Introduction

In a globally competitive business environment, a firm’s internal resources enable it to create value and deliver a superior competitive advantage. In this context, entrepreneurial leadership is an important strategic resource for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) that want to retain their employees and improve profitability (Rahim et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2019; Sawaean & Ali, 2020). More so, the 21st-century present challenges which have led to the business environment change its focus to entrepreneurial leadership (Mishra & Misra, 2017). It is believed that a skilled and motivated entrepreneur can survive a turbulent business environment (O'Reilly & Pfeffer, 2000). A review of the literature on the subject has mostly focused on understanding how transformational, ethical and authentic leadership styles affect turnover intention and performance and with most reporting positive relationship (e,g., Gyensare et al., 2016; Demirtas & Akdogan, 2014; Azanza et al., 2015). Yet, there is more to understand on how “entrepreneurial leadership” influence employee “turnover intention” and profitability of SMEs in the emerging market context. Although entrepreneurial leadership is important for the success of SMEs (Valdiserri & Wilson, 2010), scholars opine that an understanding of entrepreneurs’ leadership behaviours is still lacking (Renko, El Tarabishy, Carsrud & Brännback, 2015; Wright et al., 2015; Sam et al., 2012). Academic discourse on entrepreneurial leadership, turnover intention and profitability is necessary and timely, which supports recent calls (Yang et al., 2019, Nwachukwu, Chladkova & Zufan, 2017) for researchers to shed light on the important relationship. Following many requests are to provide insight into the consequences of entrepreneurial leadership in the SMEs context. This paper examines the contribution of entrepreneurial leadership to turnover intention and profitability. Specifically, our aim is to provide evidence on the relationships in the context of SMEs in Ghana. We have reasoned that analysing the phenomenon of entrepreneurial leadership and its consequences, especially in the context of the emerging market, is a necessary and relevant research endeavour. This allows us to extend the generalisability of this concept and its role beyond previous studies in developed economies. Arguably, entrepreneurial leaders are important in SMEs. This paper contributes to the entrepreneurship and small business management literature by proposing and validating a research model that focuses on the effect of entrepreneurial leadership on turnover intention and profitability. Specifically, the authors have employed data collected at the individual level i.e. the employees to evaluate the relationships between entrepreneurial leadership, turnover intention and profitability of SMEs in Ghana. In entrepreneurship research, analyses at the individual level are important. This study supports to the Resource-Based View that turnover intention and profitability are fostered by organisational resource such as entrepreneurial leadership. Considering that entrepreneurial leadership have received less attention, SMEs comprise the majority of firms in an economy (Berthon et al., 2008). Hence our study attempts to narrow this gap in the literature. Finally, the following two specific objectives guide this study: (1) to examine how ‘’entrepreneurial leadership’’ influence turnover intention of employees, (2) to evaluate the relationship entrepreneurial leadership and profitability in the context of SMEs in Ghana.

Literature Review

Theoretical Perspective

We draw on the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Human Capital Theory (HCT) theoretical lens to explain how entrepreneurial leadership and turnover intention foster profitability. In both strategic management and entrepreneurship literature RBV have been used to examine differences in size and performance of different firms (Arthurs & Busenitz, 2006; Teece, 2014; Zahra et al., 2006), human resource and strategic performance (Vu & Nwachukwu, 2020). In the entrepreneurship contexts, researchers have focused on resources that can help firms to spot and leverage opportunities to enhance performance (Brush et al., 2001). Extant literature suggests that business growth is contingent on available resources (Carter et al., 2003; Leitch et al., 2013; Nwachukwu & Chladkova, 2019) and entrepreneurs’ efforts to create, add and modify entrepreneurial resources (Teece, 2012; Zahra et al., 2006). Specifically, the human resources of entrepreneurs consist of all unique insights, skills, intellectual characteristics, education, business ownership experience and capacities (Unger, Rauch, Frese & Rosenbusch, 2011; Ventakaraman, 1997) that foster productivity (Bates, 1990; Otani, 1996). It suggests how a person optimise interpersonal relationships, networks, and communication skills (Martinez, Morales & Verdu, 2013). In this context, entrepreneurial leadership is a unique, valuable, non-substitutable, and imperfectly imitable resources that may have a significant influence on turnover retention and profitability of SMEs. Backes-Gellner & Werner (2007) observe that both generic and specific component of entrepreneur’s human capital has direct and indirect effects on new business growth. The RBV perspective and HCT is considered relevant because small and medium enterprises rely heavily on the resources of owners’ characteristics and skills. As such, entrepreneurial leaders can leverage resources (characteristics and skills) to explore and exploit opportunities and to survive, grow and achieve competitive advantage. Also, the operating environments of SMEs are characterized by uncertainty which requires high-quality human resources and competency to cope. Indeed, turnover intention of employees and SMEs profitability is perceived to be highly dependent on entrepreneur leadership ability which is a unique and inimitable resource. Arguably, SMEs can enhance profitability and have loyal employees when entrepreneurs accumulate high human capital.

