Examining the Factors Affecting SME Performance: The Mediating Role of Social Media Adoption
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Theoretical Support
2.2. Technological Impact
2.3. Organizational Impact
2.4. Environmental Impact
2.5. Social Media Adoption and SME Performance
2.6. Mediating Role of Social Media Adoption
3. Methodology
3.1. Sampling and Data Collection
3.2. Measures
3.3. Instrument Validation
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Information
4.2. Model Analysis
4.2.1. Evaluation of the Measurement Model
4.2.2. Evaluation of the Structural Model
5. Discussion
6. Contribution
6.1. Theoretical Contribution
6.2. Practical Contributions
7. Limitations and Future Research
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Constructs | Item Code | Items | Loadings |
---|---|---|---|
Relative advantage | RA1 | “SM provides new opportunities” | 0.75 |
RA2 | “SM allows us to accomplish specific tasks more quickly” | 0.77 | |
RA3 | “SM allows us to enhance our productivity” | 0.81 | |
RA4 | “SM allows us to learn more about our competitors” | 0.78 | |
RA5 | “SM allows for better advertising and marketing” | 0.81 | |
RA6 | “SM enhances the company’s image” | 0.82 | |
RA7 | “SM allows us to accomplish specific tasks more quickly” | 0.81 | |
Cost effectiveness | CE1 | “We use SM to cut down cost on marketing communications” | 0.77 |
CE2 | “SM platform saves costs relating to time and effort in marketing, branding and customer service” | 0.74 | |
CE3 | “SM is more cost effective to us than traditional media” | 0.76 | |
Compatibility | C1 | “Social Media use is compatible with the company’s IT infrastructure” | 0.74 |
C2 | “SM use is consistent with the company’s beliefs and values” | 0.73 | |
C3 | “SM is compatible with our business processes and operations” | 0.74 | |
Interactivity | I1 | “SM offers interactive communication with customers” | 0.77 |
I2 | “SM offers interactive mechanisms for value co-creation with our audience” | 0.76 | |
I3 | “SM enable to engage customers via mentions and replies with controlled message contents” | 0.73 | |
Visibility | V1 | “SM allows us to promote our newest products” | 0.72 |
V2 | “SM allows us to increase the visibility of the company” | 0.74 | |
V3 | “SM allow us to create brand visibility” | 0.71 | |
Organizational Construct | |||
Top management support | TMS1 | “Top management in my organization is interested in adopting social media” | 0.77 |
TMS2 | “TM in my organization considers social media adoption important” | 0.77 | |
TMS3 | “TM in my organization has shown support for social media adoption” | 0.77 | |
TMS4 | “TM emphasis on R&D, technological leadership, and innovations” | 0.76 | |
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) | EO1 | “Innovations are appreciated above everything else” | 0.76 |
EO2 | “We emphasize R&D, technological leadership, and innovativeness instead of trusting only those products and services, which we have traditionally found to be good” | 0.79 | |
EO3 | “We emphasize risk-taking” | 0.82 | |
EO4 | “In our company, many people want to take a risk” | 0.79 | |
EO5 | “Within the last five years, we have brought several new products or services to the market” | 0.79 | |
EO6 | “We intend to get into markets before our competition” | 0.77 | |
EO7 | “We are typically ahead of competitors in presenting new products or procedures” | 0.78 | |
EO8 | “In our company, people want to be first in the markets” | 0.8 | |
Environmental Construct | |||
Competitive intensity | CI1 | “It is easy for our customers to switch to another company for similar services/products without much difficulty” | 0.74 |
CI2 | “Our customers are able to easily access to several existing products/services in the market which are different from ours but perform the same functions” | 0.76 | |
CI3 | “It is easy for our customers to switch to another company for similar services/products without much difficulty” | 0.77 | |
Competitive pressure | CP1 | “SM would allow the firm stronger competitive advantage” | 0.71 |
CP2 | “SM would increase firm ability to outperform competition” | 0.73 | |
CP3 | “SM would allow the firm to generate higher profits” | 0.75 | |
Bandwagon effect | BE1 | “SM is a popular application; therefore our firm would like to use it as well” | 0.72 |
BE2 | “We follow others in adopting social media” | 0.77 | |
BE3 | “We choose to adopt social media because many other firms are already using it” | 0.78 | |
SM Adoption | |||
Social media for marketing | SMM1 | “It helps to conduct marketing research” | 0.78 |
SMM2 | “It help to get referrals (word of mouth via likes, shares and followers in Facebook)” | 0.77 | |
SMM3 | “It help to advertise and promote product/services” | 0.79 | |
SMM4 | “It provides aids to deliver customer services” | 0.77 | |
