English
Chinese
The Impact of Entrepreneurial Leadership on Innovation in High-Tech SMEs in China, Case Study
Abstract
This research aims at the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behaviour and opportunity in China’s high-tech industry. Its purpose is to identify the casual relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and employee’s innovation performance and find out an effective entrepreneurial leadership for innovation. The expected results are to inform Chinese high-tech companies the effective entrepreneurial leadership that can contribute to innovation.
The research used positivism, deductive approach, case study, mono methods (quantitative research), cross-sectional time horizon, and questionnaires as data collection methods. It collected 195 questionnaires from the three companies and 65 for each company (DiDi, MeiTuan and PinDuoDuo).
This research finds that entrepreneurship leadership contributes to innovation performance. Entrepreneur’s characteristics and entrepreneur’s leadership have a positive and significant relationship with innovation performance, respectively. This research finds that entrepreneur’s characteristics and leadership contribute to innovation performance. The important leadership activities for innovation include to integrate resources, to align and unite employees, to promote teamworking, to inspire and motivate employee, to act as a model, to encourage, to adopt financial and non-financial rewards, to have clear objectives and vision, to offer help, and to create proper organisational culture and environment. Critical entrepreneurial characteristics include strong innovation-oriented passion, responsibility-taking, risk-taking propensity, strong need for achievement and great ambition, innovativeness, strong locus of control and confidence, and great goal orientation. Using those leaders who have great entrepreneurs’ characteristics and leadership is critical. A qualified entrepreneurship leader must have those important leadership skills and capabilities and critical characteristics. Adopting psychological tests and experiments can examine entrepreneurs’ performance and strengths in these aspects. Investors may consider the two factors when they make investment decisions.
Further research should exploit out insights by interpretivism and interviews. It may be mediating factors affecting the relationship between entrepreneurship leadership and innovation performance. Further research can explore out these factors by interviews.
1.3 Research Aims, Objectives and Questions
2.2 Entrepreneurial Leadership
2.3 Entrepreneurship leadership and personal characteristics of entrepreneurs
2.4 Entrepreneurship leadership and Innovation
2.5 Critical Evaluation of Previous Researches
3.2 Positivism Philosophy and Quantitative Research
3.5 Cross-sectional time horizon
6.2 Recommendations for entrepreneurial leaderships in Chinese high-tech companies
6.3 Recommendations for Further Research
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Research Background
Entrepreneurship leadership has drawn attention from both scholars and practitioners (Mishra et al., 2017). Identifying an effective leadership style especially for entrepreneurship can contribute to the develop of new start-ups. However, leadership itself has many theories and arguments including leadership style, leadership trait and so on (Bass, 1985). Some scholars highlight that leadership is a gift and deeply rooted in a leader’s trait, whereas other believe that leadership is a set of trainable and developable skills (Bennis and Nanus, 1985). Furthermore, some scholars support contingency theory that leadership is changeable for different situations (Bass, 1985). Entrepreneurship Leadership (EL) has the following important roles: building goals, generating opportunities, empowering followers, developing relationships with employee and fostering HR systems (Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991). Meanwhile, Mishra et al. (2017) highlight that EL acts an important role in the organisational effectiveness of new start-ups. Thus, studying EL is important.
High-tech industry is famous for high risk, high R&D costs and high potential. Identifying an effective entrepreneurship leadership can help the industry to improve its organisational effectiveness. China currently is experiencing a rapid technological upgradation enabled by Chinese government.
High tech is closely related with the following industries including electronics, electronics industry, emerging technologies, innovation, semiconductor industry, and so on. In 2017, the revenue of high tech industries reached a historical high point: electronics and communication reached 9,345.21 billion yuan revenue, followed by medicinal products and pharmaceuticals (2,711.66 billion yuan), computers and office equipment (2,061.7 billion yuan), medical engineering and measuring equipment (1,206.72 billion yuan), and electronic chemicals (257.09 billion yuan). In 2020, high-end manufacturing industries has become a strong driver of China’s manufacturing industry. These industries grew steadily, with 4.8% increase from 2019 (Xinhua, 2020).
High technologies have been regarded as a strategic importance by Chinese government. Many policy and regulations were designed and launched to boost the growth of Chinese high technologies. To specific, the government has its 13thnational five-year plan that contains focus especially on innovation and high-tech industries. The plan was designed for 2016 and 2020 and has been used as a guidance for Chinese economic policies. It highlights that Chinese economy is planned to shift to innovation-driven development model and aims to make China an innovative country by 2020, a global innovation leader by 2030, and a world engine of scientific and technological innovation by 2050 (Koleski, 2017). Between 2016 and 2020, the plan focuses on two objectives: 1) to change from low-value-added manufacturing to high-value-added manufacturing; and 2) to develop Internet-Plus businesses (Koleski, 2017). The two objectives generally aim to develop high-end equipment, integrated circuits, biomedicines, mobile internet, and e-commerce. The Plan aims to increase R&D expenditure as a share of operating revenue from 0.95% in 2015 to 1.26%, promote the number of patents and encourage the use of digital tool in R&D activities (Koleski, 2017).
