The relation between strategic orientations and firm innovativeness: A meta-analysis

(1)

The relation between strategic orientations and firm

innovativeness: A meta-analysis

Master thesis International Business & Management

Author: Michiel Jacobus Wondergem Student number: S2755904 Email: m.j.wondergem@student.rug.nl

Thesis supervisor: Dr. C. Schlägel Co-assessor: Prof. H. van Ees

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSc International Business and Management

Nettelbosje 2 9747 AE Groningen

The Netherlands

Date: 14th_{of January 2021}

(2)

List of tables

TABLE 1:CURRENT META-ANALYTIC FINDINGS ... 11

TABLE 2: OVERVIEW OF VARIABLES AND MODERATORS ... 23

TABLE 3:RESULTS OF STRATEGIC ORIENTATIONS BIVARIATE ANALYSIS ... 24

TABLE 4:REGION MODERATOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ... 27

TABLE 5:INDUSTRY MODERATOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ... 28

TABLE 6:SIZE MODERATOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ... 30

TABLE 7:YEAR OF DATA COLLECTION MODERATOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ... 31

TABLE 8:TECHNOLOGY FIRM MODERATOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ... 32

TABLE 9:META-ANALYTICAL CORRELATIONS RESULTS ... 32

TABLE 10:REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS ... 33

TABLE 11:COMMONALITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ... 34

TABLE A1:ALL STUDIES INCLUDED IN THIS META-ANALYSIS ... 47

(4)

List of figures

(5)

List of abbreviations

DC Dynamic capabilities EO Entrepreneurial orientation F. Inno Firm innovativeness

FP Firm performance L Large LO Learning orientation M Manufacturing MO Market orientation RBV Resource-based view S Service

SME Small and medium-sized enterprises SML Small, medium, and large enterprises SO Strategic orientations

TO Technology orientation US The United States of America

X Mixed industries

(6)

Abstract

Market, entrepreneurial, learning, and technology orientation gained a significant amount of scholarly attention in past decades. This study investigates the effect of these strategic orientations on firm innovativeness and the moderating effect of different regions. This study will analyze the unique and common effects of strategic orientations on firm innovativeness. Furthermore, this study observes the differences in this relation between Asia, Australia, Africa, Europe, and North and South America. This study sample includes 60 independent samples with a sample size of 15895 firms to gain a better understanding of the relation between strategic orientations and firm innovativeness. The current literature gap will be filled by combining the resource-based view and dynamic capabilities with a commonality analysis. This study provides a more accurate effect size of the studied relation due to the use of a meta-analysis. Furthermore, this study contributes to the current literature by measuring the respective contribution of unique and common effects and by providing a more accurate effect size. Additionally, a new theoretical perspective is added by applying a commonality analysis. The results indicate that the largest explained variance derives from all four strategic orientations.

(7)

1. Introduction

The current global pandemic caused by COVID-19 has shown us that innovativeness is crucial for firms to survive in the most challenging times. Firm innovativeness is the initiation and capacity to participate in innovative behavior (Hult, Hurley, & Knight, 2004; Hurley & Hult, 1998). One should know that there is a difference between innovativeness and innovation. The latter can be seen as an outcome, whereas innovativeness is a firm's culture (Baker & Sinkula, 2009). Innovativeness is a driver of managerial solutions to problems and challenges. Managers want to thrive with their business in the future, and innovativeness is a controllable factor for success in the future by management (Hult et al., 2004).

Strategic orientations are a recognized factor of success for firms as these strategic orientations create behavior to achieve superior performance (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997). These strategic orientations are antecedents of firm innovativeness. The present literature divides strategic orientations into four different factors, including market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and technology orientation (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990). Market orientation is the commitment of resources towards customers and other marketing-related activities creating behaviors to gain superior value compared to competitors (Hakala, 2011; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990). Firms with a high entrepreneurial orientation level are willing to take more risks regarding the processes, practices, and decision-making, leading to new entry and enhancing new ventures (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Slater & Narver, 1993, 1995). A firm focusing on a learning orientation refers to a firm using existing knowledge and developing new knowledge to influence a firm's behavior and create a competitive advantage (Huber, 1991; Hult et al., 2004; Slater & Narver, 1995). Finally, a firm with a high technology orientation level uses technology as a critical resource for introducing and integrating new technologies and innovations (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997). By applying the latest, most unique technological knowledge to build new technological solutions, firms can potentially supply consumers' demand (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997). As can be seen from these various factors, strategic orientations vary based on the researched context.

(8)

many studies focus only on one independent strategic orientation (e.g., Bhuian, Menguc, & Bell, 2005), or two (e.g., Lee & Tsai, 2005), three (e.g., Hult et al., 2004), and rarely on all four (Lee, Choi, & Kwak, 2014). This thesis adds to the current literature by explaining how these strategic orientations combined and integrated affect firm innovativeness. This meta-analysis can study the interaction of these strategic orientations with firm innovativeness. Furthermore, the relation between technology orientation and firm innovativeness is not included in the literature prior to 2010, yet Gatignon et al. (1997) believed this is an essential strategic orientation.

Additionally, the strategic orientations and firm innovativeness have been conceptualized differently in studies making it harder to test the current literature's robustness. For example, in this thesis, innovativeness is defined as a firm's culture (Baker & Sinkula, 2009). Jiménez-Jimenez et al. (2008) refer to firm innovativeness as a combination of product, process, and administrative innovation. A similar problem was encountered for strategic orientations. For example, different perspectives on market orientation exist in the current literature. Lin et al. (2008) use the perspective of market orientation from Narver and Slater. Sürer et al. (2015) used Jaworski and Kohli's perspective. These perspectives consist of different second-order constructs. The first perspective includes customer orientation, competitor orientation, and inter-functional coordination (Narver & Slater, 1990). Jaworski and Kohli (1990) conceptualized market orientation as intelligence generation and intelligence dissemination of market information and the responsiveness to that information. The differences between the measures may cause differences in effect sizes for market orientation in the current literature. A meta-analysis will eliminate these differences as it calculates the average effect sizes.

(9)

innovativeness. By combining different independent studies, an overall conclusion of the effect and strength is provided.