Customer relationship | CR1 | “It helps to develop customer relations” | 0.72 |
CR2 | “Communicate with customers” | 0.73 | |
CR3 | “Conduct customer service activities” | 0.72 | |
CR4 | “Receive customer feedback on existing product/services” | 0.77 | |
CR5 | “Receive customer feedback on new/future product/services” | 0.73 | |
CR6 | “Reach new customers” | 0.7 | |
Information accessibility | IA1 | “It helps to search for general information” | 0.79 |
IA2 | “Search for competitor information” | 0.81 | |
IA3 | “Search for customer information” | 0.84 | |
SME performance | P1 | “Improved the customer relationship” | 0.82 |
P2 | “Improved service quality” | 0.87 | |
P3 | “Increased customer engagement” | 0.87 | |
P4 | “Increased company/brand visibility and reputation” | 0.85 | |
P5 | “Increased customer loyalty and retention” | 0.87 | |
P6 | “Enhanced customer service” | 0.85 | |
P7 | “Increased awareness and market Share” | 0.84 |
References
- Tajudeen, F.P.; Jaafar, N.I.; Ainin, S. Understanding the impact of social media usage among organizations. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterjee, S.; Kar, A.K. Why do small and medium enterprises use social media marketing and what is the impact: Empirical insights from India. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 53, 102103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iankova, S.; Davies, I.; Archer-Brown, C.; Marder, B.; Yau, A. A comparison of social media marketing between B2B, B2C and mixed business models. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 81, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ainin, S.; Parveen, F.; Moghavvemi, S.; Jaafar, N.I.; Shuib, N.L.M. Factors influencing the use of social media by SMEs and its performance outcomes. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2015, 115, 570–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alford, P.; Page, S.J. Marketing technology for adoption by small business. Serv. Ind. J. 2015, 35, 655–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parveen, F.; Jaafar, N.I.; Ainin, S. Social media’s impact on organizational performance and entrepreneurial orientation in organizations. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 2208–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, S.Z.; Bakar, A.R.A.; Ahmad, N. Social media adoption and its impact on firm performance: The case of the UAE. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vithayathil, J.; Dadgar, M.; Osiri, J.K. Social media use and consumer shopping preferences. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.-W.; Cao, Y.-M.; Park, C. The relationships among community experience, community commitment, brand attitude, and purchase intention in social media. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49, 475–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alalwan, A.A. Investigating the impact of social media advertising features on customer purchase intention. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 42, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garg, P.; Gupta, B.; Dzever, S.; Sivarajah, U.; Kumar, V. Examining the relationship between social media analytics practices and business performance in the Indian retail and IT industries: The mediation role of customer engagement. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 52, 102069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scuotto, V.; Del Giudice, M.; Carayannis, E.G. The effect of social networking sites and absorptive capacity on SMES’innovation performance. J. Technol. Transf. 2017, 42, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rahman, N.A.; Yaacob, Z.; Radzi, R.M. An overview of technological innovation on SME survival: A conceptual paper. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 224, 508–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hassan, M.U.; Iqbal, Z.; Malik, M.; Ahmad, M.I. Exploring the role of technological developments and open innovation in the survival of SMEs: An empirical study of Pakistan. Int. J. Bus. Forecast. Mark. Intell. 2018, 4, 64–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sangi, N.; Shuguang, L.; Sangi, A.R. Robustness of factors influencing social media usage/adoption amongst SMEs in developing countries: A case of Pakistan. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning, San Diego, CA, USA, 11–13 January 2018; pp. 103–109. [Google Scholar]
- Ogundana, O.; Okere, W.; Ayomoto, O.; Adesanmi, D.; Ibidunni, S.; Ogunleye, O. ICT and accounting system of SMEs in Nigeria. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2017, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SMEDA. State of SMEs in Pakistan. Available online: https://smeda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:state-of-smes-in-pakistan&catid=15 (accessed on 1 June 2019).