DiDi, Meituan and Pinduoduo are three high tech companies in China, founded in within 10 years. However, they have been rising fast and demonstrating high level of organisational effectiveness. To begin with DiDi, it is a vehicle for hire corporation with more than 550 million users and over 10 million drivers (Singh, 2019). Its major market is China while it also operates in Mexico, Australia, Japan and Brazil (Singh, 2019). The company offers app-based services including taxi hailing, ride-sharing, bike sharing, and automobile services (Singh, 2019). Even though the company was founded in 2012, its significant growth happened in 2015 when it merged with Kuaidi Dache. In 2016, the company merged with Uber China. According to Singh (2019), the company held 80% market share in taxi e-hailing and more than 85% in private car hailing. The founder of DiDi is Cheng Wei who was born in 1983 and was formal top manager of Alibaba Group (Crunchbase, 2020). He worked in Alibaba’s regional and Alipay’s operation for 8 years and then founder his own business. Graduated from one of the top universities in China, Beijing University, he started his career with an assistant to a chairman at a foot massage company (Crunchbase, 2020). Then, he entered Alibaba as a salesperson. To be noticed, his major is chemical technology which is barely related with IT. DiDi has a very similar business model with Uber, whereas it has better relationship with Chinese consumers as well as deeper customer insights and eventually acquired Uber China.
Meituan-Dianping (Meituan) is a Chinese e-commerce company that offers a variety of local services including entertainment, dining, delivery, travel, etc. (Prnewswire, 2019). The major business is in-city deliver services including food, grocery, and other consumer goods. Also, it involves in booking services including film tickets, hotel room, entertainment, etc. With the help of its various services, Meituan collects users’ data and builds customer profile including their location, preferences, consumption habits and pattern by big data analytics and AI (Prnewswire, 2019). With rich customer knowledge, the company is allowed to improve its customer experience. The founder of Meituan is Wang Xing who was born in 1979, graduated from Tsinghua University (the counterparts of Beijing University) with a bachelor degree and then tried to obtain a Ph.D. in University of Delaware (CGTN, 2019). His majors are electronic and computer engineering. His career started with developing social networks including Friendster, Xiaonei, and Fanfou. These social networks stimulated Facebook and Twitter, whereas the outcomes were not well. In 2010, Wang Xing found Meituan starting with selling coupon, which initially had a business model very close to Groupon and Yelp. Wang Xing comes from an upper-class family, have high intelligence and is viewed as a poet entrepreneur. Despite of the fact that he had stimulated the business ideas of Facebook, Twitter, Groupon and Yelp, he found own innovative and creative business model for Meituan and Chinese market.
Pinduoduo is an interactive e-commerce company, founded in 2015. Colin Huang as its founder used 5 years and made the company the second large online platform behind Alibaba Group. The company is leading retailing trends in China and has three innovative services including social commerce, team purchase and Consumer-to-Manufacturer (C2M). In Pinduoduo, customers engage in an online community in which they work together to increase their bargaining power to manufacturers. Meanwhile, customers are allowed to purchase from manufacturers. This model largely reduced costs and prices. The company made an outstanding growth record: its revenue climbed to US$1.908 billion increased by 586.29% in 2017, continuously grew to US$ 4.33 billion in 2018, and reached US$ 5.240 billion in 2019 (Macrotrends, 2020). Alibaba used 10 years to achieve such economic scale, while it only costed Pinduoduo four years. Huang Xing was born in 1980 and obtained his master degree from University of Wisconsin (an US public university). He did his internship in Google and Microsoft.
1.2 Research Significant
This research can make academic contributions by addressing a research gap. Mishra and Misra (2017) find the important role of entrepreneurial leaders in prioritizing opportunities and resources, integrating resources and capabilities, contributing to collaboration, and promoting mutual goals. However, this study did not consider the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation especially in Chinese high-tech industry. Cai et al. (2018) study the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on creativity among employees in China. It clear that they did not cover the research gap of the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and innovation performance especially in Chinese high-tech industry because there are huge differences between creativity and innovation. Bagheri (2017) study the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and innovation performance in high tech SMEs by surveys. With more hierarchical structure, entrepreneurial leaders in large corporation may be harder to affect bottom employees. Therefore, it is significant for the dissertation to study entrepreneurial leadership’s relationship with innovation performance in Chinese large high-tech corporations.