In this thesis, two theoretical views are adopted. These views are the resource-based view (RBV) and dynamic capabilities (DC). Considering that strategic orientations are unique and mutual contributors to firm innovativeness. This study will contribute and fill the literature gap in the current literature in several ways. First, more accurate effect sizes and evidence of the different strategic orientations’ contributions are provided due to a meta-analysis. Second, a new theoretical perspective is added to the current literature. Hakala (2011) identified three different theoretical perspectives. The first perspective is that orientations are sequences in development. Followed by orientations being alternatives to choose from and that orientations have complementary patterns. A new theoretical perspective is added by applying a commonality analysis. Due to this type of analysis, the respective contribution of unique and common strategic orientation effects to firm innovativeness can be measured. Finally, this relationship is moderated and controlled by the characteristics of different countries. Thus, differences between Asia, Australia, Africa, Europe, and North and South America will be identified. This study will contribute to the current International Business, Strategic Management, and Marketing literature by being a bridge between previous literature and building on previous literature combining previous studies. Therefore, the following research question will be answered: To what extent do the different first, second, third, and fourth-order

commonalities of the strategic orientations affect firm innovativeness? How does this differ in Asia, Australia, Africa, Europe, and North and South America?

(10)

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Literature review

(11)

Table 1: Current meta-analytic findings

Note: k = number of independent samples included in the analysis, N = total sample size, MO = Market orientation, EO =

Entrepreneurial orientation, CU = Customer orientation, CO = competitor orientation.

2.1. Theoretical foundations

This thesis implements two theoretical theories. The first theoretical theory is the RBV. This is a framework determining inimitable strategic resources that can be used to gain a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). In the current literature, strategic orientations have been identified as antecedents of competitive advantage (e.g., Acar & Ozs, 2018; Moorman & Miner, 1998; Shin & Lee, 2016). These findings are in line with Slater and Narver (1995), who view entrepreneurial orientation as an antecedent for innovativeness and new product development in the manufacturing industry resulting in a competitive advantage. An inimitable strategic orientation can be positively linked to firm innovativeness, indicating a crucial role for a strategic orientation to obtain a competitive advantage. The RBV is a strategic resource a firm can control and can exploit to incorporate strategies to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage by improving efficiency and effectiveness (Barney, 1991). Strategic orientations can improve the performance and competitive advantage by increasing the innovativeness of a firm. Furthermore, an organization enables itself to obtain and disseminate knowledge, improving the organization by being more innovative and increasing its competitive advantage. This theory has been widely adopted as well as criticized because it focused on a single resource by lacking interaction between other resources (Foss & Foss, 1997) and by being vague (Wills-Johnson, 2008).

(12)

internal and external competencies by reacting rapidly to external conditions (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Wernerfelt, 1984). A strategic orientation has the potential to be a resource representing firm-specific knowledge being imperfectly imitable (Barney, Wright, & Ketchen, 2001). Bhuian et al. (2005) view entrepreneurial orientation as a dynamic capability in their study. Their view found support as Miles and Arnold (1991) suggest that an entrepreneurial oriented firm is dynamic and adaptive. Besides the dynamic effect of entrepreneurial orientation on firm innovativeness, this strategic orientation will positively impact other strategic orientations such as market orientation (Matsuno, Mentzer, & Özsomer, 2002). Findings of mutual interrelations have been found in more studies. For example, Keskin et al. (2006) found that market orientation positively influences firm innovativeness via learning orientation. The findings of Rhee et al. (2010) were in line with these previous studies testing the mutualism between three strategic orientations influencing firm innovativeness. Several studies did not test for mutualism between the strategic orientation yet reported the correlation coefficients between the strategic orientations in their results (e.g., Hult et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2014).

This study suggests that the constructs of strategic orientations fit with the theories of Barney (1991) and Teece et al. (1997). Therefore, this study adopts the resource-based view and dynamic capabilities and combines it with a commonality analysis. This combination allows to measure an accurate effect size, compare the studied relation across different regions, and measure the explained variance. This indicates that this thesis adds to the current knowledge by explaining the variance of all strategic orientations in relation to firm innovativeness. This study continues by reviewing the relationship between strategic orientations and firm innovativeness.

2.2. Hypothesis development

Market orientation and firm innovativeness. Market orientation can be defined as the

(13)

boundaries. This information can be transformed into certain behaviors resulting in an outstanding performance by a firm. The third component is based on customers' and competitors' information, compromising the coordinated business efforts to serve customer needs (Narver & Slater, 1990). These components are about obtaining and disseminating market information and the coordination to meet customer demands. This widely used approach has been incorporated in many studies (e.g., Gautam, Singh, Singh Arya, Tiwari, & Fartyal, 2016; Hult, Hurley, & Knight, 2004; Tajeddini, Trueman, & Larsen, 2006).

The second approach of Jaworski and Kohli (1990) conceptualized market orientation as intelligence generation and intelligence dissemination of market information and the responsiveness to that information. By being responsive to the market's changing needs, a firm has to compare its products and services with competitors. In the case the firm products and services are inferior to the competitor, the firm has to be innovative. Nowadays, this is crucial; firms have to pay more attention to the market's continuously changing needs in a highly competitive market by offering quality products and services to satisfy this demand (Erdil, Erdil, & Keskin, 2004). Therefore, a market orientation aligning the firm with stakeholders and its business approach is necessary. This can be achieved by, for example, the interaction of market orientation and research and development, which drives firm innovativeness and customer acceptance (Harmsen, Grunert, & Declerck, 2000). This approach's dimensions capture the amount to which each market intelligence process is undertaken (Bhuian et al., 2005). This approach has been incorporated in studies such as Mutlu et al. (2015) and Jiménez-Jimenez et al. (2008). Therefore, by obtaining new information from the market and aligning the firm with stakeholders. A firm will likely engage in innovative activities.

