Keywords

Strategic Business Orientation, Proactiveness, Aggressiveness, Analysis, Performance.

Introduction

In the world of business today, where the assurance of the business cycle as well the environment is chocked with unprecedented uncertainties and risks, companies desiring to remain in business and competitive must learn how to navigate more strategically. This being the bane to organization success has attracted the need for managers who are loaded with strategic skills. Strategic orientation is seen as principles that direct and influence the activities of a business management in their effort to achieve a better performance in the marketplace and ensure its viability (Hakala, 2011). These are policies in a business which are responsible for the direction of a company towards achieving its goal. Strategic orientation has come to the attention of some scholars in different disciplines like marketing, entrepreneurship and management who has invested so much time and intellectual strength in its study. After several studies on customers, production and technology, it has come to notice that firms place emphases on the strategic orientation since organizations should intermittently strategize because of the intensity of the business environment as an after effect of the complexities in the commercial centre; (Miles & Snow, 1978; Morgan & Strong, 2003; Ogbari et al., 2016).

Theory and Hypotheses

Many researchers give various definitions on strategic orientation, all of which, however, mention the same final goal of strategic orientation, namely to improve performance or to achieve superior performance. According to Zhou et al. (2005) strategic orientation is the company's strategic direction in creating the proper behavior so as to achieve superior performance; both market and innovation are the most strategic orientations for the company to achieve superior performance over a long term. Strategic orientations are ones consisting of four dimensions, namely market, learning, entrepreneurship and employee orientations. These dimensions have a positive effect on the company's performance (Grinstein, 2008). Meanwhile, Liu & Revell (2009) define the strategic orientation as a concept widely used in research on the management of strategy, entrepreneurship and marketing. A strategic orientation of a company reflects a strategic direction which is implemented by the company to create proper behavior for the continuously superior performance in business. The definition of strategic orientation explained by Grawe et al. (2009) covers the orientation of market, entrepreneurship, customer, cost, innovation, competitor, learning, employee and interaction.

Marketing researchers determine various dimensions of strategic orientation when they study them. Voss & Voss (2000) use the orientation dimension of customer, competitor and technological products. Meanwhile, the dimensions used by Antonio, Emilio & Jose (2005) are technology, area of innovation, implementation flexibility, human resource system and training investment. Then, Racelis (2006) states the strategic orientations consist of marketing focus, main competence, investment strategy and innovation. Dimensions of strategy orientation consist of orientation of customer, entrepreneurship, learner and innovation (Altindag et al., 2011; Usta, 2011) adds variables of internal marketing and management information. Then, Lau (2011) describes that dimensions of strategic orientations consist of orientation of team, managerial competence, social networking, local institutional support, low-cost orientation and product innovation. Venkatraman (1989) proposed an arrangement of key introduction variables that are pertinent at the business level. They are: Aggressiveness, analysis, defensiveness, futurity, proactiveness and risk.

Aggressiveness

At this point, business operators must smartly possess the ability to engage organizational resources in executing aggressive strategies and the pursuit of increased market share as a means to achieving business unit profitability; recognizing the fact that every firm seek higher market share ahead of competitors (Abiodun, 2009). This strategy takes the form of cost leadership (Porter, 1980; Miller, 1988; Wright et al., 1992; Thompson & Strickland, 1999; Hitt et al., 2007) explosion and expansion strategy described by Wissema et al. (1980), product innovation (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Miller, 1988), price and image differentiation (Mintzberg, 1988; Bordean, 2011).

Analysis

This refers to the ability to investigate deeply into the foundational causes of problems and develop the best alternative solution as a way of problem-solving. It relates to the maintenance of internal consistency in the resource allocation strategies towards the achievement of corporate objectives. The alignment of resource allocation and competitive intelligence are important issues of consideration (Abiodun & Ibidunni, 2014).

Defenciveness

Reflects the firm’s emphasizes on defence strategies over its core technology and product-market domain through the use of cost minimization and techniques that achieve operational efficiency. This posture is related to the defender trait described by Miles & Snow (1978), defensive actions (Miles & Cameron, 1982), niche marketers (Miller, 1988), cost reduction (Schuler & Jackson, 1987) and niche differentiation (Ward et al., 1996).

Futurity

This is the extent to which decisions that relate to possible future occurrences are seriously engaged. It reflects issues like sales forecast, possible changes in customer preference and tracking of environmental changes. It is manifested by a firm’s incorporation of its vision of the vision as a strategic concern (Stambaugh et al., 2011).

Proactiveness

Reflects the firm’s constant engagement in the search for new market opportunities; the first mover in the introduction of new products, while old products are strategically withdrawn from markets; it shows the degree of the firm’s experimentation with marketing research responses (Venkatraman, 1989). It explains a firm’s drive for first mover position in the market (Chang et al., 2003) and a search for new opportunities (Miles & Snow, 1978) and the pursuit of new markets through the engagement of value innovations.