- Li, C.; Ahmed, N.; Khan, S.A.Q.A.; Naz, S. Role of Business Incubators as a Tool for Entrepreneurship Development: The Mediating and Moderating Role of Business Start-up and Government Regulations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghobakhloo, M.; Ching, N.T. Adoption of digital technologies of smart manufacturing in SMEs. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2019, 16, 100107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dad, N.; Khan, S. Mera Internet, Meri Marzi: Alternative Imaginings of Consent in Pakistani Online Spaces. In Gender Hate Online; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardwick, J.; Anderson, A.R. Supplier-customer engagement for collaborative innovation using video conferencing: A study of SMEs. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 80, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Zubielqui, G.C.; Fryges, H.; Jones, J. Social media, open innovation & HRM: Implications for performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 334–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuang, S.-H. Co-creating social media agility to build strong customer-firm relationships. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 84, 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballon, P.; Van Hoed, M.; Schuurman, D. The effectiveness of involving users in digital innovation: Measuring the impact of living labs. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1201–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro-Soriano, D. Small business and entrepreneurship: Their role in economic and social development. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2017, 29, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misirlis, N.; Vlachopoulou, M. Social media metrics and analytics in marketing–S3M: A mapping literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 38, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misirlis, N.; Lekakos, G.; Vlachopoulou, M. Associating Facebook measurable activities with personality traits: A fuzzy sets approach. J. Tour. Herit. Serv. Mark. 2018, 4, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, K.C.; Hasan, S.; Sadri, A.M.; Cebrian, M. Understanding the efficiency of social media based crisis communication during hurricane Sandy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 52, 102060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dutot, V.; Bergeron, F.; Raymond, L. Information management for the internationalization of SMEs: An exploratory study based on a strategic alignment perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 672–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costa, E.; Soares, A.L.; de Sousa, J.P. Industrial business associations improving the internationalisation of SMEs with digital platforms: A design science research approach. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 53, 102070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, X.; Yu, L. Exploring the influence of excessive social media use at work: A three-dimension usage perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 46, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abed, S.S. Social commerce adoption using TOE framework: An empirical investigation of Saudi Arabian SMEs. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 53, 102118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pee, L.G. Affordances for sharing domain-specific and complex knowledge on enterprise social media. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 43, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olanrewaju, A.-S.T.; Hossain, M.A.; Whiteside, N.; Mercieca, P. Social media and entrepreneurship research: A literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 90–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kizgin, H.; Dey, B.L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Hughes, L.; Jamal, A.; Jones, P.; Kronemann, B.; Laroche, M.; Peñaloza, L.; Richard, M.-O. The impact of social media on consumer acculturation: Current challenges, opportunities, and an agenda for research and practice. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 51, 102026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braojos-Gomez, J.; Benitez-Amado, J.; Llorens-Montes, F.J. How do small firms learn to develop a social media competence? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 443–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, V.L.; Kiser, A.; Washington, R.; Torres, R. Limitations to the rapid adoption of M-payment services: Understanding the impact of privacy risk on M-Payment services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 79, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, P.-F.; Ray, S.; Li-Hsieh, Y.-Y. Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing mechanism, and deployment model. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 474–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, N.P.; Barnard, D.J.; Baabdullah, A.M.; Rees, D.; Roderick, S. Exploring barriers of m-commerce adoption in SMEs in the UK: Developing a framework using ISM. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 44, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maroufkhani, P.; Tseng, M.-L.; Iranmanesh, M.; Ismail, W.K.W.; Khalid, H. Big data analytics adoption: Determinants and performances among small to medium-sized enterprises. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharya, M.; Wamba, S.F. A conceptual framework of RFID adoption in retail using TOE framework. In Technology Adoption and Social Issues: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: London, UK, 2018; pp. 69–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.B.; Lin, Y.H. Exploring interactive communication using social media. Serv. Ind. J. 2015, 35, 670–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odoom, R.; Anning-Dorson, T.; Acheampong, G. Antecedents of social media usage and performance benefits in small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2017, 30, 383–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cesaroni, F.M.; Consoli, D. Are small businesses really able to take advantage of social media? Electr. J. Knowl. Manag. 2015, 13, 257. [Google Scholar]