Previous research (e.g., Hult, Hurley, & Knight, 2004; Lee, Choi, & Kwak, 2014; Park, Oh, & Kasim, 2017; Rhee, Park, & Lee, 2010) established a positive relationship between market orientation and firm innovativeness. This linkage's strength may vary by firms with different sizes (Keskin, 2006) or between manufacturing and service industries depending on national culture differences (Kirca, Jayachandran, & Bearden, 2005). Other meta-analyses only focused on the relation between market orientation and firm performance (Chang et al., 2014; Kirca et al., 2005) or between market orientation and innovation outcomes (Grinstein, 2008). No studies found a negative relation between market orientation and firm innovativeness. Therefore:

(14)

Entrepreneurial orientation and firm innovativeness. Slater and Narver (1993; 1995) define

entrepreneurial orientation as the processes, practices, and decision-making leading to new entry and enhancing new ventures' creation. This orientation includes three second-order constructs of proactiveness, risk-taking, and innovativeness (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Miller, 1983). The first second-order construct proactiveness entails an opportunistic perspective that focuses on introducing new products before competitors (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). According to Lumpkin et al. (1996), risk-taking refers to taking bold actions that potentially have an uncertain outcome. The first two second-order constructs can be identified as attitude-based constructs promoting a specific behavior type (Rhee et al., 2010). Finally, innovativeness refers to the openness to creativity and experimentation in introducing innovative and new products, services, and processes (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Lee et al., 2014). In several studies, innovativeness is seen as a separate construct (e.g., Rhee et al., 2010). These studies refer to innovativeness as a behavioral construct and define it as ‘strategies and actions that the firm may undertake to actualize corporate orientations and goals' (Hult et al., 2004). According to Hult et al. (2004), between the relationship of innovativeness and entrepreneurial orientation, they report that entrepreneurial orientation consists of two second-order constructs: proactiveness and risk-taking. To include entrepreneurial orientation and innovativeness in this study, the views of Rhee et al. (2010) are adopted. The entrepreneurial orientation is referred to as 'an attitude toward a particular kind of behavior' and innovativeness as a 'behavior based construct towards outcomes' (Rhee et al., 2010). Therefore, by adopting this view, both constructs can be seen as separate constructs.

Hypothesis 2: Entrepreneurial orientation is positively related to firm innovativeness. Learning orientation and firm innovativeness. The definition of learning orientation can be

(15)

not value learning. Second, shared vision is defined as the firm's broad focus on learning (Calantone, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002; Sinkula et al., 1997). Accepting new ideas and critically assessing firms' operational routines is the terminology used to define open-mindedness (Calantone et al., 2002; Sinkula et al., 1997). Nowadays, firms' environments are changing at an increased rate, and being open-minded is very important. Finally, intra-organizational knowledge sharing can be referred to as collecting behavioral routines that spread learning within the different departments of a firm (Hage, Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek, 1976; Moorman & Miner, 1998). Sharing knowledge between different departments within a firm may be crucial to enhance a firm's competitive advantage by supplying customers' changing demands. Learning occurs if systems effectively and efficiently share and re-examine information (Moorman & Miner, 1998). These four elements are related by obtaining and sharing information regarding market information and information regarding new technology, resulting in new products, services, and processes (Hult et al., 2004). Rhee et al. (2010) argue that aspects of learning orientation are interrelated with firm innovativeness. By adopting the definition of learning orientation from Huber (1991), the interrelated constructs of learning orientation and firm innovativeness are distinguished.

To conclude, learning orientation refers to a firm placing a high valuation on learning, resulting in that learning will have a higher chance to occur. This is indicating that the newly learned skill or knowledge can be put to practice. By obtaining and sharing information, innovation occurs when applied to new products, services, and processes. Furthermore, other studies such as Hult et al. (2004) find a positive contribution of learning orientation to firm innovativeness and firm performance. Calantone et al. (2002) found that a positive learning climate benefits the firm by promoting innovation, creating new knowledge, and building new capabilities, resulting in a competitive advantage and increasing firm performance. Therefore:

Hypothesis 3: Learning orientation is positively related to firm innovativeness.

Technology orientation and firm innovativeness. The last orientation is a critical source of firm

(16)

consumers' demand (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997). Gatignon and Xuereb (1997) argue that innovation and new products are more likely to be introduced by technology-orientated firms. A technology-oriented firm pursuing innovation is expected to use not easily imitated technology, creating a competitive advantage resulting in higher performance than competitors (Acar & Ozs, 2018; Shin & Lee, 2016).

To conclude, previous literature and empirical studies indicate that technology-oriented firms will most likely adopt a culture where the firm is responsive and willing to be innovative. An innovative firm is more likely to introduce innovations and products, leading to competitive advantage and firm performance (Acar & Ozs, 2018; Shin & Lee, 2016). Furthermore, when a firm invests in technology orientation, a firm is open to use new technologies. When a new technology is obtained, a firm must find a way to incorporate it in their processes, products, and services. Indicating they have to be innovative to incorporate it. Therefore, this orientation will be a potentially positive factor influencing firm innovativeness. These findings led to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Technology orientation is positively related to firm innovativeness.

2.3. Contextual and methodological moderators

To test the relation between strategic orientations and firm innovativeness, potential moderators were included in this study. This is because the relation between strategic orientations and firm innovativeness is more complex. These potential moderators are included to test their influence on the studied relation. The type of moderators included are contextual and methodological moderators. The contextual moderators consist of region (e.g., Asia, Australia, Africa, Europe, and North and South America), type of industry (e.g., manufacturing, service, and mixed), and firm size (e.g., SME, SML, and L). The methodological moderators include the year of data collection (e.g., before and after 2010) and technological or non-technological firms. Due to the lack of a robust theoretical framework, exploratory research questions are formulated instead of hypotheses for all moderators. This exploratory research question is formulated as followed:

What is the influence of the region, type of industry, firm size, year of data collection, and technology firms on the relationship between the strategic orientations and firm innovativeness? In figure 1, a conceptual model is provided where the visualization of the tested

(17)

Figure 1: Conceptual model

Note: MO = Market orientation, EO = Entrepreneurial orientation, LO = Learning orientation, TO = Technology orientation. 2.3.1. Contextual moderators

(18)

Compared to other continents such as Europe (Ejdys, 2015; Ejdys & Gedvilaite, 2017; Nybakk, 2012) and North-America (Roger J. Calantone et al., 2002; Micheels & Gow, 2015) the same positive relationship can be found.