Riskiness

It captures the extent of riskiness of the firm. This is reflected in its choice and criteria over resource allocation decisions and the general pattern of decision making. Firms characterized with high risk strategies may be trading-off with lower profits than expected (Söderbom, 2012). Although R and D investment is important in the new product development (Kotler, 2003) due to the small sophistication of small businesses in the area of Ogun State

Strategic Orientation Based Model of SME Performance

Existing literature reveals that strategic orientations have been used in many prior studies to explain the performance of SMEs. But prior researchers have used different orientations separately or combination of two orientations as predictors of SME performance (Ledwith & Dwyer, 2009; Li et al., 2008; Gao et al., 2010; Kropp et al., 2006; Santos-Vijande et al., 2005; Worlu et al., 2016). As (Hakala & Kohtamaki, 2011; Kropp et al., 2006) pointed out that the effect of orientations on performance has been investigated individually or single orientation coupled with other factors.

Strategic orientations have been considered as organizational resources (Hoq & Chauhan, 2011; Barney, 1991). Valuable and unique resources are the source of the competitive advantages in SMEs (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). (Hoq & Chauhan, 2011; Inmyxai & Takahashi, 2009) argue that lack of resources and capabilities in SMEs is a barrier for them to develop their own markets and to use the experience, economies of scale and scope for achieving competitive advantage. Recent research findings have concluded that interrelation among different strategic orientations provides sustainable competitive advantage for organizations (Hult et al., 2004) and firms that continue balancing different strategic orientations perform better (Bhuian et al., 2005; Nobel et al., 2002). It is also evident that strategic orientations are very important for the organizations in developing countries (Keskim, 2006). Dharmasiri (2009) emphasized the importance of strategic orientation for the success of the organizations in developing countries. Chandrakumara et al. (2011) also have suggested the need of investigations of the impact of mixed orientations on firm performance in developing countries.

Dharmasiri (2009) stressed the significance of vital introduction for the accomplishment of the organizations in developing nations. Chandrakumara et al. (2011) additionally have proposed the need of examinations of the effect of blended introductions on firm performance in developing nations. Likewise, taking into account the accessible writing, it can be contended that vital introductions qualify as indicators of SME performance in an examination model. Sequel to this line of thoughts, we formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis One:

H₀₁: Market share for a small and medium business can be influenced by aggressive marketing.

Ha1: Market share for a small and medium business cannot be influenced by aggressive marketing.

Hypothesis Two:

H₀₂: There is a significant relationship between research and development and customer patronage.

Ha2: There is no significant relationship between research and development and customer patronage.

Hypothesis Three:

H₀₃: Product innovation affects the revenue turnover of a small and medium company.

Ha3: Product innovation does not affect the revenue turnover of a small and medium company.

Hypothesis Four:

H_o4: There is a significant relationship between technological innovation and return on investment of a small and medium company.

Ha4: There is no significant relationship between technological innovation and return on investment of a small and medium company.

SMEs are exceptionally crucial for economic improvement of any nation. They contribute colossally to the economic and social improvement. According to the World Bank (2013), SMEs add to the formation of work which decreases local variations amongst urban and rural areas.

The truth of the matter is that, it is the SMEs that created and turn out to be extensive partnerships. According to CBN (2003), SMEs add to the production of vocation, as it is one of the areas that give modern livelihood in Nigeria. SMEs use nearby crude materials that don't require abnormal state innovation to process and this gives a compelling method for moderating provincial urban movement and asset use. SMEs use basic innovation and reuse by-items and waste from substantial firms as the contribution for their generation forms (Motilewa et al., 2015).

SMEs contribute generously to the national yield through the procurement of crude material for bigger firms' use. Likewise, the administration creates incomes from the exercises of SMEs through different types of duties (Gberevbie & Isiavwe, 2007). They likewise serve as the methods for assembly and usage of local reserve funds and diminish expense of creation, which expands effectiveness of the division. As indicated by the World Bank (2013), SMEs are characterized in light of the measure of the endeavour regarding the aggregate number of representatives and/or all out resources esteem. SMEs and huge firms can be separated in view of the previously stated criteria. Be that as it may, the significance of SMEs can be seen from exchange perspectives, dependent upon the affiliation or country. Bouri et al. (2011) portray medium attempts as firms with under 250 delegates and having under €50 million turnover or not more than €43 million bookkeeping report full scale. A little attempt insinuates firms having fewer than 50 agents, under €10 million turnover and/or not more than €10 million resource report complete. Stork & Esselaar (2006) report a couple of implications of SMEs considering different African countries.