The Concept of Entrepreneurial Leadership

The concept of entrepreneurial leadership emerged due to the combination of “Entrepreneurship” and “leadership” (Yang, 2008). Increasing “uncertainty” and “competition” led to a new leadership style, “entrepreneurial leadership” (Gupta et al., 2004). Swiercz, et al., (2002) assert that entrepreneurial leaders are interested in creating and managing new ventures. Kuratko (2007) notes that entrepreneurial leadership involves influencing others to seek and take advantage of opportunities. Goossen & Stevens (2013) assert that entrepreneurial leadership involves creating an environment that inspires committed followers towards spotting opportunities and exploiting them for sustainable value creation. The first strand of entrepreneurial leadership literature focused on new and /or small business owners leadership roles (Hmieleski & Ensley 2007; Koryak et al., 2015; Kang, Solomon & Choi, 2015; Leitch, McMullan & Harrison, 2013) and family businesses and corporations acting entrepreneurially (Simsek et al., 2015). Further, entrepreneurial leadership has been examined as the culture (value system) of a firm of any size or age that shows the entrepreneurial values and vision of its leaders (Covin & Slevin 2002; Gupta et al., 2004). Dover, Hariharan & Cummings (2014) posit that entrepreneurial leadership use an innovative approach to identify opportunity and create value for stakeholders. Renko, et al., (2015) point out that entrepreneurial leadership involves influencing and directing followers toward achieving the firm's objectives by spotting and leveraging entrepreneurial opportunities. According to Yu & Kwan (2015), entrepreneurial leadership entails risk-taking, proactiveness and innovativeness as well as organizing and planning. Rae (2016) submits that entrepreneurial leadership foster a culture of innovation by recognising and exploiting opportunities to enhance performance and create value for various stakeholders.

The Concept of Turnover Intention

Ngamkroeckjoti, et al., (2012) assert that turnover intention is the likelihood of an employee resigning from the current job. It connotes an individual’s intention to voluntarily leave his or her employer (Belete, 2018; Seo & Ko, 2002). Employees’ turnover intention is a serious concern for every organisation regardless of size, location, or nature of business (Long et al., 2012). Turnover influences on the productivity, product and service quality and profitability (Kumar, 2011). Employees may leave on their own (voluntary) or are forced to leave an organisation (involuntary turnover). According to Perez (2008), voluntary turnovers have huge direct costs and indirect costs for firms. Voluntary turnovers could be functional and dysfunctional turnovers. Functional turnovers occur when employees leave for non-performance and dysfunctional turnovers refer to the exit of high performers (Taylor, 1998). Understanding turnover intentions among employees may assist organisations to effectively manage turnover intentions and actual turnovers (Seo et al., 1995). Extant literature has shown that effective leadership style (Siew, 2017 ), demographic factors such as tenure, wage, age, marital status, position, and working department (Chowdhury, 2015, Emiro?lu et al., 2015; Victoria & Olalekan, 2016), organizational commitment (Ahuja et al., 2007; Cave et al., 2013), organizational justice (Sokhanvar et al., 2016; Ozturk et al., 2016), organizational climate (Stone et al., 2006; Alkahtani, 2015), promotional opportunity (Hassan, 2014; Shah & Khan, 2015; Biswakarma, 2016), attractive remuneration packages (Kumar, 2011), organizational culture (Divivedi et al., 2013; Haggalla & Jayatilake, 2017), job stress (Jha, 2009; Bashir & Durrani, 2014), job satisfaction (Alkahtani, 2015; Perez, 2008) and employee intention to leave (Alkahtani, 2015; Perez, 2008).

Entrepreneurial Leadership and Turnover Intention of Employees

Several studies have tried to link turnover intentions to different styles of leadership (Gyensare et al., 2016; Demirtas & Akdogan, 2014). For instance, empirically, (Gyensare et al., 2016) report that transformational leadership positively impacts turnover intentions. Demirtas & Akdogan (2014) observe that ethical leadership have a significant influence on employees’ turnover intentions ethical climate via ethical climate. Using structural equation modelling, (Azanza et al., 2015) report that authentic leadership influence employees’ turnover intentions. In a recent study, (Yang et al., 2019) point out the link between entrepreneurial leadership and turnover intentions of employees in small firms. They have found that entrepreneurial leadership lower employee turnover intentions. Kuratko, Goldsby & Hornsby (2004) opine that entrepreneurial leaders are inspired by their employees. Entrepreneurial leadership is important to cope with intense competition and survive in the marketplace (Kuratko, 2007). Entrepreneurial leaders can inspire employees to identify and create strategic value as well as foster superior venture performance (Yang et al., 2019). Our review of the literature suggests that studies on Entrepreneurial Leadership (EL) and Turnover Intentions (TI) are scarce. Nonetheless, we reason that firms with entrepreneurial leaders will have employees that have the intention to remain with the organisation. As a consequence, we propose:

H1: Entrepreneurial leadership positively influence turnover intentions of employees.