Based on previous empirical studies between the relation of technology orientation and firm innovativeness, evidence was provided that technology orientation has a role in determining the level of firm innovativeness in different countries. Bamgbade et al. (2019) found a positive relationship between technology orientation and firm innovativeness based on a sample from Malaysia. Yu et al. (2013) found a similar positive relationship based on a sample of small, medium, and large enterprises operating both in the manufacturing and service industry originating from China. Other studies found a similarly positive result between technology orientation and firm innovativeness in Taiwan, Korea, Turkey, and Pakistan (Lee et al., 2014; Saqib, Zarine, & Udin, 2018; Shin & Lee, 2016; Sürer & Mutlu, 2015; Yousaf et al., 2020). Due to the many studies in different regions, this moderator is included to identify the differences between regions. Furthermore, this moderator is included to study the differences in the strength of this moderator's effect size between the different strategic orientations and firm innovativeness. Therefore, this meta-analysis allows testing the relation between different strategic orientations and firm innovativeness based on regional differences.

(19)

industry (e.g., Lee et al., 2014), service industry (Ejdys, 2015), and a mix of industries (Gautam et al., 2016). The study of Yousaf et al. (2020) reported a positive linkage between technology orientation and firm innovativeness in mixed industries. For technology orientation, similar findings were found for the manufacturing industry (e.g., Bamgbade et al., 2019; Saqib et al., 2018) and the service industry (Sürer & Mutlu, 2015). Despite these similar findings across different industries, this moderator is still included in this study. This study analyzes the differences in strength of this moderator's effect size between the different strategic orientations and firm innovativeness. Furthermore, previous meta-analyses included this moderator in their study (Chang et al., 2014). Therefore, industry type is included in this study.

The third conceptual moderator in the relationship between strategic orientations and firm innovativeness is firm size. A distinction is made between SMEs, SML, and large firms. The strength of this relation may vary by firms with different sizes (Keskin, 2006). For example, Rhee et al. (2009) observed technology-oriented and innovative SMEs and found a positive linkage between market, learning and entrepreneurial orientation, and firm innovativeness. This study reports a more vital linkage for learning orientation compared to market and entrepreneurial orientation. This is in line with similar studies studying SMEs (Gautam et al., 2016) and SML firm sizes (Lin et al., 2008). Lee et al. (2015) found a contradictory finding where learning orientation was the weakest effect of SMEs' firm innovativeness. For large firms, market orientation is considered to be one of the most considerable effects to firm innovativeness according to Hult et al. (2004), Shin et al. (2016), and Menguc et al. (2006). This meta-analysis allows testing the relation between different strategic orientations and firm innovativeness based on firm size differences. Hence, this contextual moderator is included in this study.

2.3.2. Methodological moderators

(20)

Finally, the last methodological moderator to be covered in this meta-analysis is a variant of the contextual industry moderator. With this methodological moderator, the studied relation will be tested if a firm is a technology or non-technology firm. In the present studies, several studies indicated the study included technology firms solely as it was expected that these contribute the most to firm innovativeness. It will be interesting to determine the differences and the amount of difference between these types of firms. Therefore, this factor is included in this meta-analysis.

2.4. Decomposing the explained variance of strategic orientations in firm innovativeness

In the previous sections, it has been highlighted that this paper aims to study the explained variance of the strategic orientations to firm innovativeness in combination with the RBV and DC theories. This variance can be explained by a single strategic orientation, a combination of the four strategic orientations, or all four strategic orientations. To explain the variance, a commonality analysis will be applied to calculate the R² values of all possible combinations of predictors to calculate commonalty coefficients (Schlaegel, Engle, & Lang, 2020). These values indicate the amount of variance of the individual strategic orientation and sets of strategic orientation explaining firm innovativeness. A visualization of this approach can be found in figure 2. In this figure, the first-order commonalities (U1, U2, U3, and U4) indicate the dependent variable's explained variance by the individual strategic orientation. The second, third, fourth-order commonalities are referred to as common effects. These common effects indicate the common variance explained by the combination of strategic orientations. The second-order commonalities (C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, and C10) indicate a change in firm innovativeness if the change occurs in both strategic orientations. The third-order commonalities (C11, C12, C13, and C14) and fourth-order commonality (C15) are also visualized. The sum of these unique effects and commonalities is the total explained variance (Total).

To conclude, an exploratory research question is created to test the explained variance. This question is formulated as follows: What is the respective contribution of unique and common

(21)

Figure 2: Variance of firm innovativeness explained by the strategic orientations

Note: This figure is adapted from Schlaegel et al. (2020).

3. Methodology

3.1. Literature search

The sample of this meta-analysis was obtained in three ways. First, through Google Scholar and EBSCOhost by searching for relevant articles using relevant keywords and strings of these keywords. For example, the effect of strategic orientations on firm innovativeness or the effect of market/entrepreneurial/learning/technology orientation on firm innovativeness. Second, literature was found by looking at the references used by individual papers analyzing the effect of the strategic orientations on firm innovativeness, referring to relevant studies analyzing a similar effect. Finally, the papers obtained from this literature search were reviewed by their title and abstract to determine their relevance for this meta-analysis.

(22)

English studies were used in this study. Finally, the papers included in this meta-analysis had to be published in the past 25 years due to the limited time. Papers published earlier than 1995 were excluded.

3.2. Sample and coding

After the selection process, a total of 60 independent samples obtained from 59 studies with a sample size of 15895 firms were identified and included in this study. All these 60 independent samples were coded. The following information was coded; year of data collection, sample size, firm industry type, firm size, country, continent, reliability measures (Cronbach’s alpha) of the strategic orientations and firm innovativeness, the correlation between the independent strategic orientations, the correlation between the strategic orientations and firm innovativeness, the correlation of the independent and dependent variables with firm size and firm age, and the correlation of the independent and dependent variables with firm performance. In further detail, the year of data collection in which the samples were collected ranged from 1995 to 2017. Several studies did not report the year of data collection. In this case, the year of publication minus three years was used as the year of data collection. The sample size had a range from a minimum of 55 firms to a maximum of 2933 firms. Additionally, the firm industry type was measured in three different scales, including manufacturing (17 samples), service (15 samples), and a mix of both manufacturing and service (28 samples). Furthermore, this sample included studies with different firm sizes, including large (3 samples), SME (20 samples), and SML (37 samples). The definition of sizes was based on information provided by the European Commission (European Commission, 2020). This study's geographical areas include two studies from Africa, thirty-one studies from Asia, two studies from Australia, thirteen studies from Europe, five studies from North America, and three studies from South America. Turkey is a country located in both Asia and Europe. This country is allocated to Asia based on the location of the country's capital, which is located in Asia. The studies included in the sample for this study can be found in appendix 1.