In Ghana, SMEs insinuated firm that have 6 to 97 number of specialists and have not more than 2.5 billion Ghana Cedi (¢) of settled assets (notwithstanding zone and structures). In South Africa, SMEs are described as specific and separate business components, including accommodating endeavours and non-administrative affiliations that are independently directed by a single proprietor or more which joins its branches or helpers, accepting any. In Cameroon, SMEs are described as firms that have turnover estimation of no less than 1 billion Cameroon Franc (cfa) and collected endeavours are not more than 500 million cfa, its transient credit is not more than 200 million cfa and it has no under 5% proprietors of the capital and chairmen are Cameroonians. In Nigeria SMEs are portrayed as the business that use under 200 employees and have under 500 million Naira (N) worth of total assets, excepting land and building (Smedan, 2012). Specifically, few studies suggest SMEs with labourers between 10 and 49 and have N5m to under N50m assets notwithstanding land and building. Firms with workers between 50 and 195 and have N50m to under N500m resources barring land and building is alluded to as medium endeavours. Thusly, in this study SMEs are characterized as firm with less than 200 representatives. Right now, performance of SMEs in Nigeria is beneath desires. It is contended that the commitment of SMEs in Nigeria to the national GDP is poor for various reasons. These incorporate lacking foundation/money related backing to organizations working inside the different segments; constrained utilization of advancement to operations inside the portion; and unfavourable rivalry from local business and organizations (Bangudu, 2013; Ndumanya, 2013). Thusly, fabricating powerful methodology is integral to any firm as it empowers it to accomplish and keep up an upper hand. Consequently, so as to survive, firms require a mix of different systems that are suitable for fast natural changes. Scientists have utilized different variables to speak to a company's key exercises that are alluded to as key orientation (Weinzimmer, Robin & Michel, 2012). Entrepreneurial orientation is characterized as firms' action that is spoken to by the conduct of going out of hand, being inventive and proactive (Covin & Slevin, 1991). It alluded to as the blend of an organization’s innovation, proactiveness and risk. Entrepreneurial orientation can be seen as a specific route by which firms identify with circumstances and exercises that prompt new business opportunities (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Also, entrepreneurial orientation is one of the critical assets that impact firm performance (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001).

A few studies have demonstrated that entrepreneurial orientation is one of the key introductions that impacts firm performance (Coulthard, 2007; Alegre & Chiva, 2013; Frank, Kessler & Fink, 2010; Idar & Mahmood, 2011; Al-swidi & Al-hosam, 2012; Stephen et al., 2017).

There are alternate points of view to market orientation, although every one of the viewpoints put the customers at a middle stage. The points of view additionally perceive the significance of data, practical coordination, reacting to client and ensuring partners' advantage (Lafferty & Hult, 2001). These business sector introduction points of view incorporate the basic leadership viewpoint. Shapiro (1988) contends that market orientation is a basic leadership processes in a firm with high management duty to include every single other office in the firm. It can be seen from a business sector knowledge conduct viewpoint. Kohli & Jaworski (1990), state that market introduction is a firm action that spotlights on business sector data era and scattering and how the divisions react to data.

Market orientation is likewise seen as the way of life of the firm that is most reasonable and capable in making the basic conduct for the formation of better esteem than clients for constant higher business performance (Narver & Slater, 1990). Additionally, Ruekert (1992) stresses that market introduction is a movement for getting data from clients, utilizing the data to create client focused systems to react to the clients' needs. Others view market orientation from a customer orientation point of view; Deshpande, Farley & Webster (1993) state that it alludes to the distinguishing proof of client needs that run together with the improvement of items and management. Moreover, a few studies have reported distinctive results on the significance of business sector introduction in affecting the performance of business firms and organizations as a rule (Agarwal, Erramilli & Dev, 2003; Baker & Sinkula, 2009; Farrell et al., 2008; Haugland, Myrtveit & Nygaard, 2007; Idar & Mahmood, 2011; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Kara, Spillan & DeShields, 2005; Kropp, Lindsay & Shoham, 2006; Li, Zhao, Tan & Liu, 2008; Nikoomaram & Ma'atoofi, 2011; Noble, Sinha & Kumar, 2002; Slater & Narver, 2000).