Entrepreneurial Leadership and Profitability

The leadership styles employed by managers and entrepreneurs in entrepreneurial leadership is not the same among managers and entrepreneurs (Zijlstra, 2014). Extant literature has shown that entrepreneurial leadership foster organisational goals, employee wellbeing, commitment and improve financial performance. SMEs optimise human resources to achieve superior performance. Likewise, some studies highlight the importance of leadership to strategic flexibility, performance, and effectiveness (Yukl, 2013; Engelen et al., 2015; Hmieleski et al., 2012; Ling et al., 2008). Further, various research findings have demonstrated that leadership foster entrepreneurial ventures growth (Wales et al., 2011). Rahim, et al., (2015) empirically assesses the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on the performance of Malaysian SMEs. They have observed that entrepreneurial leadership had a positive effect on organizational performance. Similarly, (Sawaean & Ali, 2020) find that entrepreneurial leadership foster organizational performance. Lajin & Zainol (2015) suggest that entrepreneurial leadership inspires and motivate employees to pursue firm vision and goals to survive and improve performance. Ireland & Webb (2007) submit that ventures with entrepreneurial leaders can achieve a competitive advantage because of the entrepreneur innovativeness and proactiveness. Entrepreneurship leadership empowers resources, solves problems, thinks critically, help ventures to achieve goals (Kuratko, 2007) and enhance creativity, innovation, and performance (Chahal, 2013). All these suggest that entrepreneurial leadership is an important driver of entrepreneurial firms’ performance. Considering the literature, we argue that entrepreneurial leadership has a significant effect on the profitability of SMEs.

H2: Entrepreneurial leadership significantly influence SMEs profitability.

Building on Yang, et al., (2019), this paper focuses on SMEs. We propose a framework that draws on prior studies to explore leadership and entrepreneurship in SMEs in the emerging market. Specifically, Figure 1, shows the connection between entrepreneurial leadership, turnover intention, and SMEs profitability. Based on Figure 1, this paper addresses the effects of entrepreneurial leadership on turnover intention and SMEs profitability in a bid to empirically test the relationships.

Source: Authors.

Methodology

Sample and Data Collection

The emergence of SMEs has significantly impacted economic development (Eze, Goh, Goh & Tan, 2013; McCann & Argilés, 2016) and innovation (Cuckovic & Bartlett, 2007; Imeokparia & Ediagbonya, 2014; Taiwo, Falohun & Agwu, 2016). SMEs account for about 95 per cent of all the firms in the world. The new trend for global economic policies is the development of SMEs to foster economic growth, especially in Africa (Robson, Haugh & Obeng, 2009; Calza & Goedhuys, 2016). SMEs accounts for about 92 per cent of all Ghanaian businesses (Abor and Quartey, 2010). According to Abor and Quartey (2010), “SMEs account for 70% of Ghana’s GDP”. “The country is one of the fastest-growing economies in Africa with a GDP growth rate of 8.14%” (World Bank, 2017). We have surveyed employees of 220 SMEs operating in the service sector in Accra Ghana between October and December 2020. The list of SMEs was extracted from Ghana export promotion authority and chamber of commerce databases. This paper employs a quantitative research approach because it intends to discover the relationships between the study variables. This is informed by studies focusing on entrepreneurial leadership (e.g. Aber Sawaean & Mohd Ali, 2020; Yang et al., 2019). We believe that the use of this approach enables us to validate our research model in other contexts apart from SMEs in Ghana. The respondents consist of employees who have worked for their firms for at least three years. This category of employees is in the right position to provide reliable information about the subject. Purposive sampling method was used to select participants (Creswell, 2005). Hard copies questionnaire was administered to respondents at their workplaces. In the final analysis, 150 questionnaires were found suitable out of 220 that was sent to participants. This accounts for a 68% response rate which is considered adequate for drawing conclusions (Bryman & Bell, 2015).

