The mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on business experience and performance of women-owned enterprises
-
Author(s)Jabulile Msimango-GalaweLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8489-9038
,
Nomusa MazondeLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0335-8895
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(2).2024.17
-
Article InfoVolume 22 2024, Issue #2, pp. 213-225
- 64 Views
-
7 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This study aims to investigate the mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the relationship between the business experience and performance of women-owned enterprises in South Africa. A quantitative methodology with random sampling was employed. Qualtrics was used to administer the online questionnaire; a sample size of 258 was attained to test the study hypotheses. This cross-sectional study design followed recommendations from scholars on a minimum of 100 as an adequate sample size for regression analysis. Hierarchical regression and mediation analysis were employed to analyze the primary data collected from women entrepreneurs in South Africa.
Using ordinal data, a seven-point Likert scale was adopted to operationalize constructs. Out of all the entrepreneurial self-efficacy antecedents and dimensions that were tested, industry experience emerged as the most influential predictor of business performance (β = 0.496*) when mediated by the innovation dimension of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Although the management dimension of entrepreneurial self-efficacy showed strong predictive power, it did not exhibit significant mediating effects. Consequently, there was only partial mediation of the innovation dimension of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the relationship between industry experience and business performance. Industry experience and business performance are antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, respectively; they were partially mediated by the innovation dimension of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)L26, L25, J16, M13
-
References55
-
Tables5
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Mediation results
-
- Table 1. Measurements of variables
- Table 2. Validity and reliability scores
- Table 3. Mean scores and correlation results
- Table 4. Multiple linear regression results
- Table 5. Mediation analysis results
-
- Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
- Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. Wiley Online Library.
- Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99.
- Bandura, A., & McClelland, D. C. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
- Baptista, R., Karaöz, M., & Mendonça, J. (2014). The impact of human capital on the early success of necessity versus opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 42, 831-847.
- Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
- Bosma, N., van Praag, M., Thurik, R., & de Wit, G. (2004). The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of start-ups. Small Business Economics, 23(3), 227-236.
- Catalyst for Growth. (2018). 2018 catalyst for growth annual report: The role of business development support (BDS) on South African performance.
- Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316.
- Chowdhury, S., Endres, M. L., & Frye, C. (2019). The influence of knowledge, experience, and education on gender disparity in entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 31(5), 371-389.
- Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Research methods. Boston, MA: Irwin.
- Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
- Cumberland, D. M., Meek, W. R., & Germain, R. (2015). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance in challenging environments: Evidence from the franchise context. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 20(01), 1550004.
- Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301-331.
- Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2008). The effect of small business managers’ growth motivation on firm growth: A longitudinal study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 437-457.
- Dempsey, D., & Jennings, J. E. (2014). Gender and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A learning perspective. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 28-49.
- Dimov, D. (2010). Nascent entrepreneurs and venture emergence: Opportunity confidence, human capital, and early planning. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1123-1153.
- Galawe, N. J. (2017). Endogenous and exogenous risk factors in the success of South African small medium enterprises. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
- Ganotakis, P. (2012). Founder’s human capital and the performance of UK new technology based firms. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 465-515.
- Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). (2020). GEM 2019/2020 Global Report.
- Glosenberg, A., Ward, M., & Pollack, J. (2019). The diminished effect of women’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy on firm performance. Babson College of Entrepreneurship Research Conference. Babson Park, MA, USA: Babson College.
- Hallak, R., Brown, G., & Lindsay, N. (2012). The place identity-performance relationship among tourism entrepreneurs: A structural equation modelling analysis. Tourism Management, 33(1), 143-154.
- Hallak, R., Lindsay, N., & Brown, G. (2011). Examining the role of entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on SMTE performance. Tourism Analysis, 16(5), 583-599.
- Hartmann, S., Backmann, J., Newman, A., Brykman, K. M., & Pidduck, R. J. (2022). Psychological resilience of entrepreneurs: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Small Business Management, 60(5), 1041-1079.
- Hechavarria, D. M., & Ingram, A. E. (2016). The entrepreneurial gender divide: Hegemonic masculinity, emphasized femininity and organizational forms. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 8(3), 242-281.
- Hikido, A. (2018). Entrepreneurship in South African township tourism: The impact of interracial social capital. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(14), 2580-2598.
- Hmieleski, K., & Baron, R. (2008). When does entrepreneurial self-efficacy enhance versus reduce firm performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1), 57-72.
- Hu, B., Zheng, Q., Wu, J., Tang, Z., Zhu, J., Wu, S., & Ling, Y. (2021). Role of education and mentorship in entrepreneurial behavior: Mediating role of self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
- Lee, C., Hallak, R., & Sardeshmukh, S. R. (2016). Innovation, entrepreneurship, and restaurant performance: A higher-order structural model. Tourism Management, 53, 215-228.
- Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
- Maritz, A., & Brown, C. (2013). Enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy through vocational entrepreneurship education programmes. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 65(4), 543-559.
- McGee, J., & 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.
- McGee, J., Peterson, M., Mueller, S., & Sequeira, J. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 965-988.
- McGowan, P., Cooper, S., Durkin, M., & O’Kane, C. (2015). The influence of social and human capital in developing young women as entrepreneurial business leaders. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3), 645-661.
- Memon, M., Ali Soomro, B., & Shah, N. (2019). Enablers of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in a developing country. Education + Training, 61(6), 684-699.
- Miao, C., Qian, S., & Ma, D. (2017). The relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 87-107.
- Msimango-Galawe, J., & Mazonde, N. B. (2021). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and performance of women-owned SMEs. African Review of Economics and Finance, 13(1), 239-263.
- Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 403-419.