Slater & Narver (1995) contend that because of the powerlessness of business sector introduction to foresee firm execution, business firms should be learning focused on the off chance that they need to be effective over the long haul. Like this contention, Farrell (2000) states that there is a requirement for business firms to encourage learning in their organizations. This is on account of learning introduction is a wellspring of competitive advantage. In any case, Slater & Narver (1995) fight those market-arranged firms must create learning introduction society so as to face rivalry viably. On the premise of these contentions, various studies on the effect of learning orientation on firm performance have been directed (Alegre & Chiva, 2009; Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Farrell et al., 2008; Farrell & Mavondo, 2004; Hardley & Mavondo, 2000; Kropp et al., 2006; Lee & Tsai, 2005; Long, 2013; Suliyanto & Rahab, 2012). Innovation orientation is a procedure of making or enhancing item separation and item outline more than the contenders (Wind & Mahajan, 1997). As it were, innovation orientation is an organization’s capacity and readiness to create mechanical outlook and use it in enhancing or creating items and administrations (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997). As of late, there is rising affirmation that a superior access to back for SMEs can enhance their performance and thusly prompt private and financial advantages for the country's economy (Kumar & Peterson, 2005). Henceforth, access to basic assets, for example, money, is among the noteworthy and essential variables that energizes SMEs' business exercises in any economy (Motilewa et al., 2015). Accessibility of financing can influence the performance of SMEs either decidedly or contrarily. As per Margaritis & Psillaki (2010), predominant firm execution is affected by abnormal state of influence. Then again, high obligation can prompt an item business sectors under performance (Campello, 2006).

Methods

Data Collection

We tested the mediating hypotheses with the help of meta-analytic Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) techniques (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995; Olokundun et al., 2017). We used multiple key-words. For small business strategic orientation and performance, we used the keywords “market share/aggressive marketing, research and development/customer patronage, innovation/revenue turnover and technological innovation/return on investment”. We searched for studied theoretical aspect as it relates to the subject matter; Aggressiveness measurement, Analysis, Defensiveness, Futurity, Proactiveness and Riskiness. The data overcome poll technique shaped the centre for the study. For this research, a simple random procedure was used in drawing the required sample size for the study; the procedure was chosen so as to guarantee randomness and equal representative by giving the respondent equal chance of being selected; the respondents include management staff of Covenant University Strategic business Units.

Research Instrument and Design

In this study, the questionnaire was used to get data from respondents. The questions were straight forward and understandable. The instrument had two sections. Section A comprises questions on respondents’ vital demographic statistics. Section B comprises of question that attempt to solve the research questions of study using the 5-likert scale method.

Method of Data Analysis

The method of data presentation includes the use of frequency table to allow for easy understanding of the findings in the research work. Research is meant to create data for study and this usually results in a large volume of statistical information, which is mostly in its raw stage. In other to use data for the objective of a research, they have to be reduced to manageable dimension.

In addition the researchers made use of regression analysis to review the information generated in a tabular form. All data analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20.

Results

Table 1 reports descriptive statistics and correlations among all study variables. As shown in the table, the study variables all possess an acceptable degree of internal consistency reliability.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Key Study Variable
Variable	Mean	S.D	Variance	N	Std. error	1	2	3	4
Innovations and Revenue Turn-over	4.6981	0.70603	0.498	150	0.06858	(0.04) 0.188
R and D and Customer Patronage	3.7453	0.67699	0.458	150	0.06575	0.008*	(0.03) 0.112
Technological Innovation and Return on Investment	3.3302	1.16881	1.366	150	0.11353	0.036*	0.034*	(0.04) 0.133
Market Share and Aggressive Marketing	4.6698	0.76497	0.585	150	0.07430	0.001*	0.001*	0.053*	(0.03) 0.140

The Regression analysis was used in evaluating Table 2, which represents the “Model Summary”, shows how much of the dependent variable variance is explained by the model. The results from the table therefore shows that the extent to which the variance in the effects of market share and aggressive marketing, being explained by the need of the firm is 21% i.e., (R square=0.21), the Anova table reveals the assessment of the statistical insignificance of the result. The null hypothesis is accepted because the P-value is less than 0.05. The model in this table reaches statistical significance (sig=0.341), in which the P-value is not equal to 0.000 or less than 0.05. Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis. The Regression analysis was used in evaluating Table 3 which represents the “Model Summary” shows how much of the dependent variable variance is explained by the model. The results from the table therefore shows that the extent to which the variance in influencing the customer patronage through research and development being explained by the need of the firm is 11.8% i.e., (R square=0.118), the Anova table reveals the assessment of the statistical significance of the result. The null hypothesis is rejected because the P-value is less than 0.05. The model in this table reaches statistical significance (sig=0.002), in which the P-value is equal to 0.000 and greater than 0.05. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

Table 2 Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	0.144a	0.021	0.002	0.74218	0.021	1.088	2	103	0.341
1. Predictors: (Constant), the firm cuts down on prices in order to increase market share, the firm trades off cash flow and profitability to gain higher market share.

