Complete Material Cost #3,000
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
(A survey of selected manufacturing firms in Port Harcourt metropolis)
ABSTRACT
This research work is titled, social entrepreneurship and organizational performance. It is aimed at determining the relationship between social entrepreneurship and organizational performance of selected manufacturing firms in Port Harcourt metropolis. This research was carried out using a sample size of forty-four and a population size of 100 employees. The findings on this study were tested using the Pearson product moment correlation and t-test statistic. The results shows that the test statistic value by ttabltd, = 2.132 and tcaltd = 16.00; we reject Ho and accept H1, showing that There is a significant relationship between social entrepreneurship and organizational performance of selected manufacturing firms. The study concludes that entrepreneurial innovativeness can lead to optimum performance of the manufacturing sector. It is thus recommended that Social entrepreneurship can be viewed as a new concept for Nigerian society. The body of knowledge and implementation plans need to be generated and transferred. Public agencies should enhance awareness and education in this area and improvement of capabilities.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
CHAPTER 1 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the study 1
1.2 Statement Of The Problem 6
1.3 Objectives of the study 7
1.4 Research questions 7
1.5 Significance of the study 8
1.6 Research Hypotheses 9
1.7 Scope and Delimitations Of The Study 9
1.8 Limitations of the study. 10
1.9 Definition of terms. 11
CHAPTER 2 13
LITERATURE REVIEW 13
2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 13
2.1.1 Resource-Based View 14
2.1.2 Basic Concepts in RDT. 16
2.2 Meaning And Dimensions Of Social Entrepreneurship. 18
2.2.1 Social Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance. 23
2.2.2 Organizational Resources 26
2.3 Organizational Performance 29
2.3.1 THE CONCEPT OF A SOCIAL ENTREPRISE. 31
2.3.2 Resources of the Social Enterprise 33
2.3.3 Performance Measurement of the Social Enterprise. 35
2.3.4 Social Entrepreneurship In Manufacturing Firms 36
CHAPTER 3 40
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 40
3.1 Research Design. 40
3.2 Population Of The Study. 41
3.3 Sample and Sampling Technique. 43
3.4 Data Collection Technique. 44
3.5 Sources of Data. 45
3.6 Data Analysis. 46
3.7 Reliability and Validity. 46
CHAPTER 4 49
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS. 49
4.1 Data Presentation. 49
4.3 Analysis Of Data 50
4.3.2 Responses To The Questionnaire 54
CHAPTER 5 58
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 58
5.1 Discussions 58
CHAPTER 6 62
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 62
6.1 Summary 62
6.2 Conclusions 62
6.3 Recommendations 64
REFERENCES 65
APPENDICES 70
APPEAL FOR RESPONSE TO PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE 70
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Organizational performance is one of the most important constructs in management research (Richard, 2008). Organizational performance shows the status of organizational competencies. It is one of the most important constructs in management research. Most studies define organizational performance as a dependent variable; however, little attention has been paid to the characterization of the organizational performance phenomenon (March & Sutton, 1997). This section reviews the contexts that frame organizational performance as a dependent variable with specific emphasis on how it is operationalized and measured. In the classical view, organizational performance is generally referred to as financial performance. In other words, organizational success is associated with financial benefits. Davis et al. (2010) pointed out that the most commonly-used measures of organizational performance have been profitability, sales growth, return on investment (ROI) and return on equity (ROE).
However, financial outcomes do not reflect good or poor future financial results. One of the problems with financial figures is the uncompleted information of action over time of measurement (Norreklit, 2000). The pressure of reporting organizational performance based on non-financial as well as financial measures has increased the last few years (Sim & Koh, 2001). The non-financial outcomes such as attitude, commitment, and the way individuals acquire knowledge have been used to measure the long-run performance (Yeo, 2003). As described by Sink & Tuttle (1989), the traditional approach of performance is a complex interrelationship between six criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, quality, productivity, and innovativeness and profitability.