Variables and Measurement

All variables have been evaluated with the usage of a five-point Likert measurement scale, with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To measure entrepreneurial leadership, we have adapted (Renko et al., 2015). Entrepreneurial leadership style focuses on fostering entrepreneurial opportunity recognition and exploitation (Renko et al., 2015). Entrepreneurial leadership style is built on two pillars: (1) opportunity-focused activities and attributes of the leader him/herself, and (2) the process of influence, whereby the leader motivates followers to pursue entrepreneurial opportunity recognition and exploitation. The measurement scale is an established and validated scale. Seven items sought information on the extent of agreement; “Often comes up with radical improvement ideas for the products/services we are selling’’, often comes up with ideas of completely new products/services that we could sell’’, takes risks, has creative solutions to problems’’, demonstrates passion for his/her work, challenges and pushes me to act in a more innovative way and wants me to challenge the current ways we do business. ” We used one question each to evaluate turnover intention and profitability. The turnover intention was defined as “the intention to leave one’s employer for a different employer” The participants were asked: “What is your turnover plan within the next three years?” For profitability, the respondents were asked: “What is the average profitability in the last three years?” Extant literature suggests that Single-Item (SI) items have high predictive validity as Multiple-Items (MI) scales (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007, 2009). The variables were subjectively measured based on respondents' perceptions. The Cronbach α of all the items was 0.74, the mean was 4.00, and the variance was 0.08. This implies that the measurement scale is internally consistent and reliable (Zikmund et al., 2013). The measurement scale was reviewed by experts to ensure face validity, “comprehensiveness” and “coherency”. Regression analysis was used to determine the level of significance and predictability of entrepreneurial leadership on turnover intention and profitability. SPSS 25 software was used for analysing our data.

Handling Common Method Bias

We sought the opinion of employees about entrepreneurs’ leader’s ability. The employees of the SMEs can provide relevant information about the study variables. To reduce evaluation apprehension, respondents were assured that their responses will be accorded utmost confidentiality (Conway & Lance, 2010). It was written boldly on the questionnaire that none of the answers is right or wrong. The questionnaire had different sections with different scale and formats for collecting accurate responses (Chang et al., 2010). Participants were informed that the questions addressing the independent variables are connected to that of the dependent variable (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Based on the above, common method bias is unlikely.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The results indicated that the respondents agreed that entrepreneur leaders (mean score=4.23, SD=0.76) “often comes up with radical improvement ideas for the products /services they are selling”, (mean score=4.11, SD=0.89) often comes up with ideas of completely new products/services that they could sell, (mean score=4.26, SD=1.12) they take risks, (mean score=4.01, SD=0.94) has creative solutions to problems, (mean score=4.11, SD=0.89) demonstrate passion for his/her work, (mean score=4.16, SD=0.94) challenges and pushes them to act in a more innovative way, (mean score=4.10, SD=0.91) wants them to challenge the current ways they do business. From the participants' responses, we infer that entrepreneur leaders are innovative, risk-takers, creative, passionate, motivators and inspire team members to deliver superior performance.

Regression Results

Table 1 show the regression results. The result (β=0.220, p<0.01) support H1 entrepreneurial leadership significantly impacts turnover intention. (β=0.251, p<0.01) suggest that entrepreneurial leadership significantly influences Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) profitability. The variance inflation factor 1.000 for both constructs (see tables 2) are less within the accepted limit (Ringle et al., 2015), which suggest no issue of multicollinearity. The Durbin-Watson test value of 2.284 and 1.809 suggests that autocorrelation is unlikely in the model.

Table 1 Regression Results- Entrepreneurial Leadership, Turnover Intention and Profitability
Entrepreneurial Leadership	Turnover intention	profitability
ß	0.22	0.251
F	7.514	9.913
P-Value	0.007	0.002
VIF	1	1
R2	0.048	0.063
Durbin Watson	2.284	1.809
N=150

