Resumo

Although the research field on entrepreneurship and alliances provides valuable information on the basis of knowledge exploitation, there are a limited number of studies related to Strategic Alliances (SA) and Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO), especially in the case of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME). It should be noted that the SME are the driving force of the Brazilian economy. SAs represent a source of competitive advantage in the marketplace for both large firms and SMEs, however we do not have a clear understanding of what can really bring them about by the paradigm of EO.

The aim of this study is to look at the multidimensionality of the EO construct, designing a conceptual mechanism that illustrates the impact EO has on SA (and the role of the entrepreneurial leader on this relationship in the case of SME), the mediating effect of firm-size, and to tease out a novel aspect for the literature on EO to answer the following questions: Does the five EO dimensions autonomy, risk-taking, proactiveness, innovativeness and competitive aggressiveness influence SA for the SME? If not all the five EO dimensions are linked to SA, which factors could be influencing it?

SAs refer to the way key business positions can be strengthened by forming partnership with strategic third parties and suppliers, as well as to their ability to keep them over time as a way of overcoming uncertainties and building barriers to entry (Sarasvathy, 2001). In this way, alliances can be of equal or greater importance to EO firms (Alvarez et al., 2006). EO is a strategic process where the conceptual domain includes some performance indicators and related managerial preferences, beliefs and behaviors expressed by the company’s top management (Covin, Green, & Slevin, 2006).

A quantitative survey with 104 Brazilian firms was carried out to test the formulated hypotheses which was analyzed by structural equation modeling. The target population – leader was determined for this research study and comprised: owners, presidents, vice-presidents and/or directors. Data were collected from randomly selected firms to measure the five dimensions of the independent variable EO, the dependent variable (SA), and the antecedent EO variable – EL. Established multiple-item scales were used and the items in the scales were randomly ordered to reduce the survey bias.

This study found that there is a relationship between EO and SAs as two dimensions (A and RT) of the EO construct five dimensions showed a positive and significant relationship with SA. The results of the relationship between these two dimensions of EO (A and RT) and SA were affected by the EL, which in fact comprises five EO dimensions (A, RT, CA, I and PA) and acted as mediator between EL and SA. Moreover, our findings shed light on the argument of Covin and Lumpkin (2011) that the EO is a multidimensional construct which is influenced by the company’s EL, extending previous study.

The result of this study, together with Oliveira Junior et al. (2016) are consistent with the notion that firms with EO may increase the probability of SA formation. Admittedly not all of the EO dimensions directly affected the SA, but this does not imply that EO is not important to SAs since according to the definition of EO given by the Lumpkin and Dess’ (1996). In fact, CA and PA do have a relationship with SAs when account is taken of the indirect effect of the firm-size. Entrepreneurial leader influenced all the EO dimensions (A, RT, CA, I and PA) acting as mediator of EO-SA relationship.

Covin, J.G.,Green,K.M.,& Slevin,D.P.(2006).Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation–sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,30(1),57-81. Covin, J.G.& Lumpkin,G.T.(2011).Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,35(5),855-872. Lumpkin,G.T.,& Dess,G.G.(1996).Linking Two Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation to Firm Performance. Academy of Management Review,21(1),135-172. Sarasvathy,S.D.(2001).Causation and Effectuation.Academy of Management Review,26(2),243-263.