- Nowiński, W., Haddoud, M. Y., Lančarič, D., Egerová, D., & Czeglédi, C. (2019). The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 361-379.
- Ogundana, O., Simba, A., Dana, L. P., & Liguori, E. (2022). A growth model for understanding female-owned enterprises. Journal of the International Council for Small Business.
- Seed Academy. (2019). The real state of entrepreneurship survey.
- Shahab, Y., Chengang, Y., Arbizu, A. D., & Haider, M. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: do entrepreneurial creativity and education matter? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research Policy, 25(2), 259-280.
- Shava, H., & Rungani, E. C. (2016). Influence of gender on SME performance in emerging economies. Acta Commercii. Independent Research Journal in the Management Sciences, 16(1), a408-a416.
- Shaw, E., Carter, S., & Brierton, J. (2001). Unequal entrepreneurs: Why female enterprise is an uphill business. London, UK: Industrial Society.
- STATSSA. (2022). Key findings: P0302 – Mid-year population estimates, 2022.
- Strawser, J. A., Hechavarría, D. M., & Passerini, K. (2021). Gender and entrepreneurship: Research frameworks, barriers, and opportunities for women entrepreneurship worldwide. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(sup1), S1-S15.
- Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2008). Opportunity identification and pursuit: Does an entrepreneur’s human capital matter? Small Business Economics, 30(2), 153-173.
- Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341-358.
- Urban, B., & Msimango-Galawe, J. (2019). An integrated approach to SME risk assessment: A focus on endogenous and exogenous risk factors. African Review of Economics and Finance, 11(1), 142-177.
- Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387-406.
- Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
- World Bank. (2021). The World Bank’s strategy in South Africa reflects the country’s development priorities and its unique leadership position at sub-regional and continental levels.
- Yacus, A., Elif Esposito, S., & Yang, Y. (2019). The influence of funding approaches, growth expectations, and industry gender distribution on high-growth women entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(1), 59-80.
- Zhao, H., Seibert, S., & Hills, G. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 1265-1272.
-
Knowledge management technology: human-computer interaction & cultural perspective on pattern of retrieval, organization, use, and sharing of information and knowledge
Knowledge and Performance Management Volume 1, 2017 Issue #1 pp. 46-54 Views: 4301 Downloads: 1028 TO CITEKnowledge Management (KM) implementation is as much a challenge as it is a great opportunity for businesses worldwide in several sectors. The controversy over its worthwhile application persists among practitioners and scholars, with claims having arisen that business opportunities and performance are enhanced through KM adoption. Conversely, challenges regarding effective implementation of KM concerning individuals’ behaviors, beliefs, and practices prompt significant questioning regarding its complex basis: individual-technology-process-production. The purpose of this work is to shed light on some perspectives for the effective adoption of knowledge management technology, the consolidation of a favorable and aligned organizational culture, and patterns of use and retrieval of information in organizations. This study brings into focus the concept of knowledge management and technology, and culture in the organization through a systematic literature review and based on the researcher’s hypothesis and observations that successful KM implementation results from a clear understanding of its multidisciplinary, complex, and multifaceted process, which requires a methodical and strategic business practice concerning the application of technological tools, the establishment of a learning culture through shared vision of business’ and individuals’ needs, and consequential enhancement of processes and solutions. It concludes that investment in KM practice and the consolidation of a learning culture are correlated, reflecting a type of leadership that is favorable to the flow of information, generation, and sharing of knowledge (the intellectual capital) and optimization of decision making and business performance.
-
Human resource management in promoting innovation and organizational performance
I Gede Riana ,
Gede Suparna ,
I Gusti Made Suwandana ,
Sebastian Kot ,
Ismi Rajiani
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(1).2020.10
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 18, 2020 Issue #1 pp. 107-118 Views: 3018 Downloads: 673 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯHuman resource management (HRM) is one of the elements enabling an organization to remain competitive in turbulence conditions. The effective practice of HRM makes competent and innovative employees contributing to the achievement of organizational objectives. This study aims to analyze HRM practices in creating innovation and organizational performance. The questionnaire was used to measure the respondents’ perceptions of variables used by a Likert scale. A survey of 126 manager samples and middle managers at export-oriented short and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Bali, Indonesia, was conducted to test the model. The analysis has shown that the proposed model was proven to be compliant with the research hypotheses. HRM significantly affects organizational performance and innovation, and it was found out that innovation can improve organizational performance. However, in the process of simultaneous testing, it was found out that innovation cannot improve organizational performance. The lack of attention to investments in human resources became one of the barriers to SMEs in creating innovation.
-
The growth strategies of a global pharmaceutical company: a case study of Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Limited
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017 Issue #1 (cont.) pp. 248-259 Views: 2673 Downloads: 2963 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯGiven the rapid and sustained growth of Aspen over the past decade, the main aim of this study is to identify and analyze the growth strategies, adopted by Aspen over the period from 2004 to 2014. The research method used was a descriptive study through a single case study of Aspen by analyzing secondary data in the form of publicly available company reports and presentations, as well as financial results, issued between 2004 and 2014. The study finds that, guided by strategic and visionary leadership, Aspen adopted a number of growth strategies including (i) organic growth, as a key factor in creating incremental value for Aspen and its stakeholders, (ii) inorganic growth, in the form of carefully planned and well executed acquisitions, aligned to the Group strategy, (iii) extending territorial coverage through global expansion, particularly into emerging pharmaceutical countries, and (iv) ongoing investment in production capabilities as a means of achieving a strategic advantage. Despite the challenges of intense competition, restrictive legislation, pressure on medicine prices, currency volatility and market specific risks, Aspen has delivered double-digit earnings growth to its shareholders for 16 consecutive years.