Meanwhile, this research can make significant managerial contributions. Entrepreneurship Leadership (EL) has a strong relationship with organisational effectiveness (Mishra et al., 2017). Many researches find that leadership plays an important role in the success of new start-ups (Mishra et al., 2017). However, this dissertation finds few studies focusing on EL in high tech industry. High tech companies are characterised by high risk, high R&D costs and great potential, which are different with other industries. Therefore, it is important to identify an effective EL especially for this industry. Also, Chinese context for entrepreneurship is culturally, politically and economically different with developed country’s context such as US. The results of this research can help high tech industry to understand what kind of EL can contribute to innovation performance in China. Practitioners in the industry can consider these results to develop their EL so as to improve their innovation performance and then achieve organisational success.
1.3 Research Aims, Objectives and Questions
This research aims at the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behaviour and opportunity in China’s high-tech industry. Its purpose is to identify the casual relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and employee’s innovation performance and find out an effective entrepreneurial leadership for innovation. The expected results are to inform Chinese high-tech companies the effective entrepreneurial leadership that can contribute to innovation.
Based on the research purpose, three research questions are designed:
· What are the differences and similarities in entrepreneurial leadership of the founders among Meituan, DiDi and Pinduoduo?
· What are the impacts of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation performance?
· How entrepreneurial leaderships contribute to innovation performance?
Research objectives are showed in the below.
· To develop the literature review that critically evaluates previous knowledge and researches related with entrepreneurial leadership and innovation
· To analyse the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation and identify effective entrepreneurial leadership based on primary data from questionnaires
· To discuss the results of the data analysis with the literature review to conclude the research’s findings and make recommendations
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter critically discusses previous studies related with entrepreneurial leadership. It starts with the interpretation of entrepreneurial leadership based on entrepreneurship and leadership, then discusses entrepreneurs’ personality, and the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and innovation. Furthermore, the chapter critically evaluates previous researches and elaborates a theoretical framework.
2.2 Entrepreneurial Leadership
The concept of entrepreneurial leadership integrates both leadership and entrepreneurship (Cai et al., 2019). Therefore, it is reasonable to discuss entrepreneurship and leadership, separately. Leadership refers to the art of affecting a group so as to accomplish goals (Baruch, 1998). Ackerman (1985) illustrates that leadership is the art of affecting others toward goals. Bass (1985) leaders affect followers to behave and act in a desired way to accomplish goals. Effective leadership convince followers to commit to a vision, inspire and encourage them to accomplish goal (Bennis and Nanus, 1985). Therefore, the core of leadership is affecting/influencing others. However, entrepreneurial leadership has a much more complicated role.
Gupta et al. (2004) consider entrepreneurship leader as those leaders who create vision to motivate and unit employees to improve strategic value generation. Harrison et al. (2016) highlight that the concept of entrepreneurial leadership focuses on the role of leadership in entrepreneurial undertaking. Entrepreneurial leadership plays the following essential roles: defining explicit goals, generating opportunities, empowering followers, foster relationship within their organisations, and improve HR system (Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991). Furthermore, Fernald et al. (2005) explain that entrepreneurial leadership focuses on the role of entrepreneurs in developing their company’s competitive advantages in uncertain, complicated and dynamic context. Cai et al. (2019) define entrepreneurial leadership as affecting and directing followers toward mutual goals that cover identifying and developing entrepreneurial opportunities. Also, based on the data from GLOBE Project, entrepreneurial leadership is defined as the degree to which a leader shows his or her entrepreneurial attributes (Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991). These attributes include opportunity discovery, creative integration of followers and resources, fast building structures and platforms allowing followers to pursue the largest interests possible and developing non-financial and financial rewards to stimulate followers (McGrath and Macmillan, 2000).
There are three dimensions of entrepreneurial leadership (McGrath and Macmillan, 2000). The first dimension of entrepreneurial leadership is directing. This means that entrepreneurial leaders can make clear direction in uncertainties and develop new direction when uncertainties are solved. These leaders have proficiency in identifying and grasping opportunities based ambiguous information. To have this proficiency, they tend to be great in intuition, performance orientation, need for achievement, and decisiveness (McGrath and Macmillan, 2000). Meanwhile, identifying and tolerating uncertainty also is important that is associated with vision, foresight, and confidence (McGrath and Macmillan, 2000). Additionally, other characteristics are important including convincing skills, diplomatic capabilities, bargaining skills, and taking responsibilities for success or failure (McGrath and Macmillan, 2000).