3.3. Analytic techniques

(23)

assumptions. This study corrects measurement error by adjusting the effect size based on the reliability measure provided in the studies used in this meta-analysis. In some cases, the reliability measure was not reported. In this case, the mean of the overall reliabilities of a particular variable was used. Second, to determine whether a regression coefficient is significant, the 95% confidence interval is reported. A regression coefficient is significant if the 95% confidence interval does not include a zero. Additionally, to find moderators for this study, this study tested the amount of heterogeneity of the effect sizes. The Q-score and I² measure the heterogeneity of the effect size. These findings are reported in the results section. The last analytical technique is the correction for the sampling error. A sampling error is corrected by weighing the mean effect size estimates against the various sample sizes of the studies included in this meta-analysis. By correcting the sampling error, the analysis results will be more precise as studies with a larger sample size have a higher probability of precise measures.

3.4. Meta-analysis overview

Table 2 provides an overview of the definitions of the variables and moderators used in this study. This table is provided to clarify what is meant by the constructs used in this meta-analysis.

(24)

4. Results

In this section, the results of the meta-analysis are presented. At first, the results of the individual bivariate meta-analysis of the different strategic orientations to firm innovativeness are presented. Afterward, the moderator analysis of the relation between the strategic orientations and firm innovativeness is included. At last, the results of the commonality analysis are reported.

4.1. Results of the bivariate meta-analysis

The results in table 3 report the findings of the bivariate meta-analysis of the strategic orientations. These results show a positive and a significant relation with firm innovativeness for all the strategic orientations. The effect size for the technology orientation is the highest (p= 0.65, CI= 0.51-0.76) followed by learning orientation (p= 0.64, CI= 0.56-0.71), entrepreneurial orientation (p= 0.60, CI= 0.47-0.71), and market orientation (p= 0.57, CI= 0.50-0.62).

Table 3: Results of strategic orientations bivariate analysis

Note: k = number of independent samples included in the analysis, N = total sample size, r = uncorrected correlation coefficient, p = corrected correlation coefficient, SD(p) = standard deviation, 95% CI = confidence interval, I² = measure of heterogeneity, #TF = number of imputed studies, Side = search from mean, PTF = adjusted correlation (z).

(25)

number is not 0, there is a publication bias. In the results reported in table 3, only technology orientation did not report a publication bias. The publication bias for market orientation was the highest.

Based on the literature review, the four-hypothesis stated that all the individual strategic orientations are positively related to firm innovativeness. Based on the findings presented in table 3, all the regression coefficients of the strategic orientations are positive and significant. This indicates that market, entrepreneurial, learning, and technology orientation positively and significantly affect firm innovativeness. Therefore, the four hypotheses can all be confirmed.

4.2. Results of the moderator analysis

This section presents the results of the moderator analysis between the strategic orientations and firm innovativeness. This analysis includes the moderators region, industry, firm size, year of data collection, and technology/non-technology firm. These analyses will be presented in similar order and are reported in the following tables.

Region moderator analysis

In table 4, the results of the regional moderator analysis are reported. Only for market orientation, enough studies were found to include all regions. The relation between market orientations and firm innovativeness is the strongest in Africa (p = 0.63), followed by Asia (p

= 0.62), and Australia (p = 0.62). The relations were slightly lower for North and South

(26)

found. Due to this, the results reported for Europe potentially do not have an accurate effect size and could change if more studies were included in this meta-analysis for this relationship. This can only happen if this relation is studied more often in the future.

For learning orientation, enough studies were found to include in this meta-analysis for Europe, Asia, and North America. The relation between learning orientation and firm innovativeness is the strongest in Asia (p = 0.68) followed by Europe (p = 0.51) and North America (p = 0.50). The majority of the studies were obtained from Asia (k = 21). For the regions Europe (k = 3) and North America (k = 2), a minimum number of studies were found. Thus, the results reported for Europe and North America potentially do not have an accurate effect size. The regional moderator analysis between the relation between technology orientation and firm innovativeness only includes Asia. The effect size between technology orientation and firm innovativeness in Asia is 0.65. All of the studies were obtained from Asia (k = 9). For the other regions, no studies were found. A limited number of studies were found for technology orientation, as it is a relatively new strategic orientation.

In the literature review, the exploratory research question formulated for this moderator was as follows: What is the region's influence on the relationship between the strategic orientations

and firm innovativeness? Based on the results, market, entrepreneurial, learning, and

(27)

Table 4: Region moderator analysis results

Industry moderator analysis results

In table 5, the results of the industry analysis can be found. Overall, the effect sizes are positive for each strategic orientation to firm innovativeness in all industries. Looking at the results for market orientation, the effect size is the largest for the service industry, followed by mixed and manufacturing industries (pmanufacturing = 0.51, pservice = 0.67, and pmixed = 0.56). This analysis

indicates that the average correlation for the service industry is higher than the other industries and the difference is significant (Q between = 6.66, Pbetween = 0.040). The relation between entrepreneurial orientation and firm innovativeness is the strongest in the manufacturing industry (pmanufacturing = 0.70), followed by mixed industries (pmixed= 0.54). There was no calculated effect size for the service industry since only one study was found for this meta-analysis. The difference between these correlations is significant (Q between = 6.26, Pbetween = 0.012). Comparing the learning orientation results, the linkage between this strategic orientation and firm innovativeness is the highest in the manufacturing industry (pmanufacturing = 0.67),

followed by the mixed and service industry (pservice = 0.62, and pmixed = 0.64). The difference in

(28)

industry (pmanufacturing = 0.76) and the lowest in the mixed industry (pmixed= 0.48). There were not enough studies to measure the effect sizes and other statistical information for the service industry. The differences in these correlations are significant (Q between = 21.93, Pbetween = 0.000).

Based on the findings in table 5, the exploratory research question “What is the influence of the

industry on the relationship between the strategic orientations and firm innovativeness?” can

be answered as followed. Market, entrepreneurial, learning, and technology orientation are all positively related to firm innovativeness in all of the studied industries in this meta-analysis. However, the strength of the relationship varies for the individual strategic orientation and industries as identified above. Therefore, the results indicate that the different industries have a different effect on the studied relation.