Table 3 Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	0.344a	0.118	0.101	0.70806	0.118	6.909	2	103	0.002
1. Predictors: (Constant), our company frequently develop strategies that will help capture a major part of the market, the organization emphasizes the need to embark on research and development in order to satisfy and keep customers.

The Regression analysis was used in evaluating Table 4, which represents the “Model Summary”, shows how much of the dependent variable variance is explained by the model. The results from the table therefore shows that the extent to which the variance in influencing the product innovation and revenue turn-over being explained by the need of the firm is 17% i.e., (R square=0.17), the Anova table reveals the assessment of the statistical insignificance of the result. The null hypothesis is accepted because the P-value is more than 0.05. The model in this table reaches statistical significance (sig=0.411), in which the P-value is not equal to 0.000 or less than 0.05. Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis. It can be seen from Table 5 that the simple coefficient correlation between the usage of technology and the effects on investments recorded 0.264 values indicating a medium relationship with 0.01 significance. Thus obtained from the table (r=0.264, P?0.001, n=106); the Pearson correlation of r=0.264 therefore implies 6.9696% shared variance between the usage of technology and the effects on investments. There is a critical relationship between mechanical development and rate of return of a little and medium organization, we in this manner dismiss the invalid speculation and acknowledge the option theory.

Table 4 Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	0.131a	0.017	-0.002	0.85566	0.017	0.897	2	103	0.411
1. Predictors: (Constant), innovation can serve as a source of revenue turn-over small and medium businesses, management actively seek innovative ideas.

Table 5 Correlations
		Innovation can serve as a source of revenue turn-over small and medium businesses	The return on investment of our company is relatively competitive
Innovation can serve as a source of revenue turn-over small and medium businesses	Pearson Correlation	1	0.264**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.006
	N	106	106
The return on investment of our company is relatively competitive	Pearson Correlation	0.264**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.006
	N	106	106

Discussion

Data gathered from the field work in this study and the subsequent analysis have generated a lot of empirical findings. These findings emanated from the objectives of the research. They include the following:

1. The findings from the analyses indicates that there was a significant relationship between product innovation and the performance of the organization

2. Furthermore it was discovered that research and development helps to satisfy the customer needs and keeps customers coming to the organization.

3. In addition, it was found out that constant innovation of product helps to increase the customer patronage and in turns increase the revenue of an organization.

4. It was also discovered that companies have to innovate in other to stay relevant in the business

Recommendation

The paper presents an empirical investigation in the entrepreneurial industry to determine whether firms using different strategies (prospector, analyser, defender and reactor). Additionally, the study investigates whether these strategies affect perceptions of business performance.

As a rule, on the off chance that we need to actualize methodologies for organizations, we ought to consider vital gathering market contenders are isolated into four gatherings: Market pioneer, market challengers, market adherents and business sector corner. Every position requires some specific systems. Investigation of exploration information uncovered that forceful methodology impacts business execution. Obviously, this measurement has the littlest impact on business execution. Systems like value war, across the board promotions, presentation of comparative items with higher quality and more advancement, lack of awareness of fleeting benefits for long haul achievement. Moreover, organizations which are business sector challengers are additionally prescribed to take after previously stated techniques.

An investigation of examination information from part four uncovered that diagnostic methodology impacts business execution. With respect to result, associations and organizations are encouraged to investigate their circumstance painstakingly before settling on choices and do operational and key arranging considering their conditions. Moreover, they ought to get furnished with data frameworks which encourage ideal utilization of data.

Conclusion

Results from this study demonstrated that huge relationship exists between entrepreneurial key introduction and the execution of SMEs. This affirms the outcomes from prior studies which uncovered firms that are all the more ready to go for broke and seem, by all accounts, to be more imaginative and proactive will prompt expanded execution. Therefore, aptitudes connected with vital introduction, for example, the capacity to oversee instability, the capacity to improve to meet developing open doors and dangers, the capacity to suspect heading and nature of business change and the capacity to endure are the primary components for the SMEs' survival and maintainability in confronting the quick changing and complex business situations.

Moreover, these discoveries additionally highlight the significance of creating vital introduction among the proprietor/directors of SMEs. In this manner, SMEs should be inventive and proactive as perhaps to empower them to adapt better in these business situations. The discoveries likewise exhibit that key spontaneous creation contributes to an expanded execution. Key act of spontaneity which constitutes hastiness, inventiveness and instinct, is even essential in circumstances that require quick remedial activities where the vast majority of the SMEs are in. Act of spontaneity may build the adaptability and flexibility of the SMEs in those circumstances. What's more it can be a wellspring of upper hand since imagination and instinct in vital basic leadership influences execution in changing business situations. In this way to succeed SMEs need to encourage more key improvisational activities that can bring out change, upgrade operational effectiveness and add to authoritative execution and upper hand.