Creative integration is another essential dimension of entrepreneurial leadership. Entrepreneurial leaders can find out creative approach to integrate, organise and use human and other resources to accomplish mutual objectives (McGrath and Macmillan, 2000). By the creative approach, they can diminish down inefficiencies thus increasing value to their companies (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). To set their company’s focus, they should have intellectual stimulation, optimism and integration. To move barriers to organisational growth, they should be improvement-oriented, team-oriented and encourage followers (McGrath and Macmillan, 2000).
The last dimension of the leadership is to develop a platform that identify and develop new things (products, services, process, and business model) for organisational growth. This is consistent with Schumpeter (1934)’s theory that entrepreneurs must play an innovative role in finding new opportunities. This role is associated with the following personal characteristics including self-reliance, risk-taking and self-interest.
Furthermore, entrepreneurship leadership is strongly associated with opportunity identification (Chen, 2007), risk-taking (Kuratko, 2007), and supporting innovation in uncertainties (Surie and Ashley, 2008). Lippitt (1987) agree that entrepreneurship leaders have the following characteristics: risk-taking, task-focusing and responsibility-taking. Fernald and Solomon (1999) illustrate that entrepreneurship leaders are proficient in decision-making and vision creation. Tarabishy et al. (2002) elaborate that entrepreneurship leaders have the following skills or characteristics: being a qualified manager, offering incentive rewards, communication, trustworthiness, being creative, confident, visionary, staff-oriented, entrepreneurs, and leading their companies in dynamic market. Harrison et al. (2019) conclude entrepreneurship leaders’ attributes including strategic thinking, flexibility, opportunism, identification of environmental changes, innovativeness, motivation, challenge propensity, integrity, teamworking, positive mind, planning, ethics, and good vision about technologies. Esmer and Dayi (2017) also agree that effective entrepreneurial leaderships should have leadership competencies and entrepreneurship mind in order to create new goods, process and grasp business opportunities, solve neglected problems, identify social and political environment, and facilitate organisational change. Moreover, Harrison et al. (2017) investigate entrepreneurial leadership in developing countries and find four fundamental leadership skills: technical, conceptual, entrepreneurial, and interpersonal skills.
2.3 Entrepreneurship leadership and personal characteristics of entrepreneurs
To summarise the argument of above studies, entrepreneurship leadership is expected to have the following personal characteristics: making clear direction, identifying opportunity, using intuition, being performance orientated, having strong need for achievement, being decisive, visionary, and confident, having convincing skills, diplomatic capabilities, bargaining skills, taking responsibilities, having capability for creative integration, intellectual stimulation, optimism, being improvement-oriented, team-oriented and encourage follower, being risk-taking, supportive to innovation, self-reliance, and self-interest. These characteristics are strongly associated with characteristics of entrepreneurs and transformational leaders. According to Kerr et al. (2017), the important characteristics of entrepreneurs include self-efficacy, innovativeness, locus of control, willingness of risk-taking, goal orientation & aspiration and need for achievement. Locus of control is related with entrepreneurs’ capabilities to endure uncertainties (Frank et al., 2007). Entrepreneurs have stronger capabilities and willingness to endure uncertainties and take risks, with their stronger locus of control. They have stronger confidence that they can control the impact of external factors on their work. Furthermore, successful entrepreneurs tend to be more optimistic and have positive attitude toward challenges (Frese, 2009). Entrepreneurs tend to have a robust sense of personal self-efficacy to practice their visions and be very sensitive to innovation for new goods and markets. Innovativeness is a mediating factor affecting need for achievement (Utsch and Rauch, 2000). Need for achievement has a strong relationship with corporate performance (Collins et al., 2004). Korunka et al. (2003) surveyed over 1,100 new entrepreneurs in Austria and find evidences supporting the positive correlation between need for achievement, locus of control, risk-taking and corporate performance. However, this dissertation argues that above findings discus entrepreneur’s traits and effective entrepreneurship leadership must have great leadership skills.
2.4 Entrepreneurship leadership and Innovation
To improve innovation and creativity, entrepreneurial leaders have to solve the difficulty of generating a vision and influencing followers (Covin and Slevin, 1991). They are expected to act a model to inspire and motivate employees (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Gong et al. (2013) highlight that these leaders encourage and push followers to devote to creative works. They motivate employees by targeting value creation (Gupta et al., 2004). Apparently, this require them to set clear direction and use financial and non-financial rewards. Therefore, this is consistent with McGrath and Macmillan (2000)’s argument. Gupta et al. (2004) highlight that entrepreneurial leaders encourage followers to work collaboratively, which also is consistent with McGrath and Macmillan (2000)’s argument. Chen (2007) highlights that these leaders make team members realise the positive impact of work collaboration on opportunity exploration and risk-taking. This also is supported by McGrath and Macmillan (2000)’s three dimensions of entrepreneurial leadership.