Table 5: Industry moderator analysis results

Size moderator analysis results

The size moderator analysis results presented in Table 6 indicate an overall positive effect size for the independent strategic orientations to firm innovativeness for all firm sizes. By looking at the relation with the first independent variable and firm innovativeness, the effect size is the largest for large-sized firms followed by SMLs and SMEs (pSME = 0.54, pSML = 0.58, and pL =

0.61). For entrepreneurial orientation, the linkage with the largest effect size was found for the SML firm sizes (pSML = 0.65) followed by SMEs, which have a significantly smaller effect size

(pSME = 0.50). Third, the relation learning orientation-firm innovativeness has a higher effect

(29)

SME and SML's effect sizes of the last relation between LO and firm innovativeness are almost equally as high (pSME = 0.67, pSML = 0.68). The number of studies found for the large firms was

minimal for all the strategic orientations. In the case of the market orientation, this effect size can potentially increase or decrease if more studies were added. For the other strategic orientations, only one study was found and included in this meta-analysis, and therefore, no measures were calculated for a large firm for the other linkages.

The exploratory research question for this moderator was: “What is the influence of the firm

size on the relationship between the strategic orientations and firm innovativeness?”. Based on

the findings in table 6, this question can be answered. Market, entrepreneurial, learning, and technology orientation are all positively related to firm innovativeness in all of the studied firm sizes in this meta-analysis, for which enough studies were found. The strength of the relationship varies for the individual strategic orientations and firm sizes as identified above. Therefore, the results indicate that different firm sizes have a different effect on the studied relation. The results of this analysis indicate that the differences in the average correlation for all the relations are not significant (MO Q between = 0.54, Pbetween = 0.765; EO Q between = 1.58,

(30)

Table 6: Size moderator analysis results

Year of data collection moderator results

For this moderator analysis, a methodological moderator, the results of all relations are presented in table 7. The correlation of data collected after 2010 for the relation between market orientation and firm innovativeness is higher compared to data collected before 2010 (pbefore 2010

= 0.55, pafter 2010 = 0.59). This is similar for the relation between entrepreneurial orientation and

firm innovativeness (pbefore 2010 = 0.51, pafter 2010 = 0.65). For the relation between learning

orientation and firm innovativeness, the data collected before 2010 (pbefore 2010 = 0.69) is higher

than the data collected after 2010 (pafter 2010 = 0.61). At last, the final relation was only studied

after 2010. The effect size of data collected after 2010 for this relation (pafter 2010 = 0.65) was as

large as between entrepreneurial orientation and firm innovativeness.

(31)

Table 7: Year of data collection moderator analysis results

Technological firm’s moderator results

The results of all relations for the last methodological moderator are presented in table 8. The correlation between market orientation and firm innovativeness is similar compared to technological firms and non-technology firms (ptech= 0.57, pnon-tech= 0.57). This is not similar

for the relation between entrepreneurial orientation and firm innovativeness. Non-technology firms have a higher correlation compared to technology firms (ptech= 0.55, pnon-tech= 0.62). For

the relation between learning orientation and firm innovativeness, the correlation for technology firms (ptech= 0.73) is higher compared to non-technology firms (pnon-tech= 0.61). For technology

orientation, the effect size for technology firms (ptech= 0.64) is slightly lower compared to

non-technology firms (pnon-tech= 0.66). The results of this moderator analysis indicate that the

differences in the average correlation for all the relations are not significant (MO Qbetween = 0.02,

Pbetween = 0.902; EO Qbetween = 0.34, Pbetween = 0.559; LO Qbetween = 1.61, Pbetween = 0.205; TO

(32)

Table 8: Technology firm moderator analysis results

4.3. Results of commonality analysis

The results of the commonality analysis are reported in this section. The commonality analysis is used to determine the contribution of the unique and common effects of the strategic orientations on firm innovativeness. This type of analysis answers the last exploratory research question stated in the literature review. In this analysis, the measure of unique explained variance for the independent variables and shared variance measures of all possible combinations of individual variables are reported (Kraha, Turner, Nimon, Zientek, & Henson, 2012). By applying this method, a clear picture of the predictor's role in the explanation individually and combined is provided (Kraha et al., 2012). In table 9, the correlation results are reported. The meta-analytical correlations are the basis for the commonality analysis outcomes and show the zero-order bivariate linear linkage between the independent and dependent variables (Kraha et al., 2012).

Table 9: Meta-analytical correlations results

Note: Corrected correlation coefficients (p) are presented below the diagonal, total sample (total number of studies) is presented

above the diagonal. Harmonic mean (N) = 3590, FI = firm innovativeness, MO = market orientation, EO = entrepreneurial orientation, LO = learning orientation, TO = technology orientation.

(33)

weights used to interpret the predictor contribution to the regression effect (Courville & Thompson, 2001; Kraha et al., 2012). This measurement reports the change in the dependent variable with a one-unit change in the independent variable, while all other independent variables are held constant (Kraha et al., 2012). Furthermore, the rs is a structure coefficient reporting the independent variable's strength explaining the dependent variable (Kraha et al., 2012). Finally, the unique and common measures are the share of variance explained by the independent variable and the share of variance explained by one or more independent variables (Kraha et al., 2012). The regression results report that all strategic orientations are significantly related to firm innovativeness. Across all the independent variables, the relative importance of these independent variables is the highest for LO, followed by TO, EO, and MO. The unique and common effects measure where this is coming from. LO has the strongest unique effect (0.037), followed by TO (0.025), MO (0.019), and EO (0.017). The most considerable common effect is TO (0.397), followed by LO (0.373), EO (0.343), and MO (0.305). These findings are interesting because the relation between TO and firm innovativeness is not often studied yet indicates a relative importance for both unique and common effects.

Table 10: Regression analysis results

Note: r = zero order correlation, rs = structure coefficient, rs² = squared structure coefficient, GenDom = general dominance, Pratt = product measure, RLW = relative weights, MO = market orientation, EO = entrepreneurial orientation, LO = learning

orientation, TO = technology orientation.