- Tornatzky, L.G.; Fleischer, M.; Chakrabarti, A.K. Processes of Technological Innovation; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Ahani, A.; Rahim, N.Z.A.; Nilashi, M. Forecasting social CRM adoption in SMEs: A combined SEM-neural network method. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 75, 560–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, S.Z.; Ahmad, N.; Bakar, A.R.A. Reflections of entrepreneurs of small and medium-sized enterprises concerning the adoption of social media and its impact on performance outcomes: Evidence from the UAE. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maduku, D.K.; Mpinganjira, M.; Duh, H. Understanding mobile marketing adoption intention by South African SMEs: A multi-perspective framework. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dutot, V.; Bergeron, F. From strategic orientation to social media orientation. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2016, 23, 1165–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, S.A. Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms: The wellspring of the regenerative capability. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2018, 31, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tajvidi, R.; Karami, A. The effect of social media on firm performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 105174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auh, S.; Menguc, B. Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 1652–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.; Millar, V. How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage; Harvard Business Review; Reprint Service: Boston, MA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Schmitt-Beck, R. Bandwagon effect. Int. Encycl. Political Commun. 2015, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leibenstein, H. Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand. Q. J. Econ. 1950, 64, 183–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Datta, A.; Sahaym, A.; Brooks, S. Unpacking the antecedents of crowdfunding campaign’s success: The effects of social media and innovation orientation. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2019, 57, 462–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.Y.; Chan, K.C. Assessing the operations innovation bandwagon effect: A market perspective on the returns. J. Manag. Issues 2003, 15, 97–105. [Google Scholar]
- Steininger, D.M.; Lorch, M.; Veit, D.J. The Bandwagon effect in digital environments: An experimental study on Kickstarter. com. Multikonferenz Birtschaftsinformatik 2014, 2014, 546–556. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, A.M.; Haenlein, M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 2010, 53, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trainor, K.J.; Andzulis, J.M.; Rapp, A.; Agnihotri, R. Social media technology usage and customer relationship performance: A capabilities-based examination of social CRM. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1201–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barney, J.B. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denktaş-Şakar, G.; Sürücü, E. Stakeholder engagement via social media: An analysis of third-party logistics companies. Serv. Ind. J. 2020, 40, 866–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonardi, P.M.; Vaast, E. Social media and their affordances for organizing: A review and agenda for research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 150–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abu Bakar, A.R.; Ahmad, S.Z.; Ahmad, N. SME social media use: A study of predictive factors in the United Arab Emirates. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2019, 38, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haseeb, M.; Hussain, H.I.; Ślusarczyk, B.; Jermsittiparsert, K. Industry 4.0: A solution towards technology challenges of sustainable business performance. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Godina, R.; Ribeiro, I.; Matos, F.; Ferreira, B.; Carvalho, H.; Peças, P. Impact assessment of additive manufacturing on sustainable business models. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias Canedo, E.; Morais do Vale, A.P.; Patrão, R.L.; Camargo de Souza, L.; Machado Gravina, R.; Eloy dos Reis, V.; Lúcio Lopes Mendonça, F.; de Sousa, R.T. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Governance Processes: A Case Study. Information 2020, 11, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lutfi, A. Investigating the Moderating Role of Environmental Uncertainty between Institutional Pressures and ERP Adoption in Jordanian SMEs. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pateli, A.; Mylonas, N.; Spyrou, A. Organizational Adoption of Social Media in the Hospitality Industry: An Integrated Approach Based on DIT and TOE Frameworks. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Studen, L.; Tiberius, V. Social Media, Quo Vadis? Prospective Development and Implications. Future Internet 2020, 12, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Zhu, Q.; Wang, Y. Social capital on consumer knowledge-sharing in virtual brand communities: The mediating effect of pan-family consciousness. Sustainability 2019, 11, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seo, S.-W.; Kim, H.-C.; Zhu, Z.-Y.; Lee, J.-T. What Makes Hotel Chefs in Korea Interact with SNS Community at Work? Modeling the Interplay between Social Capital and Job Satisfaction by the Level of Customer Orientation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tella, A.; Ukwoma, S.C.; Adeniyi, I.K. A two models modification for determining cloud computing adoption for web-based services in academic libraries in Nigeria. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2020, 46, 102255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geurin, A.N.; Burch, L.M. User-generated branding via social media: An examination of six running brands. Sport Manag. Rev. 2017, 20, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngai, E.W.; Tao, S.S.; Moon, K.K. Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, H.; Hurd, F. Exploring the impact of digital platforms on SME internationalization: New Zealand SMEs use of the Alibaba platform for Chinese market entry. J. Asia-Pac. Bus. 2018, 19, 72–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocconcelli, R.; Cioppi, M.; Pagano, A. Social media as a resource in SMEs’ sales process. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2017, 23, 693–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: Tampa. FL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.-M. SmartPLS 3; SmartPLS GmbH: Boenningstedt, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- McDonald, R.P. Path analysis with composite variables. Multivar.Behav. Res. 1996, 31, 239–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Becker, S.; Bryman, A.; Ferguson, H. Understanding Research for Social Policy and Social Work 2E: Themes, Methods and Approaches; Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Business, L. Small Business in Karachi, Pakistan. Available online: https://www.businesslist.pk/category/small-business/city:karachi (accessed on 10 June 2019).