Further Research

Further examines on the relationship between key introduction and authoritative execution require the precise estimation of these two builds as an essential. Despite the fact that it has been generally perceived that the key introduction is subdivided into entrepreneurial introduction, market introduction and learning introduction, whether every introduction is a solitary measurement or numerous measurements variable is still under discourse. What's more, extensive measurements are still required. These issues on relationship between key introduction and authoritative execution are fundamental.

The choice of authoritative execution pointers and its estimation are unpredictable issues. The most effective method to appropriately join subjective and target pointers, money related and non-monetary markers, development and benefit pointers, with a specific end goal to assemble a far reaching execution assessment framework is the necessity for giving complete and precise study on relationship between key introduction and authoritative execution. From direct relationship to directing impact and interceding impact, the examination on relationship between key introduction and hierarchical execution with regards to conceived worldwide is encountering its underlying stage and the determination of arbitrator and go between absences of expansion. The variability and instability of global environment give a more extensive stage and space for further research on this subject, which is probably brimming with riddle and appeal.

It is proposed that the future analysts ought to direct research on the impact of advancement introduction on promoting execution. This ought to be done subsequent to the exploration results relating with the impact of development introduction on advertising execution has not been predictable. For proprietors or administrators of nourishment SMEs, enhancing showcasing execution ought to be finished by: Actualizing the business enterprise introduction, advertising based remunerate and learning; applying the client and contender introduction and enhancing the authoritative change capacity.