Discussion

Key Findings and Implications

The paper uncovers the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership in the turnover intention and profitability contexts. Our results suggest that entrepreneurial leadership has a positive and significant influence on turnover intention. Also, entrepreneurial leadership significantly impacts the profitability of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Considering the growing interest in entrepreneurship research (e.g., entrepreneurs characteristics), particularly, entrepreneurial leadership (Adomako et al., 2018; Alvarez & Barney, 2007), this study enriches empirical literature on the subject in the emerging market context. The present study adds to the Resource-Based perspective (Arthurs & Busenitz, 2006; Teece, 2014) by affirming that entrepreneurial leadership is an important resource that influences turnover intention and profitability. Internal resource (entrepreneurial leadership) of SMEs plays an important role in reducing turnover intention employees as well as foster profitability. We observed entrepreneurial leadership is important for turnover intention and SMEs profitability. This lends support to the notion that a well-managed resource enables firms to create economic value (Nwachukwu, Chladkova & Fadeyi, 2018). Our findings agree with previous studies on entrepreneurial leadership and turnover intention (e.g. Yang et al., 2019) who have reported a positive relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and turnover intention. This results also validate studies that found a positive connection between entrepreneurial leadership and performance (Yang et al., 2019; Rahim et al., 2015; Aber Sawaean & Ali, 2020; Lajin & Zainol, 2015). Indeed, entrepreneurial leaders must develop new leadership competencies and capabilities to remain competitive (Yang, 2008; Fernald et al., 2005; Gupta et al., 2004). Turnover of employees usually has adverse effects on the organisation in term of loss of human and social capital. As such, it is important to reduce employee attrition by inspiring and motivating employees. Consistent with this logic, we affirm that entrepreneurs’ leaders are able to motivate, inspire and discourage employees from leaving the organisation. Furthermore, the entrepreneur leader challenges employees to act more innovatively. In this context, employees are motivated to strive for superior performance which fosters their intention to remain with the organisation. Leaders leverage their skills and capabilities to grow and sustain competitive advantage in the marketplace (Palalic, 2017). Indeed, entrepreneurs’ leader’s innovativeness and creativity foster radical improvement of the products and/or services which may positively affect their firm profitability. Likewise, firms with entrepreneurial leaders can take risks and leverage opportunities in their operating environment and enhance business results. The paper narrows the gap in the literature on SMEs, especially in Ghana. SMEs experience intense competition and market uncertainties. Thus, SMEs with entrepreneurial leaders are more likely to optimise their resources (human and otherwise) to effectively manage turnover intention and enhance profitability.

Conclusion

This paper enhances our understanding of the connection between entrepreneurial leadership, turnover intention, and profitability. Successful and sustainable entrepreneurship require leaders with unique abilities and personality traits (Hassan, 2014). From the SMEs’ perspective, turnover intention and enterprise profitability depend on entrepreneurial characteristics and competencies (i.e. entrepreneurial leadership). We reasoned that entrepreneurial leadership is an essential resource that is needed to keep employees in the organisation and improve profitability. Our findings have some managerial implications for SMEs. First, entrepreneurs need to pay attention to their leadership skills and abilities because it has a positive impact on the success of their firms (e.g., Vu & Nwachukwu, 2021; Arham et al., 2013). Apt leadership can help employees to remain focused, loyal, motivated and contribute to the performance of their firms. Likewise, entrepreneurial leaders’ ability to keep employees focused, motivated and loyal can improve the interaction with customers and enhance profitability. Entrepreneur leader can improve performance by creating value for customers using innovative product and services. By creating value for both customers and employees, SMEs can survive in the marketplace for a long time. Entrepreneurial leaders need both personal and functional competencies to carry out tasks and execute innovation and entrepreneurial actions (Bagheri, 2017). Therefore, entrepreneurial leaders need to develop these competencies if they want to have loyal employees and improve their profitability. However, the absence of entrepreneurial leadership can have a negative effect on turnover intention of employees and profitability.

Limitation and Further Research

This study sample 150 SMEs in Accra, Ghana which somewhat limit the ability to generalize these results. Future research can use a larger sample size in different regions in Ghana. Single questions were used to assess turnover intention and profitability. Nonetheless, a single scale measure has been found to have good predictive validity. Future research should use multiple scale to give a better insight into the phenomenon in varying contexts (countries and industries). We evaluated profitability base on respondent’s perception. Financial data may provide interesting insights into the subject. The present study used cross-sectional data, thus there is a need to view the relationship reported herein with caution. Future studies should employ longitudinal data and qualitative study to explain the nature of the relationship between the variables. Longitudinal data and qualitative research approach may provide a deeper insight into the nature of the relationship. Other contextual variables should be examined with the present study variables as this may provide new insights on the entrepreneurial leadership/ turnover intention/ performance relationship. Considering the importance of entrepreneurial leadership to entrepreneurial ventures, further studies can focus on validating the results of this study by identifying other antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurial leadership. Nonetheless, our study adds to the entrepreneurship literature by throwing lights on how entrepreneurial leadership discourage employee intention to leave and foster profitability in SMEs in Ghana, an emerging market.

Contribution of Individual Authors

Chijioke Nwachukwu completes with the conce ptualization, investigation, writing original draft.

Vu Minh Hieu oversees resources, review and editing of the final manuscripts, overall supervision.