- Mustkbil. Companies in Pakistan. Available online: https://www.mustakbil.com/companies/pakistan (accessed on 10 June 2019).
- Cao, Y.; Ajjan, H.; Hong, P.; Le, T. Using social media for competitive business outcomes. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2018, 15, 211–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark.Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zieba, M.; Bolisani, E.; Scarso, E. Emergent approach to knowledge management by small companies: Multiple case-study research. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016, 20, 292–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Qalati, S.A.; Khan, M.A.S.; Kwabena, G.Y.; Erusalkina, D.; Anwar, F. Value Co-creation and Growth of Social Enterprises in Developing Countries: Moderating Role of Environmental Dynamics. Entrepreneursh. Res. J. 2020, 20190359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manfreda, K.L.; Bosnjak, M.; Berzelak, J.; Haas, I.; Vehovar, V. Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2008, 50, 79–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, Global ed.; Pearson Higher Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C. An overview of psychological measurement. In Clinical Diagnosis of Mental Disorders; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1978; pp. 97–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, K.K.-K. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 2013, 24, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.t.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulathunga, K.; Ye, J.; Sharma, S.; Weerathunga, P. How Does Technological and Financial Literacy Influence SME Performance: Mediating Role of ERM Practices. Information 2020, 11, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Attoma, I.; Ieva, M. Determinants of technological innovation success and failure: Does marketing innovation matter? Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 91, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, H.; Dogbe, C.S.K.; Pomegbe, W.W.K.; Sarsah, S.A.; Otoo, C.O.A. Organizational learning ambidexterity and openness, as determinants of SMEs’ innovation performance. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2020. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sawaean, F.; Ali, K. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership and learning orientation on organizational performance of SMEs: The mediating role of innovation capacity. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2020, 10, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahsmi, K.A.; Siddiqui, D.A. Antecedents of Employees’ Entrepreneurial Orientation: The Role of Organizational Culture and Enabling Environment. 2020. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3681265 (accessed on 5 October 2020).