Swierce and Lydon (2002) agree that leaders take heavy responsibility in generating ideas and identifying opportunities to facilitate corporate performance, growth and competitive advantage in high technology companies. Freeman and Siegrfired (2015) highlight that entrepreneurial leaders have proficiency in dealing with competition, grasping opportunities, and improving innovation. These leaders improve innovation in accordance with customers’ demand and competitor’s practices in order to improve innovation and development (Van Zyl and Mathur-Helm, 2007). They positively affect innovation and creativity so as to improve company performance (Harrison et al., 2019). To push innovation, they have strong ability to persuade followers to devote to vision and to inspire and motivate them to maximise their capacity and potentials. Additionally, Swierce and Lydon (2002) agree that entrepreneurial leaders act an important role in developing an appreciated organisational culture and environment for innovation. Bagheri (2017) find that entrepreneurial leadership has positive relationship with innovation performance.
2.5 Critical Evaluation of Previous Researches
Mishra and Misra (2017) study the casual relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and organisational effectiveness focusing on executives and non-executives in Indian manufacturing industry and collected 410 data from both public and private companies. They found that entrepreneurial leadership can contribute to organisational effectiveness. More importantly, entrepreneurial leaders tend to possess good level of creative integration that allows them to integrate followers’ interest and competencies, effectively use their resources and capabilities to work jointly. Mishra and Misra (2017)’s finding can be explained by creative integration theory (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000). This theory highlights that creative integration requires two preconditions: setting company’s core and removing barriers for supporting start-ups’ growth by shifting constrictions to core advantages. Mishra and Misra (2017)’s research suggests that entrepreneurial leaders can accomplish the two preconditions. They can unite followers, effectively use resources and capabilities, and make all people work collaboratively to accomplish mutual goal. Furthermore, Surie and Ashley (2004) agree that entrepreneurial leaders make efforts to find out new ways and approaches to improve organisational performance. More importantly, these leaders put opportunities and resources to the first place to assist employees to work collaboratively toward common goals. Moreover, many scholars also find evidences supporting a positive correlation between entrepreneurial leaders and organisational effectiveness (Rowold and Rohann, 2009; and Wang and Satwo, 1994). Generally, Mishra and Misra (2017) highlight the important role of entrepreneurial leaders in prioritizing opportunities and resources, integrating resources and capabilities, contributing to collaboration, and promoting mutual goals. However, this study did not consider the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation especially in Chinese high-tech industry.
Cai et al. (2018) study the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on creativity among employees in China. They focus on the leadership’s influence on workplace creativity based on social cognitive theory. This study adopted survey collected data from 43 leaders and 237 employees in 8 Chinese firms. It finds that entrepreneurial leadership has a positive relationship with creativity of employee and team. The meditating factors affecting the relationship include employee’s creative self-efficacy and team creative efficacy. Entrepreneurial leadership can motivate employees and teams to have better creative results. Cai et al. (2018) highlight that their study is the first research that adopts empirical way to study entrepreneurial leadership in organisation. However, it clear that they did not cover the research gap of the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and innovation performance especially in Chinese high-tech industry. To be noticed, there are huge differences between creativity and innovation. Creativity can be viewed as a start point of innovation, whereas it requires skills and resources to accomplish an innovation. Creativity can be ideas while innovations are results. Thus, it is significant for this dissertation to cover the research gap.
Bagheri (2017) investigate the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and innovation performance in high tech SMEs by surveys. He collected 310 questionnaires from staffs of 39 SMEs. This research shows evidences supporting entrepreneurial leadership motivate staffs to have better innovation work performance. The finding is supported by Harrison et al. (2019). However, this research focuses on SMEs, which are highly different with large corporation. In a large corporation, there are more complicated layers of powers and structure, whereas SMEs have a flat structure. This means that entrepreneurial leaders have more direct impacts on employees because they have more opportunity to directly communicate with each employee. However, with more hierarchical structure, entrepreneurial leaders may be harder to affect bottom employees. Therefore, it is significant for the dissertation to study entrepreneurial leadership in large corporations.
2.6 Theoretical Framework
The concept of entrepreneurial leadership is an integration of both leadership and entrepreneurship (Cai et al., 2019). Esmer and Dayi (2017) also agree that effective entrepreneurial leaderships should possess leadership competencies and entrepreneurship mind. Therefore, this dissertation divides entrepreneurial leadership into two aspects: leadership and entrepreneurship. Based on above discussion, this dissertation summarises two independent variables: entrepreneur’s characteristics and leadership. Entrepreneur’s characteristics include need for achievement, innovativeness, locus of control, risk-taking propensity, and goal orientation. Entrepreneur’s Leadership covers creative integration of employees and resources, clearly directing (building vision and goals), influencing employees (motivation, inspiration, encourage, intellectual stimulation, acting as model, and using financial and non-financial rewards), capabilities of identifying opportunities, and developing collaboration (teamworking, relationship and organisational intimacy). Then, the dependent variable is innovation performance.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
Based on the theoretical framework, this dissertation sets the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1
H0: there is no relationship between entrepreneur’s characteristics and innovation performance in Chinese high-tech industry.