References

1. Sawaeana, F.A., & Ali, K.A. (2020). The impact of entrepreneurial leadership and learning orientation on organizational performance of SMEs: The mediating role of innovation capacity. Management Science Letters, 10, 369–380.
2. Abor, J., & Quartey, P. (2010). Issues in SME development in Ghana and South Africa. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 39(6), 215-228.
3. Adomako, S., Danso, A., Boso, N., & Narteh, B. (2018). Entrepreneurial alertness and new venture performance: Facilitating roles of networking capability. International Small Business Journal Researching Entrepreneurship, 36(5), 453-472.
4. Ahuja, M.K., Chudoba, K.M., Kacmar, C.J., McKnight, H., & George, J.F. (2007). IT road warriors: Balancing Work-family conflict, job autonomy and work overload to mitigate turnover intentions. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 1-17.
5. Alkahtani, A.H. (2015). Investigating factors that influence employees’ turnover intention: A review of existing empirical works. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(12), 152-166.
6. Alvarez, S.A., & Barney, J.B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 11–26.
7. Arham, A.F., Boucher, C., & Muenjohn, N. (2013). Leadership and entrepreneurial success: A study of SMEs in Malaysia. World Journal of Social Sciences, 3(5), 117-130.
8. Arthurs, J., & Busenitz, L. (2006). Dynamic capabilities and venture performance: The effects of venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 195-215.
9. Azanza, G., Moriano, J.A., Molero, F., & Mangin, J.P.L. (2015). The effects of authentic leadership on turnover intention. Leadersh. Organization development journal, 36(8), 955–971.
10. Gellner, B.U., & Werner, A. (2007). Entrepreneurial signalling via education: A success factor in innovative start-ups. Small Business Economics, 29(1-2), 173-190.
11. Bagheri, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behavior and opportunity recognition in high-technology SMEs. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 28(2), 159-166.
12. Bashi, A., & Durrani, F. (2014). A study on determinants of turnover intention in Pakistan. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 4(3), 415-432.
13. Bates, T. (1990). Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity. The review of Economics and Statistics, 72(4), 551-559.
14. Belete, A.K. (2018). Turnover intention influencing factors of employees: An empirical work review. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Organization Management, 7(3), 253.
15. Martinez, B.J.A., Morales, M.F.X., & Verdu, M.F. (2013). Combining effects of internal resources, entrepreneurial characteristics and KIS on new firms. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2079-2089.
16. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J.R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.
17. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J.R. (2009). Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete constructs. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 607–621.
18. Berthon, P., Ewing, M.T., & Napoli, J. (2008). Brand management in small to medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 27-45.
19. Biswakarma, G. (2016). Organizational career growth and employees? turnover intentions: Empirical evidence from Nepalese private commercial banks. International Academic Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, 3, 10-26.
20. Brush, C.G., Greene, P.G., & Hart, M.M. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base, Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 64–78.
21. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods, (4th edition). USA: Oxford University Press.
22. Calza, E., & Goedhuys, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial heterogeneity and the design of entrepreneurship policies for economic growth and inclusive development (No. 043). United Nations University-Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
23. Carter, N., Brush, C.B., Greene, P.G., Gatewood, E., & Hart, M. (2003), Women entrepreneurs who break through to equity financing: The influence of human, social and financial capital. Venture Capital, 5(1), 1-28.
24. Cave, H. (2013). Determining the factors affecting retention of employees in Taiwanese electronic's firms-general vs repatriated employees. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(1), 100-118.
25. Chahal, N. (2013). Women entrepreneurship: Banking industry. International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research, 2(3), 58-72.
26. Chang, S.J., Witteloostuijn, V.A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178-184.
27. Chowdhury, F. (2015). Demographic factors impacting employee turnover in the private banking sector of Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 4, 46-54
28. Conway, J.M., & Lance, C.E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325-334.
29. Creswell, J.W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
30. Cuckovic, N., & Bartlett, W. (2007). Entrepreneurship and competitiveness: The europeanisation of small and medium? sized enterprise policy in Croatia. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 7(1), 37-56.
31. Demirtas, O., & Akdogan, A.A. (2014). The effect of ethical leadership behavior on ethical climate, turnover intention, and affective commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 59–67.
32. Dover, P.A., Hariharan, S., & Cummings, M.G. (2014). Leadership and governance. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Management, ICMLG 2014, Academic Conferences Limited.
33. Dwivedi, S., Kaushik, S., & Luxmi, K. (2013). Impact of organizational culture on turnover intentions in BPO Sector in India. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(4), 679-691.