- Rhee, S.-Y.; Park, J.; Shin, H.-D. High-Performance Work Practices and Organizational Innovativeness: The Roles of Relational Coordination Competencies and Market Turbulence as a Mediator or Moderator. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, Y.; Younus, A.; Khan, A.U.; Pervez, H. Impact of Lean, Six Sigma and environmental sustainability on the performance of SMEs. Int. J.Product. Perform. Manag. 2020. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asad, M.; Chethiyar, S.; Ali, A. Total quality management, entrepreneurial orientation, and market orientation: Moderating effect of environment on performance of SMEs. Paradigms Res. J. Commer. Econ. Soc. Sci. 2020, 14, 102–108. [Google Scholar]
- Adel, H.M.; Mahrous, A.A.; Hammad, R. Entrepreneurial marketing strategy, institutional environment, and business performance of SMEs in Egypt. J. Entrepreneursh. Emerg. Econ. 2020, 12, 727–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basri, W.S.M.; Siam, M.R. Social media and corporate communication antecedents of SME sustainability performance. J. Econ. Admin. Sci. 2019, 35, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freixanet, J.; Braojos, J.; Rialp-Criado, A.; Rialp-Criado, J. Does international entrepreneurial orientation foster innovation performance? The mediating role of social media and open innovation. Int. J. Entrepreneursh. Innov. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagheri, M.; Mitchelmore, S.; Bamiatzi, V.; Nikolopoulos, K. Internationalization orientation in SMEs: The mediating role of technological innovation. J. Int. Manag. 2019, 25, 121–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reid-Griffin, A.; Carter, G. Technology as a tool: Applying an instructional model to teach middle school students to use technology as a mediator of learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2004, 13, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lertwongsatien, C.; Wongpinunwatana, N. E-commerce adoption in Thailand: An empirical study of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). J. Glob. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2003, 6, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Demographic Variables | Frequency | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 328 | 79.42 |
Female | 95 | 23.0 | |
Age (years) | Less than 25 | 52 | 12.59 |
26–35 | 161 | 38.98 | |
36–45 | 95 | 23.0 | |
Over 50 | 115 | 27.84 | |
Education | Basic/secondary | 19 | 4.6 |
Undergraduate | 126 | 20.50 | |
Master’s | 184 | 44.55 | |
Other | 94 | 22.76 | |
Position | Owner | 107 | 25.90 |
Executive | 145 | 34.27 | |
Manager | 171 | 41.40 | |
No. of employees | Less than 10 | 84 | 20.33 |
11–50 | 231 | 55.93 | |
51–250 | 108 | 26.15 | |
Demographical Statistics of SMEs | |||
Industry sector | Consumer discretionary | 205 | 49.63 |
Financials | 57 | 13.80 | |
Information technology | 89 | 21.54 | |
Consumer staples | 38 | 9.20 | |
Communication services | 34 | 8.23 | |
Firms level of utilization of social media | Minimum | 182 | 44.06 |
Basic | 135 | 32.68 | |
Moderate | 78 | 18.88 | |
Extensive | 28 | 6.77 | |
Use of SM as a marketing tool | Minimal | 73 | 17.67 |
Little | 39 | 9.44 | |
A lot | 160 | 38.74 | |
Extensive | 151 | 36.56 | |
Budget allocated | Less than 25% | 385 | 93.22 |
26–50% | 24 | 5.81 | |
Over 50% | 14 | 3.38 | |
Location of the business | Sindh | 183 | 44.30 |
Baluchistan | 56 | 13.55 | |
Punjab | 131 | 31.71 | |
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa | 53 | 12.83 | |
Social media platform used | 146 | 35.35 | |
22 | 5.32 | ||
93 | 22.51 | ||
118 | 28.57 | ||
YouTube | 19 | 4.60 | |
Other | 25 | 6.05 |
Construct | Loadings | Weights | p-Values | CA | CR | AVE | Inner VIF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technological factors (TF) | 0.914 | 0.936 | 0.745 | 3.293 | |||
Relative advantage | 0.886 | 0.238 | <0.001 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.73 | 3.102 |
Cost effectiveness | 0.872 | 0.234 | <0.001 | 0.86 | 0.91 | 0.78 | 2.894 |
Compatibility | 0.880 | 0.236 | <0.001 | 0.81 | 0.89 | 0.72 | 3.097 |
Interactivity | 0.873 | 0.233 | <0.001 | 0.87 | 0.92 | 0.79 | 2.897 |
Visibility | 0.802 | 0.217 | <0.001 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.84 | 2.164 |
Organizational factors (OF) | 0.800 | 0.909 | 0.833 | 3.462 | |||
Top management support | 0.911 | 0.541 | <0.001 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.81 | 1.803 |
Entrepreneurial orientation | 0.915 | 0.554 | <0.001 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.68 | 1.803 |