H1: there is a relationship between entrepreneur’s characteristics and innovation performance in Chinese high-tech industry.
Hypothesis 2
H0: there is no relationship between entrepreneur’s leadership and innovation performance in Chinese high-tech industry.
H1: there is a relationship between entrepreneur’s leadership and innovation performance in Chinese high-tech industry.
3.0 Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter justifies the research methodologies applied by this dissertation in accordance with research onion developed by Saunders et al. (2012). It used positivism, deductive approach, case study, mono methods (quantitative research), cross-sectional time horizon, and questionnaires as data collection methods.
Figure 2: Research Onion
(Source from: Saunders et al., 2012)
3.2 Positivism Philosophy and Quantitative Research
The dissertation followed positivism philosophy that supports quantitative approach. Based on positivism philosophy, it used quantitative research that studies Chinese entrepreneurship leadership in a scientific manner. Saunders et al. (2012) agree that quantitative research can generate law-like findings which are less involved in arguments but supported by empirical evidences. By quantitative approach, this research can generate reliable and valid findings to make contributions to Chinese high-tech industry. Wilson (2010) illustrate that the findings of quantitative researches are reliable because these researches use strict research framework to prevent the impacts of inquirers on their own researches.
Furthermore, many relevant researches adopted quantitative approach, positivism philosophy and survey to study entrepreneurship leadership (Bagheri, 2017; Cai et al., 2018; and Mishra and Misra, 2017).
On the other hand, qualitative research was not suitable for this research. This research only had one inquirer who had weaker capability to collect a large sample size by qualitative research especially during the burst of COVID-19. Due to the crisis, it was unlikely for the researcher to conduct face-to-face interview to collect qualitative data. More importantly, based on interpretivism, qualitative researches generate those results which tend to be arguable and controversial because they rely on researchers’ perception, experience and feeling to interpret a research phenomenon whereas perception and feeling are varied among different researches (Myers, 2008). It is very easy for inquirers to involve bias in qualitative research.
3.3 Deductive Approach
The use of deductive approach was the best choice for this dissertation. It is consistent with quantitative researches and helps them to develop a theoretical framework (Wilson, 2010). Wilson (2010) highlights that deductive approach ensures validity and reliability of its results by using previous and reliable knowledge as research foundation. With reliable and valid data and data analysis, this approach can ensure reliability and validity of its findings. Also, this approach enables inquirers to set hypothesis and conceptual framework and then study a phenomenon in a very reliable and scientific manner. More importantly, it is straightforward that directly addresses research questions.
By a top-down deductive approach, this dissertation collected previous knowledge and established the theoretical framework in Chapter Two and then conducted data collection. Thus, the results of this research are supported by previous knowledge.
On the other hand, inductive approach does not fit in this dissertation. Firstly, it tends to be time-costly because researchers have to spend time in building research questions. However, this dissertation has three clearly research questions, which does not need to spend time for building research question. Secondly, the results of inductive approach are more arguable because they may lack previous studies’ supports (Wilson, 2010). Thirdly, inductive approach is more consistent with interpretivism because interpretivism can discover new insights allowing inquirers to find out new theories (Myers, 2008).
3.4 Case Study
This research used case study as research strategy and covered three cases including DiDi, Pinduoduo and Meituan Dianping. Case study allows researchers to discover insights and dig out in-depth of findings (Myers, 2008). It is suitable to address those phenomena which is closely related with their contexts. Chinese entrepreneurship leadership is associated with Chinese employees and behaviour of both leaders and employees are strongly related with Chinese contexts including culture, social norms and value. Therefore, it was effective for this dissertation to adopt case study.
Meanwhile, case study allows researchers to analyse both primary and secondary data, simultaneously. The data can come from different sources including questionnaires, documents, reports etc. By case study, this research can analyse entrepreneurship leadership in the three cases in different perspectives to generate reliable findings.
On the other hand, focused group and experiment are not suitable for this research. It is hard for one researcher to manage and implement them and design all variables. They are more consistent with qualitative research.
3.5 Cross-sectional time horizon
This research adopted cross-sectional time horizon to collect primary data. It collected data during 1st to 29th August and only collected for once. It has no historical data because it concentrates on the contemporary issue.