According to Rolstadas (1998), summarizes that “effectiveness” Involves doing the right thing, at the right time, with the right quality, and can be defined as actual output per expected output”. Efficiency is an input and transformation process question which can be defined as the resources expected to be consumed/resources actually consumed. Quality is an extremely extensive concept that could be measured at six checkpoints. Productivity is the traditional ratio of output per input. Quality of work life is an important contribution to a well-performing operation. Innovation is a moderating element for improving performance. Profitability/budgetability represents the ultimate goal for the organization.
An effectiveness measure is commonly used in both profit and nonprofit
Organizations. However, there is no consensus on what the concept means, and the criteria for measurement remains unclear because organizations typically pursue multiple goals and tend to differ according to the type of the organization and its environment. Therefore, the concept of organizational effectiveness is subjective, and it depends on who the evaluator is and the interest they represent. Cameron discusses the idea that many models of organizational effectiveness are products of multiple arbitrary models of the organization. No one best model can be argued to be better than any other. Moreover, the best measures for assessing organizational effectiveness are unknown because individuals often cannot identify their own preferences and expectations (Cameron, 1996). Organizational effectiveness is also seen as an intangible notion. The measurement of organizational effectiveness tends to determine the proxy measure that will be utilized to signify effectiveness (Ulla, 2013). While most studies examine financial performance, some adopt the effectiveness of business processes and output as a significant dependent variable instead of organizational performance. Aggarwal & Gupta (2006) suggest another point of view: that in addition to financial and non-financial measures, internal and external approach measures could be measured. The internal measures involve the internal factors inside the organization such as stakeholders, strategy, leadership, employees, innovation, information system, and corporate government, while external measures hinge upon players outside the organization such as suppliers, customers, competitors, and other market-related indicators.
Chong (2008) found that many organizations use a hybrid approach, combining both financial and non-financial measures to evaluate performance based on four main approaches to measuring the performance of organization: the goal approach, the system resource approach, the stakeholder approach, and the competitive value approach. The goal approach and the system resource approach measure the extent to which an organization achieves its goals and accesses resources. The stakeholder approach and the competitive value approach evaluate the Competency of an organization based upon its ability to meet the needs and expectations of the stakeholders (Daft, 1995). Social entrepreneurship is growing in significance because of a variety of forces, such as the new public management, and increased competition for donors, grants, and service contracts, and growing needs of target markets (Mort, & Carnegie, 2003).There is a wide variety of concepts of social entrepreneurship (Dees 1998). Social entrepreneurship can be classified according to three groups of definition. The first group stresses nonprofit and not-for-profit organizations in adopting funding strategies and management schemes to generate social value. According to Lasprogata & Cotton (2003), social entrepreneurship is comprised of the strategies to sustain organizations financially while having an impact on social mission.
Therefore, the increased demand of the social entrepreneur in any form of corporate organization to effectively utilize the opportunities, resources, in order to make profits and other set organizational goals in the organization. Therefore, this study would provide enough new ideas, wealth and employment opportunities for the society.
1.2 Statement Of The Problem
The issues of pro-activeness, efficiency, productivity, risk-taking and decision making in entrepreneurial ventures (manufacturing firms in Rivers State) by corporate business owners and entrepreneurs has been a problem of much concern to managers of manufacturing firms, corporate organizations and other business enterprises. The study so far, has the drive to resolve the problems of organizations in tackling their social entrepreneurial prospects and how to develop profitable measures in the organizations to boost performance. A social entrepreneurship venture is seen as a mechanism to solve social problems and catalyze social transformation. Maire and Marti (2006) view social entrepreneurship as “a process of involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze social change and/or address social needs.” Light (2008) looks inside the multi-level of social entrepreneurship; individual, group, network, organization, and network, and seeks pattern-breaking ideas in what governments, nonprofits, and businesses do to address social problems.
1.3 Objectives of the study
The main purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between social entrepreneurship and organizational performance. The specific objectives were stated as;
1) To examine the relationship between innovativeness and organizational performance in selected manufacturing firms in port Harcourt.
2) To examine the relationship between risking and organizational performance in selected manufacturing firms in port Harcourt.