34. Emiro?lu, B.D., Akova, O., & Tanr?verd, H. (2015). The relationship between turnover intention and demographic factors in hotel businesses: A study at five star hotels in Istanbul. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 385-397.
35. Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L., & Brettel, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1069–1097.
36. Eze, C.U., Goh, G.G.G., Goh, Y.C., & Tan, L.T. (2013). Perspectives of SMEs on knowledge sharing. Vine, 43(2), 210-236.
37. Fernald, L.W., Solomon, G.T., & Tarabishy, A. (2005). A new paradigm: Entrepreneurial leadership. Southern Business Review, 30(2), 1-10.
38. Goossen, R.J., & Stevens, R.P. (2013). Entrepreneurial leadership: Finding your calling, making a difference. InterVarsity Press.
39. Gupta, V., MacMillan, I.C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 241–260.
40. Gyensare, M.A., Tsede, A.O., Sanda, M.A., & Okpoti, C.A. (2016). Transformational leadership and employee turnover intention: The mediating role of affective commitment. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 12, 243–266.
41. Haggalla, K.H.Y.U., & Jayatilake, L.V.K. (2017). Study on organizational culture and turnover intention in international information technology firms in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Scientific Research and Innovative Technology, 4(2), 2313-3759.
42. Hassan, R. (2014). Factors influencing turnover intention among technical employees in information technology organization: A Case of XYZ (M) SDN. BHD. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 3(2008), 120-137.
43. Hmieleski, K.M., Cole, M.S., & Baron, R.A. (2012). Shared authentic leadership and new venture performance. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1476–1499.
44. Hmieleski, K.M., & Ensley, M.D. (2007). A contextual examination of new venture performance: Entrepreneur leadership behaviour, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 865-89.
45. Imeokparia, P.O., & Ediagbonya, K. (2014). Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs): A catalyst in promoting economic development in Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(33), 92-98.
46. Ireland, R.D., & Webb, J.W. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50(1), 49-59.
47. Jha, S. (2009). Determinants of employee turnover intentions: A review. Management Today, 9, 26-33.
48. Kang, J.H., Solomon, G.T., & Choi, D.Y. (2015). CEOs' leadership styles and managers' innovative behaviour: Investigation of intervening effects in an entrepreneurial context. Journal of Management Studies, 52(4), 531-554.
49. Koryak, O., Mole, K.F., Lockett, A., Hayton, J.C., Ucbasaran, D., & Hodgkinson, G.P. (2015). Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth. International Small Business Journal, 33(1), 89-105.
50. Kumar, R.R. (2011). Turn over issues in the textile industry in Ethiopia: A case of arba minch textile company. African Journal of Marketing Management, 3, 32-44.
51. Kuratko, D.F. (2007). Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st century. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(4), 1-11.
52. Kuratko, D.F., Goldsby, M.G., & Hornsby, J.S. (2004). The ethical perspectives of entrepreneurs: an examination of stakeholder salience. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 9(4), 19-42.
53. Lajin, N.F.M., & Zainol, F.A. (2015). The effect of entrepreneurial leadership, self-efficacy and organizational performance: A conceptual paper. International Academic Research Journal of Social Science, 1(1), 16-24.
54. Leitch, C.M., McMullan, C., & Harrison, R.T. (2013). The development of entrepreneurial leadership: The role of human, social and institutional capital. British Journal of Management, 24(3), 347–366.
55. Ling, Y.A.N., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M.H., & Veiga, J.F. (2008). Transformational leadership's role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT interface. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 557-576.
56. McCann, P., & Argilés, O.R. (2016). Smart specialisation, entrepreneurship and SMEs: Issues and challenges for a results-oriented EU regional policy. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 537-552.
57. Mishra, P., & Misra, R.K. (2017). Entrepreneurial leadership and organizational effectiveness: A comparative study of executives and non-executives. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 71–78.
58. Sam, M.F., Tahir, M.N.H., & Abu Bakar, K. (2012). Owner-manager of SMEs in IT sector: Leadership and company performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(14), 195-205.
59. Ngamkroeckjoti, C., Ounprechavanit, P., & Kijboonchoo, T. (2012). Determinant factors of turnover intention: A case study of air conditioning company in Bangkok, Thailand. International Conference on Trade, Tourism and Management, 21-22.
60. Nwachukwu, C., & Chladkova, H. (2019). Firm resources, strategic analysis capability and strategic performance: organisational structure as moderator. International Journal for Quality Research, 13(1), 75-94.
61. Nwachukwu, C., Chladkova, H., & Olatunji, F. (2018). Strategy formulation process and innovation performance nexus. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(1), 147-164.
62. Nwachukwu, C., Chladkova, H., & Zufan, P. (2017). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial competencies, entrepreneurial leadership, and firm performance: A proposed model. Business Trends, 7(1), 3-16.
63. O'Reilly, C.A., & Tushman, M.L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
64. Otani, K. (1996). A human capital approach to entrepreneurial capacity. Economica, 63(2), 273-289.
65. Öztürk, M., Erye?il, K., & Bedük, A. (2016). The effect of organizational justice on organizational cynicism and turnover intention: A research on the banking sector. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(12), 543-551.