3.6 Questionnaires
This dissertation used questionnaire to collect primary data from employees of the three companies. Online questionnaire is a highly efficient approach to collect quantitative data (Saunders et al., 2012). By the internet, researchers can fast spread questionnaires. Even though the design of questionnaires can be time-consuming, the numerical data collected by them can be analysed statistical package in an effective way. Also, questionnaires are more economical and manageable for student-based researches. It allows a researcher to collect a huge amount of quantitative data and build a large sample size in short-term (Saunders et al., 2012). Moreover, it is consistent with quantitative researches and positivism.
This dissertation designed a webpage for the questionnaire at WWW.WJX.CN to access Chinese respondents. The webpage automatically restored data. The researcher shared the link of the webpage to social media including WeChat, Zhihu, Weibo and LinkedIn. Meanwhile, the researcher used e-mail to share the link to some potential participants.
The dissertation adopts close-end questionnaires have three sections. The first section measures participants’ demographics and their experience and job positions in their company. The second section measures the independent variable and the third section collects data for the dependent variable. These questions in the 2nd and 3rd sections are developed based on the literature review (Chapter Two). All options of these questions follow Likert scale. Participants can choose from strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree. To be noticed, the scale of these Likert scale questions is 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neural, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
This research totally gathered 195 questionnaires from the three companies and 65 for each company.
3.7 Sampling Techniques
This research used self-selection sampling technique to access participants. This means that they voluntarily participated into this research. This research did not offer any financial rewards. Hence, it is safe to say that most respondents were motivated by making contributions to the understanding of entrepreneurship in China rather than gaining financial rewards. As a result, they tend to offer reliable data. This sampling technique is effective to build a large sample size.
However, probability sampling techniques were not applicable in this research. These techniques require the sample frame ensuring that all research populations have the same opportunity of being selected (Saunders et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the researchers were unable to access all employees of the three companies. Thus, self-selection sampling technique was most applicable technique.
3.8 Data Analysis
This research adopted frequency, correlation and regression analysis to analyse primary data. Frequency analysis measured the demographics and work-related issues of participants. Correlation analysis identified the strength of the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variables. Regression analysis tested the significance of the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variables.
3.9 Ethical Issues
This dissertation pays heavy attention to ethical issues and strictly obeys the University’s ethical conducts. It was an innominate and confidential research that did not collect any information about respondents’ identity and involved no debriefing. The data and results of the dissertation are only available to the University. They have been well-protected in the researcher’s work computer. The data was planned to be destroyed by 1st November. Furthermore, this research was honest and straightforward that revealed its real purpose and aim to potential respondents and asked their supports. It used the consent letter to inform them the following messages: 1) what is the purpose and objective of this research; 2) what would be asked in this research; 3) this research is innominate and confidential and would never reveal their data to their company and 4) they have the right to withdraw from this research or their data before 28th August 2020. In other words, all potential respondents had been fully aware of this research’s purpose and their rights before they decided to offer data.
4.0 Results
This chapter analyses primary data from 195 questionnaires by frequency analysis, correlation and regression analysis. It starts with description of respondents’ demographics and job-related situations. Then, it analyses overall performance of entrepreneur’s characteristics and leadership of the three companies (DiDi, Meitaun and Pinduoduo (PDD)). Next, it compares the three company’s entrepreneurship leadership (Cheng Wei, Wang Xing and Colin Huang). Moreover, it conducts correlation analysis to test the research Hypothesis and uses regression analysis to examine the significance of these relationships.
4.1 Frequency Analysis
The demographics and job-related situation of 195 respondents are showed in the below. To begin with demographics, the largest age group is 31 to 40 years old account from 40.5%, followed by below 30 (32.8%) and 41 to 50 (23.6%) and only 3.1% of respondents are older than 50.
68.7% of respondents are male and only 31.3% are female.
42.6% of respondents have 40,001 to 60,000 monthly income, followed by 20,001 to 40,000 (32.3%), 60,001 to 80,000 (20.5%) and below 20,000 (4.6%).
39.0% of respondents have a bachelor degree, followed by master degree (35.4%) and 23.1% (doctor degree). Only 2.6% of respondents’ education level is below bachelor.
About half of respondents (47.2%) worked in their company for 3 to 6 years, followed by below 3 years (28.7%), 6 to 9 years (17.9%), and above 9 years (6.2%). Therefore, it is safe to say that all participants have sound work experience to provide data.