(34)

common effects shows that MO contributes to the explained variance in firm innovativeness with common effects through TO, LO, and through the effect of all four strategic orientations. Furthermore, for the set of two strategic orientations (second-order commonalities), it can be seen that specifically MO/LO (5.4%), EO/TO (7.5%), and LO/TO (9.6%) are explaining variance in firm innovativeness. On the other hand, the second-order commonality of LO/MO explains 0.0% of the variance. For the set of three strategic orientations (third-order commonalities), EO/LO/TO (10.4%) contributes the most to firm innovativeness, followed by MO/LO/TO (5.5%). Finally, the largest variance explained derives from all four strategic orientations (34.1%). This last finding is unique and has not been found in any other study.

To conclude, this commonality analysis is vital since it could be argued that market orientation is less relevant for firm innovativeness compared to the other strategic orientations by looking at the regression results. The current findings of the commonality analysis prove otherwise and show that market orientation contributes to various sets of the second, third, and fourth-order commonalities together.

Table 11: Commonality Analysis results

(35)

5. Discussion

This study aimed to integrate the four strategic orientations and address their relationship with firm innovativeness moderated by several variables. This study answered the following main research questions: "To what extent do the different first, second, third, and fourth-order

commonalities of the strategic orientations affect firm innovativeness? And how does this differ in Asia, Australia, Africa, Europe, and North and South America?”. To answer these research

questions, a meta-analytical technique was applied where current literature studying this relationship was gathered to come up with more convincing results. This technique was chosen since prior studies were limited in their sample and the effect sizes varied between the relation of different strategic orientations and their effect on firm innovativeness. Due to this technique, a sample was gathered from 15895 different firms from 60 independent samples from 6 different continents. This study's findings explained the variance of the four strategic orientations to firm innovativeness combined with RBV and dynamic capabilities. The type of analytical technique used in this study allowed to test this relationship for several moderators. All in all, the type of technique used, and the obtained results led to several theoretical and practical implications, which will be discussed in the following sections.

5.1. Theoretical implications

This study proved that there is a positive linkage between the strategic orientations and firm innovativeness in all of the analyzed regions. Without discussing the results further, there are three theoretical implications of this study.

(36)

is less relevant for firm innovativeness compared to the other strategic orientations by looking at the regression results. Nevertheless, the commonality analysis's current findings prove otherwise and show that market orientation may not necessarily contribute to firm innovativeness on its own. However, combined to various sets with other strategic orientations of the second, third, and fourth-order commonalities together it does contribute to firm innovativeness. Therefore, this study is unique due to its integration of the strategic orientations by applying a commonality analysis.

(37)

At last, the moderator analysis indicated that the effects sizes of the strategic orientations differ depending on different contexts. First, the effect sizes are positive for each strategic orientation in relation to firm innovativeness in all types of industries. Market orientation has the most effect on the service industry. This was different for entrepreneurial orientation as the largest effect size occurred in the manufacturing industry. A similar result was found for learning orientation and technology orientation. In the current literature, there were similar findings between independent strategic orientations and firm innovativeness in a manufacturing, service, or mixed industry (e.g., Bamgbade et al., 2019; Ejdys, 2015; Ferraresi et al., 2012; Gautam et al., 2016; Hult et al., 2004; Menguc & Auh, 2006; Micheels & Gow, 2015; Tho, 2019; Yousaf et al., 2020). Despite these similar findings across different industries, this moderator highlighted the differences in strength of the effect sizes. Second, the size moderator analysis results indicate an overall positive effect size for the independent strategic orientations in relation to firm innovativeness in all industries. The effect size for market orientations was the highest for large-sized firms. This is different for entrepreneurial orientation as the largest effect size was found for SML firms. A similar finding was found for entrepreneurial orientation and technology orientation. Rhee et al. (2009) observed technology-oriented and innovative SMEs and found a positive linkage between market, learning and entrepreneurial orientation, and firm innovativeness. This study reports a more vital linkage for learning orientation compared to market and entrepreneurial orientation for SMEs. This study found similar findings as learning orientation has the largest effect size. Lee et al. (2015) found a contradictory finding where learning orientation was the weakest effect of SMEs' firm innovativeness.

5.2. Practical implications

(38)

First, a positive relationship between each strategic orientation and firm innovativeness has been identified by this study. Therefore, managers can expect a strategic orientation to increase the firm's innovativeness and result in superior firm performance. Managers must search for firm innovativeness and maintain their innovativeness. Since innovativeness is vital for a competitive advantage, managers have to create a cultural environment that includes all four strategic orientations. Establishing such a culture may take much time since decisions regarding a strategic orientation are often taken at a firm's higher level. Overall, this study's finding implies that the overall effect of market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and technology orientation have the highest contribution in determining firm innovativeness. This is a finding that no other previous study has found.

Second of all, this study points out that the strategic orientations independently and combined contribute differently to firm innovativeness. Resources are limited and should be allocated with care. Therefore, a higher management level should be careful to invest in a particular strategic orientation or strategic orientation combination. The first, second, and third-order commonalities of the strategic orientations contribute little to firm innovativeness compared to the overall effect. However, this does not mean that it is irrelevant for managers to invest in a single strategic orientation. Nevertheless, firm innovativeness will be affected the most by investing in all strategic orientations. A practical example could be that a manager solely focuses on a market orientation to increase its connectedness with the environment. This could be important when the environment is rapidly changing, and products and services need to be changed accordingly. As a result, a technology orientation is needed to obtain these changes as this orientation focuses on implementing new technologies. It supports managers in meeting demands with their products, services, and ideas compared to market orientation and learning orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation is stimulating these activities due to its proactive, risk-taking, and innovative nature. This practical example highlights the importance of the overall effect of the strategic orientations on firm innovativeness.

(39)

most effect in the service industry. This was different for entrepreneurial orientation as the largest effect size occurred in the manufacturing industry. A similar result was found for learning orientation and technology orientation. To conclude, managers should expect different effects of the strategic orientation on firm innovativeness based on a firm's environment.

5.3. Limitations and future research directions

Finally, several limitations present future research opportunities to gain more knowledge between the relation of strategic orientations and firm innovativeness. The first limitation refers to the strong underlying assumption of the common effects. This entails that the strategic orientations develop over time in a mutually beneficial manner. The development of the strategic orientations could not be tested with the data gathered in this study. Future research could, for example, test the indirect effect of firm age and the correlations of the strategic orientations.