References

1. Abiodun, A.J. (2009). Exploring the relationship between human personal values, strategy dimension and performance. Universitatii Bucuresti: Analele, Seria Stiinte Economice si Administrative.
2. Abiodun, A.J. & Ibidunni, O.S. (2014). Strategic orientation, business level strategies, top management factor, organizational system, departmental connectivity. African Journal of Business Management, 8, 495-501.
3. Agarwal, S., Krishna, E.M. & Dev, C.S. (2003). Market orientation and performance in service firms: Role of innovation. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(1), 68-82.
4. Alegre, J. & Chiva, R. (2013). Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of organizational learning capability and innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(4), 491-507.
5. Al-Swidi, A.K. & Al-Hosam, A. (2012). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on the organizational performance: A study on the Islamic banks in Yemen using the partial least squares approach. Oman Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 2(1), 73-84.
6. Altindag, E., Zehir, C. & Acar, A.Z. (2011). Strategic orientations and their effects on firm performance in Turkish family owned firms. Eurasian Business Review, 1(1), 18-36.
7. Amit, R. & Schoemaker, P.J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.
8. Antonio, N.F., Emilio, R. & Jose, D. (2005). Implication of perceived competitive advantage, adaptation of marketing tactics and export commitment on export performance. Journal of World Business, 45, 287-300.
9. Baker, W.E. & Sinkula, J.M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411-427.
10. 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.
11. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
12. 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.
13. Bordean, O., Borza, A. & Maier, V. (2011). The involvement of boards in strategy implementation. Review of International Comparative Management, 12(5), 986-992.
14. Bouri, A., Breij, M., Diop, M., Kempner, R., Klinger, B. & Stevenson, K. (2011). Report on support to SMEs in developing countries through financial intermediaries. Dalberg.
15. Campello, M. (2006). Debt financing: Does it boost or hurt firm performance in product markets? Journal of Financial Economics, 82(1), 135-172.
16. Chandrakumara, A., De Zoysa, A. & Manawaduge, A. (2011). Effects of the entrepreneurial and managerial orientations of owner-managers on company performance: An empirical test in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Management, 28(1), 139.
17. Chang, S.C., Yang, C.L., Cheng, H.C. & Sheu, C. (2003). Manufacturing flexibility and business strategy: An empirical study of small and medium sized firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 83(1), 13-26.
18. Coulthard, M. (2007). The role of entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance and the potential influence of relational dynamism. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 3(1), 29.
19. Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behaviour. Entrepreneurship: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, 3, 5-28.
20. Deshpandé, R., Farley, J.U. & Webster, F.E. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. The Journal of Marketing, 23-37.
21. Dharmasiri, A.S. (2009). Strategic orientation of HR managers in commercial banks in South Asia. International Review of Business Research Papers, 5(6), 121.
22. Farrell, A.P. (2008). Comparisons of swimming performance in rainbow trout using constant acceleration and critical swimming speed tests. Journal of Fish Biology, 72(3), 693-710.
23. Farrell, M.A. (2000). Developing a market?oriented learning organization. Australian Journal of Management, 25(2), 201-222.
24. Farrell, M. & Mavondo, F.T. (2004). The effect of downsizing strategy and reorientation strategy on a learning orientation. Personnel Review, 33(4), 383-402.
25. Frank, H., Kessler, A. & Fink, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: A replication study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 66, 175-198.
26. Gao, G.Y., Murray, J.Y., Kotabe, M. & Lu, J. (2010). A “strategy tripod” perspective on export behaviors: Evidence from domestic and foreign firms based in an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(3), 377-396.
27. Gatignon, H. & Xuereb, J.M. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 77-90.
28. Gberevbie, D.E. & Isiave-Ogbari, M. (2007). Creating enabling environments for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to contribute to Nigerian development. Ghana Journal of Development Studies, 4(2), 11-32.
29. Grawe, S.J., Chen, H. & Daugherty, P.J. (2009). The relationship between strategic orientation, service innovation and performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(4), 282-300.
30. Grinstein, A. (2008). The relationships between market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 115-134.
31. 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.
32. Hakala, H. & Kohtamäki, M. (2011). Configurations of entrepreneurial-customer and technology orientation: Differences in learning and performance of software companies. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 17(1), 64-81.
33. Hardley, F. & Mavondo, F. (2000). The relationship between learning orientation, market orientation and organisational performance. In Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Queensland,Australia.
34. Haugland, S.A., Myrtveit, I. & Nygaard, A. (2007). Market orientation and performance in the service industry: A data envelopment analysis. Journal of Business Research, 60(11), 1191-1197.
35. Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. & Hoskisson, R.E. (2007). Strategic management-competitiveness and globalization (Seventh Edition). Ohio: Thomson South-Western.
36. Hoq, M.Z. & Chauhan, A.A. (2011). Effects of organizational resources on organizational performance: An empirical study of SMEs. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2, 373-385.
37. 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.
38. Idar, R. & Mahmood, R. (2011). Entrepreneurial and marketing orientation relationship to performance: The SME perspective. Interdisciplinary Review of Economics and Management, 1(2), 1-8.
39. Inmyxai, S. & Takahashi, Y. (2009). Entrepreneurs as decisive human resources and business performance for the Lao SMEs. Chinese Business Review, 8(7), 29.
40. Jaworski, B.J. & Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. The Journal of Marketing, 53-70.
41. Kara, A., Spillan, J.E. & DeShields, O.W. (2005). The effect of a market orientation on business performance: A study of small?sized service retailers using MARKOR scale. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(2), 105-118.
42. Keskin, H. (2006). Market orientation, learning orientation and innovation capabilities in SMEs: An extended model. European Journal of innovation management, 9(4), 396-417.
43. Kohli, A.K. & Jaworski, B.J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions and managerial implications. The Journal of Marketing, 1-18.
44. Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing de A to Z. Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
45. Kropp, F., Lindsay, N.J. & Shoham, A. (2006). Entrepreneurial, market and learning orientations and international entrepreneurial business venture performance in South African firms. International Marketing Review, 23(5), 504-523.