66. Palalic, R. (2017). The phenomenon of entrepreneurial leadership in gazelles and mice: A qualitative study from Bosnia and Herzegovina. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 13(2–3), 211–236.
67. Perez, M. (2008). Turnover intent. Diploma thesis. University of Zurich.
68. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
69. Rae, D. (2016). Developing entrepreneurial leadership: The challenge for sustainable organisations. International Journal of Work Innovation, 2(1), 76-100.
70. Rahim, H.L., Abidin, Z., Mohtar, S., & Ramli, A. (2015). The effect of entrepreneurial leadership towards organizational performance. International Academic Research Journal of Business and Technology, 1(2), 193-199.
71. Renko, M., Tarabishy, E.A., Carsrud, A.L., & Brännback, M. (2015). Understanding and measuring entrepreneurial leadership style. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 54-74.
72. Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: The importance-performance map analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1865–1886.
73. Seo, Y.J., Ko, J.W., & Price, J.L. (1995). Estimating a causal model of job satisfaction in Korean hospital. Korean journal of health policy and administration, 5, 161–191.
74. Seo, Y.J., & Ko, J.W. (2002). Determinants of intent to leave among physicians working at general hospitals after the separation program of prescribing and dispensing. Korean journal of health policy and administration, 12, 68–90.
75. Shah, U., & Khan, J. (2015). An analysis of the factors affecting turnover intentions: Evidence from private sector universities of Peshawar. Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, 2(3), 145-152.
76. Siew, K. (2017). Analysis of the relationship between leadership styles and turnover intention within small medium enterprise in Malaysia. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 1, 1?11.
77. Simsek, Z., Jansen, J.J., Minichilli, A., & Esteve, E.A. (2015). Strategic leadership and leaders in entrepreneurial contexts: A nexus for innovation and impact missed? Journal of Management Studies, 52(4), 463-478.
78. Sokhanvar, M., Hasanpoor, E., Hajihashemi, S., & Kakeman, E. (2016). The relationship between organizational justice and turnover intention: A survey on hospital nurses. Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Journal, 4(2), 358-362.
79. Stone, P.W., Larson, E.L., Kane, M.C., Smolowitz, J., & Lin, S.X. (2006). Organizational climate and intensive care unit nurses’ intention to leave. Critical Care Medicine, 34, 1907-1912.
80. Swiercz, P.M., & Lydon, S.R. (2002). Entrepreneurial leadership in high tech firms: A field study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(7), 380-389.
81. Taiwo, J.N., Falohun, T.O., & Agwu, M.E. (2016). SMES financing and its effects on Nigerian economic growth. European Journal of Business, Economics and Accountancy, 4(4), 37-54.
82. Taylor, S. (1998). Employee Resourcing. Wiltshire: Cromwell Press.
83. Teece, D. (2014). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1), 8-37.
84. Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
85. Teece, D.J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395-1401.
86. The World Bank. (2017).
87. Unger, J.M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341-358.
88. Valdiserri, G.A., & Wilson, J.L. (2010). The study of leadership in small business organizations: Impact on profitability and organizational success. The Entrepreneurial Executive, 15, 47-71.
89. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3(1), 119-138.
90. Victoria, O.A., & Olalekan, U. (2016). Effects of demographic factors on employees intention to leave in selected private universities in southwest. Babcock University Publication Portal.
91. Vu, H.M., & Nwachukwu, C. (2020). Human resources, financial resources and strategic performance: Organisational policy as moderator. Quality-Access to Success Journal, 21(175), 18-24.
92. Vu, H.M., & Nwachukwu, C. (2021). Influence of entrepreneur competencies on profitability and employee satisfaction. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 20(1), 1-16.
93. Wales, W., Monsen, E., & McKelvie, A. (2011). The organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 895-923.
94. Wright, M., Roper, S., Hart, M., & Carter, S. (2015). Joining the dots: Building the evidence base for SME growth policy. International Small Business Journal, 33(1), 3-11.
95. Yang, C.W. (2008). The relationships among leadership styles, entrepreneurial orientation, and business Performance. Managing Global Transitions, 6(3), 257–275.
96. Yang, J., Pu, B., & Guan, Z. (2019). Entrepreneurial leadership and turnover intention in start-ups: Mediating roles of employees’ job embeddedness, job satisfaction and affective commitment. Sustainability, 11, 1101.
97. Yu, F.L., & Kwan, D.S. (2015). Chinese entrepreneurship: An Austrian economics perspective. London, New York: Routledge.
98. Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th edition). Upper saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
99. Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.
100. Zampetakis, L.A., Kafetsios, K., Bouranta, N., & Dewett, T. (2008). On the relationship between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 15(6), 595-618.
101. Zhou, W., Vredenburgh, D., & Rogoff, E.G. (2013). Informational diversity and entrepreneurial team performance: moderating effect of shared leadership. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
102. Zijlstra, P.H. (2014). When is entrepreneurial leadership most effective? Master thesis submitted to University of Twente.
103. Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods, (9th edition). USA: South-Western, Cengage Learning.