3) To examine the relationship between decision making and organizational performance in selected manufacturing firms in Port Harcourt.
1.4 Research questions
The following research questions were stated and used in guiding the research process, these include the following;
1) Is there any relationship between decision making and organizational performance in the selected manufacturing firms in port Harcourt.?
2) Is there any relationship between risk taking and organizational performance?
3) Is there any relationship between innovativeness and organizational performance in the manufacturing firms within Port Harcourt.?
1.5 Significance of the study
This research study would be of great to all and sundry who are aspiring to creative entrepreneurs in establishing business firms. The social structure of postindustrial society including the selected manufacturing firms under study, may create the potential for human growth as well as economic growth (Faunce,1968). In coming years, both government agencies and nonprofit organizations will adapt themselves to be more businesslike; they will change their modes of operation by taking innovative and aggressive action, but still adhere to their goals regarding social proposes.
More so, government and other corporate organizations will also see social entrepreneurship as a medium for establishing small enterprises for innovative, creative, and productive purposes. This in turn, is realized from the returns on organizational assets and sales as a measure of organizational performance.
1.6 Research Hypotheses
The following hypotheses are stated to guide this study;
Ho: There is no significant relationship between social entrepreneurship and organizational performance in the selected manufacturing firms within port Harcourt.
HA: There is a significant relationship between social entrepreneurship and organizational performance in the selected manufacturing firms in Port Harcourt.
1.7 Scope and Delimitations Of The Study
The scope of this study is delimitated with the following;
(a) Content scope: The concept of these study spines within the knowledge of social entrepreneurship and organizational performance in the selected firms or organizations. Organizational performance is generally referred to as financial performance of an organization. The concept of social entrepreneurship is seen as a systemic strategy to sustain organizations financially while having an impact on sociality . The dimensions involves productiveness, social mission, innovativeness, risk taking and decision making etc. More so, innovativeness and productiveness play a great role in decision making by the manufacturing firms. This is seen also as a strategic measure for organizational performance.
(b) Geographical scope: This research study is carried out specifically among selected manufacturing firms within Port Harcourt (Rivers state) to explicitly explore the relationship between social entrepreneurship and organizational performance, as well as other variables affecting social entrepreneurship and organizational performance in the manufacturing sector.
(c) Unit of Analysis: The research study is a macro-level study, therefore, the employees should consider the terms of data collection for proper analysis. Since the study deals with organizational performance.
1.8 Limitations of the study.
The conduct of this research study has been so far affected by various limitations which hampered the process of the research to a great extent. Although the research was prepared carefully, but the period of time is not sufficient for the researcher to observe large respondents from the different branches of selected commercial banks within Port Harcourt in Rivers state. The research study is further been limited to studying only selected manufacturing firms within Port Harcourt, not in Nigeria entirely. It would be best if it was done in a longer period of time on large geographical area and with fewer burdens of other subject’s projects and protocols (policies). Some other limitations to the research also includes:
1) Lack of cooperation by some respondents to the questionnaire.
2) Lack of knowledge of some respondents to the questionnaire.etc
1.9 Definition of terms.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP: This is the practice of collating the necessary factors of production to create, and innovate new resources through the use of new ideas, risk management, efficiently to enhance or promote profit making by an entrepreneur .
ENTREPRENEUR: This an individual who is able to think ,create and utilize available resources in producing new ideas for creating job opportunities in the society.
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE: This is the practice of carrying out set activities or jobs and functions by putting together collective efforts, initiatives and ideas in order to achieve organizational objectives
PERFORMANCE: Is the active participation or carrying out of an activity or job in an organization or firm.
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: Social entrepreneurship is the creation of viable socioeconomic structures, relations, institutions, organizations, and practices that yield and sustain social benefits.
SOCIAL ENTERPRISE: This is a business that trade for social purposes. Their social mission prioritizes social benefit above financial profit, and if a surplus is made, it is used to further the social aims of a beneficiary group or community, and not distributed to those with a controlling interest in the enterprise.
Complete Material Cost #3,000
Order for Complete Material now