Journal of Competitiveness, 13(4), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2021.04.09 urban, B. (2019). The influence of the regulatory, normative and cognitive institutions on entrepreneurial orientation in South Africa. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 20(3), 182–193. https://doi. org/10.1177/1465750318796721 urban, B., & Maphumulo, M. (2022). The moderating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on technological opportunism and innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(3), 901–921. https://doi. org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2020-0509 urban, B., & Wood, E. (2017). The innovating firm as corporate entrepreneurship. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(4), 534–556. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2016-0100 Valdez-Juárez, L. E., & Castillo-Vergara, M. (2021). Technological capabilities, open innovation, and eco-innovation: dynamic capabilities to increase corporate performance of SMEs. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010008 Valdez-Juárez, L. E., Ramos-Escobar, E. A., Ernesto, O., Ruiz-Zamora, J. A., Enrique, L., Ramos-Escobar, E. A., Valdez-Juárez, L. E., Ramos-Escobar, E. A., & Ruiz-Zamora, J. A. (2024). Digital transformation and innovation, dynamic capabilities to strengthen the financial performance of Mexican SMEs : A sustainable approach sustainable approach. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2318635 Vogelsang, L. (2015). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment of students (Issue July). Master Thesis. Humboldt State university. Wales, W. J. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research directions. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615613840 Wang, D., Hain, D. S., Larimo, J., & Dao, L. T. (2020). Cultural differences and synergy realization in cross-border acquisitions. International Business Review, 29(3), 101675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101675 Wang, J. J., Shi, W., Lin, Y., & Yang, X. (2020). Relational ties, innovation, and performance: A tale of two pathways. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.06.007 Wang, X., Dass, M., Arnett, D. B., & Yu, X. (2020). understanding firms’ relative strategic emphases: An entrepreneurial orientation explanation. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.06.009 Xiaobao, P., Rui, G., Jiewei, Z., & Xiaofan, S. (2022). The impact of resource bricolage on entrepreneurial orientation in start-ups: The moderating roles of TMT heterogeneity and TMT behavioral integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 900177. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.900177 Yeboah, A. (2023). Innovation process model: An integration of innovation costs, benefits and core competence. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2176445 Yin, X., Chen, J., & Li, J. (2022). Rural innovation system: Revitalize the countryside for a sustainable development. Journal of Rural Studies, 93, 471–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.014 Yung, K., & Root, A. (2019). Policy uncertainty and earnings management: International evidence. Journal of Business Research, 100, 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.058 Zhang, W., Zhao, W., Gao, Y., & Xiao, Z. (2020). How do managerial ties influence the effectuation and causation of entrepreneurship in China? The role of entrepreneurs’ cognitive bias. Asia Pacific Business Review, 26(5), 613–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2020.1765537 Zhang, Y., Khan, u., Lee, S., & Salik, M. (2019). The influence of management innovation and technological innovation on organization performance. A mediating role of sustainability. Sustainability, 11(2), 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11020495 Zhu, Y. (2020). An interactive perspective of managers’ functional experience and managerial ties of new ventures in transition economies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(3), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/095373 25.2019.1655536