wordpress-themes.org wordpress themes wordpress themes

The theoretical framework above (Figure 1) is based on the objective of the study that is to examine the effect of CE dimensions of large firm performance. The instruments used was adapted and modified from the widely used measure as depicted in Table 1.
The study was carried out in public-listed companies (PLCs) listed in main market, Bursa Malaysia. The primary data were collected through a mail survey by means of a structured questionnaire. Of 660 mailed surveys, only 138 were returned with response, resulting in 20% response rate. PLCs were chosen because CE was associated with large and established firm. The questionnaires were addressed to top or senior management team of the company with designation of senior manager, chief executive officer, vice president, president, or executive director. The members of top management team were chosen because they were the most knowledgeable individuals in the firm who were responsible decision-making and knowledgeable about the policy, strategy, and perception of external business conditions (Weaver et al., 2002; Zahra, 1993). Besides, the members of top management were more likely to participate in the survey (Zahra, 1993).
In order to analyse the survey data, two statistical techniques were used. First, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19.0 was used to generate descriptive analyses such as means, standard deviations, and frequencies. Next, the second statistical technique used was Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach to Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The analysis and interpretation of a PLS model are a two-staged process. First is the assessment of the reliability and validity of the measurement model. Second is the assessment of the structural model to test the hypotheses under study.
Table 1 indicates the measures of the study variables used in the study. The instrument items were adapted and modified from previous studies by Lumpkin and Dess, Lumpkin, Zahra, Dess and Robinson, and Gupta and Govindarajan. Of the 138 respondents, 88 (63.8%) were male and 50 (36.2%) were female. There were more male respondents than female respondents due to the fact that majority of senior management team were predominated by male members. More than half of the respondents were above 41 years old (52.29%). Only 11 (8%) firms had been established less than 10 years and 117 (84.8%) firms had been public-listed more than 5 years. Next, in terms of number of employees, 106 (76.8%) firms had more than 300 employees. Off the 14 sectors included in this study, 40 firms (29%) were in industrial product sector, which were the highest number of firms in a particular sector, followed by consumer product sector with 35 firms (25.4%). In order to test the goodness of measures, two criteria were used: validity and reliability. The purpose of the validity analysis is to test of how well an instrument is developed to measure the particular concept it is intended to measure. Validity can be analysed using construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Next, the purpose of reliability analysis is to test how consistent a measuring instrument measures the concept of a study. In the first step of this study, only reflective measure was analysed for validity and reliability on its items. However, for formative measure, only the absolute value of the items weight was examined. In this study, the dependent variable i.e., the firm performance, was a formative construct that consisted of three uncorrelated dimensions that formed or caused the creation in the construct. Therefore, it was necessary to analyse the variance inflation factors (VIF). This was to confirm that there was no collinearity between the different indicators. The results in Table 3 showed that all cases had the recommended values, which were below 5. payday loans direct lenders only


Figure 1 : Theoretical Framework of the Study

Table 1: Instrumentation of Study Variables

Study Variables No. of Item Source of Scale Type of Scale
Innovation 5 Lumpkin & Dess and Lumpkin 7-Point Likert Scale
Proactiveness 5 7-Point Likert Scale
Risk Taking 5 7-Point Likert Scale
Corporate Venturing 6 Zahra, and Dalziel 7-Point Likert Scale
Firm Performance 3 Dess & Robinson and Gupta & Govindarajan. 7-Point Likert Scale

Table 2: Loadings and cross loadings

Corporate Venturing Innovativeness Proactiveness Risk Taking
CV_1 0.846 0.316 0.338 0.149
CV_2 0.753 0.335 0.329 0.117
CV_3 0.848 0.248 0.323 0.196
CV_4 0.890 0.345 0.333 0.078
CV_5 0.871 0.297 0.322 0.105
CV_6 0.719 0.229 0.219 0.130
Innov_1 0.296 0.882 0.207 0.009
Innov_3 0.316 0.881 0.346 0.248
Innov_5 0.336 0.827 0.243 0.070
Pro_1 0.300 0.269 0.907 0.366
Pro_2 0.320 0.247 0.866 0.379
Pro_3 0.341 0.274 0.869 0.386
Pro_4 0.301 0.211 0.850 0.443
Pro_5 0.394 0.306 0.880 0.456
Risk_1 0.144 0.188 0.436 0.877
Risk_2 0.144 -0.002 0.320 0.800
Risk_3 0.136 0.079 0.367 0.861
Risk_4 0.006 -0.096 0.325 0.521

Table 3: Result of Measurement Model

Model Construct Weight VIF Loading Cronbach’salpha Composite Reliability (CR)a Average variance extracted (AVE) b
Corporate Venturing 0.904 0.926 0.678
CV_1 0.846
CV_2 0.753
CV_3 0.848
CV_4 0.890
CV_5 0.871
CV_6 0.719
Innovativeness 0.833 0.898 0.746
Innov_1 0.882
Innov_3 0.881
Innov_5 0.827
Proactiveness 0.924 0.942 0.765
Pro_1 0.907
Pro_2 0.866
Pro_3 0.869
Pro_4 0.850
Pro_5 0.880
Risk Taking 0.795 0.856 0.606
Risk_1 0.908
Risk_2 0.778
Risk_3 0.850
Risk_4 0.521
Firm Performance
Net Profit 1.689 2.982
Sales Growth 2.452 1.487
ROI 0.692 2.765