A second limitation was encountered during the creation of the results. Table 4 shows that for several strategic orientations to firm innovativeness, no studies were gathered for specific continents besides market orientation. For example, for the relation between entrepreneurial orientation and firm innovativeness, no studies were found for Australia, Africa, North, and South America. This was similar for learning orientation, where a limited number of studies were obtained from Australia and Africa. For technology orientation, the studies only focussed on Asia. Therefore, future research might focus more on the relation between these strategic orientations and firm innovativeness in continents that have not been examined before. This would contribute more to the current literature when obtaining information from Australia, Africa, North, and South America.

(40)

firm innovativeness. However, it could be the case that one of the three second-order constructs has a negative effect on firm innovativeness. This study did not identify the importance of each strategic orientation's constructs, as Grinstein (2008) did in his meta-analysis. Therefore, a manager could potentially invest in a specific orientation to find out that a particular dimension does not contribute to firm innovativeness. Thus, the results should be carefully interpreted, and future research should study the effects of the second-order constructs of each strategic dimension to grasp the relation with firm innovativeness fully.

Another limitation is the exclusion of certain studies based on wrongfully conceptualizing the construct of firm innovativeness. Firm innovativeness is a widely adopted concept, yet often wrongfully interpreted. For example, individual scholars address studying a sample based on the relationship between a strategic orientation and firm innovativeness. However, what they measure is not a firm's culture, but an innovation output, measuring something different from firm innovativeness (Baker & Sinkula, 2009). Future studies should be more carefully interpreting this construct and could elaborate on their research by studying the relationship between strategic orientation and firm innovativeness or with different innovation outputs.

(41)

6. References

Acar, A. Z., & Ozs, M. 2018. The Relationship among Strategic Orientations, Organizational Innovativeness, and Business Performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 22(1): 1–27.

Augusto, M., & Coelho, F. 2009. Market orientation and new-to-the-world products: Exploring the moderating effects of innovativeness, competitive strength, and environmental forces. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(1): 94–108.

Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. 2009. The complementary effects of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(4): 443–464. Bamgbade, J. A., Nawi, M. N. M., Kamaruddeen, A. M., Adeleke, A. Q., & Salimon, M. G. 2019. Building

sustainability in the construction industry though firm capabilities, technology and business innovativeness: empirical evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Construction Management, 1–16.

Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120. Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. 2001. The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal

of Management, 27(6): 625–641.

Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., & Bell, S. J. 2005. Just entrepreneurial enough: The moderating effect of entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance. Journal of Business Research, 58(1): 9–17.

Calantone, Roger J, Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. 2002. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6): 515–524.

Chang, W., Franke, G., Butler, T., Musgrove, C., & Ellinger, A. 2014. Differential mediating effects of radical and incremental innovation on market orientation-performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(3): 235–250.

Courville, T., & Thompson, B. 2001. Use of Structure Coefficients in Published Multiple Regression Articles: β is not Enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2): 229–248.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1): 75–87.

Do Hyung, L., & Dedahanov, A. 2014. Firm performance and entrepreneurial, market and technology orientations in korean technology intensive smes. Asian Social Science, 10(22): 37–47.

Ejdys, J. 2015. Innovativeness of Residential Care Services in Poland in the Context of Strategic Orientation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213: 746–752.

Ejdys, J. 2016. Entrepreneurial Orientation vs. Innovativeness of Small and Medium Size Enterprises. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 6(1): 13–24.

Ejdys, J., & Gedvilaite, D. 2017. Learning orientation in nursing homes in Poland. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 9(3): 51–62.

Erdil, S., Erdil, O., & Keskin, H. 2004. The relationships between market orientation, firm innovativeness and innovation performance. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 1–11.

Eris, E. D., & Timurcanday Ozmen, O. N. 2012. The effect of market orientation, learning orientation and innovativeness on firm performance: A research from Turkish logistics sector. International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research, 5(1): 77–108.

(42)

Accessed online https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/sme-definition_en. Viewed September 20, 2020. Ferraresi, A. A., Quandt, C. O., dos Santos, S. A., & Frega, J. R. 2012. Knowledge management and strategic

orientation: Leveraging innovativeness and performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5): 688– 701.

Foss, N. J. 1997. Resources, firms, and strategies: a reader in the resource-based perspective. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J. M. 1997. Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1): 77–90.

Gautam, M., Singh, S., Singh Arya, K., Tiwari, A., & Fartyal, G. 2016. An Impact of Learning, Entrepreneurial and Market Orientation on Innovation Competencies. International Journal of Management, 7(1): 69–78. Grinstein, A. 2008. The effect of market orientation and its components on innovation consequences: A

meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2): 166–173.

Hage, J., Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. 1976. Innovations and Organizations.Processes and Phenomena of Social Change. Contemporary Sociology, 5(4): 479.

Hakala, H. 2011. Strategic Orientations in Management Literature: Three Approaches to Understanding the Interaction between Market, Technology, Entrepreneurial and Learning Orientations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2): 199–217.

Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. 1998. Market orientation and organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62(4): 30–45.

Harms, R., Reschke, C. H., Kraus, S., & Fink, M. 2010. Antecedents of innovation and growth: Analysing the impact of entrepreneurial orientation and goal-oriented management. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(1–2): 135–152.

Harmsen, H., Grunert, K. G., & Declerck, F. 2000. Why did we make that cheese? An empirically based framework for understanding what drives innovation activity. R and D Management, 30(2): 151–166.

Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. 2003. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 557-560.

Ho, K., Nguyen, C. N., Adhikari, R., Miles, M. P., & Bonney, L. 2018. Exploring market orientation, innovation, and financial performance in agricultural value chains in emerging economies. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 3(3): 154–163.

Holtgrave, M., Nayir, D. Z., Nienaber, A. M., & Schewe, G. 2019. Knowledge comes but wisdom lingers! Learning orientation as the decisive factor for translating social capital into organisational innovativeness and performance in Turkey. European Journal of International Management, 13(2): 127–154.

Hsu, C., & Lin, C. 2017. The Influence of Learning Orientation and Human Resource Practices on Firm Innovativeness and Innovations: An Application of the Push and Pull Framework. Journal of Economics and Management, 13(1): 27–51.

Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Organization Science, 2(1): 88–115.

Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. 2004. Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5): 429–438.

The relation between strategic orientations and firm innovativeness: A meta-analysis