Environmental factors (EF) | 0.797 | 0.881 | 0.712 | 2.126 | |||
Competitive industry | 0.836 | 0.385 | <0.001 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.79 | 1.681 |
Competitive pressure | 0.847 | 0.405 | <0.001 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.74 | 1.687 |
Bandwagon effect | 0.848 | 0..395 | <0.001 | 0.87 | 0.92 | 0.79 | 1.735 |
Social Media adoption (SM) | 0.871 | 0.921 | 0.795 | 1.000 | |||
Information accessibility | 0.868 | 0.369 | <0.001 | 0.91 | 0.95 | 0.85 | 2.641 |
Social media marketing | 0.877 | 0.363 | <0.001 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.82 | 2.575 |
Customer relationship | 0.929 | 0.389 | <0.001 | 0.88 | 0.91 | 0.62 | 3.536 |
SME performance (P) | 1.000 | 1.000 | <0.001 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bandwagon effect (BE) | 0.89 | ||||||||||||
Compatibility (C) | 0.45 | 0.85 | |||||||||||
Competitive industry (CI) | 0.57 | 0.47 | 0.9 | ||||||||||
Competitive pressure (CP) | 0.58 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.86 | |||||||||
Cost effectiveness (CE) | 0.46 | 0.73 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.88 | ||||||||
Customer relationship (CR) | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.44 | 0.6 | 0.62 | 0.79 | |||||||
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) | 0.52 | 0.74 | 0.53 | 0.59 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.82 | ||||||
Information accessibility (IA) | 0.48 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.72 | 0.67 | 0.92 | |||||
Interactivity (I) | 0.44 | 0.67 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 0.71 | 0.6 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.89 | ||||
Relative advantage (RA) | 0.46 | 0.78 | 0.44 | 0.52 | 0.74 | 0.64 | 0.78 | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.86 | |||
Social media for marketing (SMM) | 0.47 | 0.59 | 0.4 | 0.55 | 0.6 | 0.75 | 0.63 | 0.6 | 0.56 | 0.59 | 0.9 | ||
Top management support (TMS) | 0.5 | 0.54 | 0.44 | 0.57 | 0.53 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.6 | 0.52 | 0.54 | 0.58 | 0.9 | |
Visibility (V) | 0.43 | 0.6 | 0.56 | 0.48 | 0.57 | 0.6 | 0.66 | 0.6 | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.92 |
Variables | EF | OF | P | SM | TF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
EF | 0.844 | ||||
OF | 0.683 | 0.913 | |||
P | 0.520 | 0.498 | 1.000 | ||
SM | 0.673 | 0.787 | 0.545 | 0.892 | |
TF | 0.655 | 0.781 | 0.499 | 0.784 | 0.863 |
Hypothesis | Relationship | Path Coefficient | SD | t-Value | Decision |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Technological factors → SME performance | 0.41 | 0.06 | 6.85 | Supported |
H2 | Organizational factors → SME performance | 0.20 | 0.06 | 3.26 | Supported |
H3 | Environmental factors → SME performance | 0.247 | 0.07 | 3.71 | Supported |
H4 | SM adoption → SME performance | 0.282 | 0.08 | 3.39 | Supported |
Mediating Effect | |||||
H5 | Technological factors → SM adoption → SME performance | 0.06 | 0.03 | 2.83 | Supported |
H6 | Organizational factors → SM adoption → SME performance | 0.11 | 0.04 | 2.86 | Supported |
H7 | Environmental factors → SM adoption → SME performance | 0.056 | 0.02 | 2.44 | Supported |
Variables | Cross Validated Redundancy (Q2) | Coefficient of Determination (R2) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Construct | SSO | SSE | Q2 (= 1–SSE/SSO) | R2 | Adj. R2 |
SM adoption | 423.00 | 141.86 | 0.664 | 0.693 | 0.691 |
SME performance | 423.00 | 285.68 | 0.325 | 0.357 | 0.340 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ali Qalati, S.; Li, W.; Ahmed, N.; Ali Mirani, M.; Khan, A. Examining the Factors Affecting SME Performance: The Mediating Role of Social Media Adoption. Sustainability 2021, 13, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010075
Ali Qalati S, Li W, Ahmed N, Ali Mirani M, Khan A. Examining the Factors Affecting SME Performance: The Mediating Role of Social Media Adoption. Sustainability. 2021; 13(1):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010075
Chicago/Turabian StyleAli Qalati, Sikandar, Wenyuan Li, Naveed Ahmed, Manzoor Ali Mirani, and Asadullah Khan. 2021. "Examining the Factors Affecting SME Performance: The Mediating Role of Social Media Adoption" Sustainability 13, no. 1: 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010075
APA StyleAli Qalati, S., Li, W., Ahmed, N., Ali Mirani, M., & Khan, A. (2021). Examining the Factors Affecting SME Performance: The Mediating Role of Social Media Adoption. Sustainability, 13(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010075