46. Kumar, V. & Petersen, J.A. (2005). Using a customer-level marketing strategy to enhance firm performance: A review of theoretical and empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(4), 504-519.
47. Lafferty, B.A. & Tomas, H.G.M. (2001). A synthesis of contemporary market orientation perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 92-109.
48. Lau, C.M. (2011). Team and organizational resources, strategic orientations and firm performance in a transitional economy. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1344-1351.
49. Ledwith, A. & O'Dwyer, M. (2009). Market orientation, NPD performance and organizational performance in small firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 652-661.
50. Lee, T.S. & Tsai, H.J. (2005). The effects of business operation mode on market orientation, learning orientation and innovativeness. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(3), 325-348.
51. Li, Y., Zhao, Y., Tan, J. & Liu, Y. (2008). Moderating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on market orientation?performance linkage: Evidence from Chinese small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 113-133.
52. Long, L.M. (2013). Culinary tourism: In encyclopaedia of food and agricultural ethics. Springer Netherlands.
53. 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.
54. Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429-451.
55. Margaritis, D. & Psillaki, M. (2010). Capital structure, equity ownership and firm performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(3), 621-632.
56. Miles, R.H. & Cameron, K.S. (1982). Coffin nails and corporate strategies. Prentice Hall.
57. Miles, R. & Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational structure, strategy and process. New York.
58. Miller, D. (1988). Relating porter's business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280-308.
59. Mintzberg, H. (1988). Opening up the definition of strategy. The Strategy Process, 13-20.
60. Morgan, R.E. & Strong, C.A. (2003). Business performance and dimensions of strategic orientation. Journal of Business research, 56(3), 163-176.
61. Motilewa, D.B., Ogbari, M.E. & Aka, D. (2015). A review of the impacts SMEs as social agents of economic liberations in developing economies. International Review of Management and Business Research, 4(3), 903-914.
62. Narver, J.C. & Slater, S.F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. The Journal of Marketing, 20-35.
63. Ndumanya, N. (2013). Why SMEs’ contribution to the nation’s GDP is poor. Business Day: Lagos, Nigeria.
64. Nikoomaram, H. & Ma'atoofi, A.R. (2011). The effect of learning orientation on market orientation and performance in small-sized firms: Evidence from Iran. European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 632-642.
65. Noble, C.H., Sinha, R.K. & Kumar, A. (2002). Market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: A longitudinal assessment of performance implications. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 25-39.
66. OECD (1999). University Research in Transition. OECD Publications Service, Paris.
67. OECD (2001). Innovative Networks: Co-operation in national innovation systems. OECD, Paris.
68. Ogbari, M.E., Oke, A.O., Ibukunoluwa, A.A., Ajagbe, M.A. & Ologbo, A.C. (2016). Entrepreneurship and business ethics: Implications on corporate performance. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(3S).
69. Olokundun, M.A., Ibidunni, A.S., Peter, F., Amaihian, A., Moses, C.L. & Iyiola, O.O. (2017). Experiential pedagogy and shared vision: A focus on identification of business opportunities by Nigerian university students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20(2), 1-12.
70. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analysing industries and competition. New York.
71. Racelis, A.D. (2006). Relationship between strategic orientation and organizational performance: An exploratory study of Philippine companies. Philippine Management Review, 13(2).
72. Ruekert, R.W. (1992). Developing a market orientation: An organizational strategy perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9(3), 225-245.
73. Santos-Vijande, M.L., Sanzo-Perez, M.J., Alvarez-Gonzalez, L.I. & Vazquez-Casielles, R. (2005). Organizational learning and market orientation: Interface and effects on performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(3), 187-202.
74. Schuler, R.S. & Jackson, S.E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. The Academy of Management Executive, 207-219.
75. Shapiro, B.P. (1988). What the hell is market oriented? HBR Reprints.
76. Slater, S.F. & Narver, J.C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of Marketing, 63-74.
77. Slater, S.F. & Narver, J.C. (2000). The positive effect of a market orientation on business profitability: A balanced replication. Journal of Business Research, 48(1), 69-73.
78. Söderbom, M. (2012). Firm size and structural change: A case study of Ethiopia. Journal of African Economies, 21(2), 126-151.
79. Stambaugh, J.E., Yu, A. & Dubinsky, A.J. (2011). Before the attack: A typology of strategies for competitive aggressiveness. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 12(1), 49.
80. Stephen, I.A., Ayodele, O.M. & Oluremi, O.A. (2017). Enhancing the performance of agro-based SMES: The role of entrepreneurship competencies. Covenant Journal of Entrepreneurship, 1(1).
81. Stork, C. & Esselaar, S. (2006). Towards an African e-index-SME e-access and usage.
82. Suliyanto, S. & Rahab, R. (2012). The role of market orientation and learning orientation in improving innovativeness and performance of small and medium enterprises. Asian Social Science, 8(1), 134.
83. Thompson, A.A. & Strickland, A.J. (1999). Strategic management: Cases and concepts.
84. Usta, R. (2011). Strategic orientations enriching the effect of market orientation on company performance: Literature-based holistic model proposal. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 65-84.
85. Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942-962.
86. Viswesvaran, C. & Ones, D.S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta?analysis and structural equations modelling. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 865-885.
87. Voss, G.B. & Voss, Z.G. (2000). Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 67-83.
88. Ward, P.T., Bickford, D.J. & Leong, G.K. (1996). Configurations of manufacturing strategy, business strategy, environment and structure. Journal of Management, 22(4), 597-626.
89. Weinzimmer, L.G., Robin, J. & Michel, E.J. (2012). The measurement of strategic orientation and its efficacy in predicting financial performance. Journal of Business Strategies, 29(2), 81.
90. Wind, J. & Mahajan, V. (1997). Issues and opportunities in new product development: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 1-12.
91. Wissema, J.G. & Benes, J. (1980). A gross-impact case study: The Dutch construction sector. Futures, 12(5), 394-404.
92. Worlu, R., Olokundun, M., Akinbode, M., Augusta, A. & Inelo, F. (2016). Stress arising from work roles and impediments to organizational performance. Research Journal of Medical Sciences, 10(1), 1-5.
93. Wright, P.M. & McMahan, G.C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295-320.
94. Xue, L. & Revell, B.J. (2009). Which way forward for China's vegetable exports? British Food Journal, 111(1), 26-43.
95. Zhou, K.Z., Gao, G.Y., Yang, Z. & Zhou, N. (2005). Developing strategic orientation in China: Antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations. Journal of Business Research, 58(8), 1049-1058.