In terms of job position, the higher job position a respondent has, the more opportunity he or she access to the CEO. Thus, the respondent can offer reliable data. This research collected data from enough middle level managers. 36.9% of respondents are middle level managers and 35.4% of respondents are employees. 24.6% of respondents are low level managers. Only 3.1 of respondents review them as top managers. Hence, this distribution covers different levels of managers and employees and they can reflect their CEO’s performance and characteristics in different perspectives.
|
Number |
Percentage |
||
|
Age |
Below 30 |
64 |
32.8 |
|
31 – 40 |
79 |
40.5 |
|
|
41 – 50 |
46 |
23.6 |
|
|
Above 50 |
6 |
3.1 |
|
|
Gender |
Male |
134 |
68.7 |
|
Female |
61 |
31.3 |
|
|
Income |
Below 20,000 |
9 |
4.6 |
|
20,001 – 40,000 |
63 |
32.3 |
|
|
40,001 – 60,000 |
83 |
42.6 |
|
|
60,001 – 80,000 |
40 |
20.5 |
|
|
Above 80,000 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Education |
Below bachelor |
5 |
2.6 |
|
Bachelor |
76 |
39.0 |
|
|
Master |
69 |
35.4 |
|
|
Doctor |
45 |
23.1 |
|
|
Experience in the company |
Below 3 year |
56 |
28.7 |
|
3 – 6 years |
92 |
47.2 |
|
|
6 - 9 years |
35 |
17.9 |
|
|
Above 9 years |
12 |
6.2 |
|
|
Job position |
Top manager |
6 |
3.1 |
|
Middle manager |
72 |
36.9 |
|
|
Low level manager |
48 |
24.6 |
|
|
Employees |
69 |
35.4 |
Table 1
Based on the scale of these questions showed in Table 2, each question in Section 2 of the questionnaire is analysis.
|
Strongly disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Table 2
As Table 3 shows, these respondents perceive that CEO has high levels of passion (mean 3.54), ambition (mean = 3.87), and strong confidence of controlling (3.61) in entrepreneur’s characteristics. The mean of these variables is higher than 3.5. The perceived innovativeness is middle (mean = 3.30). On the other hand, these respondents perceive that their CEO is weaker in taking responsibility (mean = 2.58), taking risk (mean = 2.58), and being goal oriented (mean = 2.93).
Meanwhile, the perceived entrepreneur’s leadership is generally great. The mean of the following variable is higher than 3.5, suggesting a great performance of these CEOs, including 1) integrating company’s human resources and other resources for innovation (mean = 3.90); 2) aligning and uniting employees to make them work collaboratively (mean = 4.11); 3) promoting and facilitates teamworking (mean = 3.82); 5) inspiring and motivating me toward more innovative behaviour (mean = 3.64); 6) acting as a model for innovation (mean = 3.923); 7) encouraging employees (mean = 3.6564); 8) using effective financial and non-financial rewards that are effective to motivate employees (mean = 3.6974); and 9) having clear objectives and vision for innovation (mean = 3.56).
However, these CEOs are relatively weak in terms of offering employees help to find out innovation opportunities (mean = 3.17) and creating organisational culture and environment that promotes identification of innovation opportunity (mean =3.43).
Table 3
To further identify the perceived entrepreneur’s characteristics and leadership, this dissertation conducts a frequency analysis to further measure respondents’ opinion.
To begin with entrepreneur’s characteristics, 61.0% of respondents agree that their CEO’s passion affected their innovation behaviour and performance identifying innovation opportunity including 39.5% agree and 21.5% strongly agree. This means that these CEOs have a stronger passion for innovation behaviour and opportunity.
However, the results show that these CEOs’ responsibility-taking is not high. 25.6% of respondents strongly disagree and 31.8% of respondent disagree that their CEO can take responsibility. Only 37.2% of respondent agree with this. This means that perceived responsibility-taking of these CEOs is low.
Meanwhile, perceived risk-taking of these CEOs also is low. 66.4 % of respondents disagree that their CEOs take high risks including 31.8% (disagree) and 24.6% (strongly disagree). Only 37.2 % of respondents agree with this.
The perceived ambition of these CEOs is considerably high. 71.8% of respondents agree that their CEO is ambitious including 34.4% agree and 37.4% strongly agree. This mean that these CEOs are very ambitious.
About half of respondents (47.7%) agree that their CEO is innovative, whereas 25.1% of respondents disagree with this. To be noticed, 27.2% of respondents chose neutral. These results suggest that innovativeness of these CEOs is moderate.
58.5% of respondents agree that their CEO has strong confidence that they can control our company to address challenges including 26.2% agree and 32.3% strongly agree. Only 22.0% of respondents agree with this. These results show that these CEOs have confidence in controlling their company to deal with challenges. The perceived confidence is above middle level.
Additionally, more respondents disagree that their CEO is goal-oriented including 17.9% (strongly disagree) and 19.0% (disagree). Meanwhile, 29.7% of respondents show a neutral attitude toward their CEO’s goal orientation. Only 23.4% of respondents agree that their CEO is goal oriented. Based on above results, it is safe to say that perceived goal orientation is relatively low.
Table 4
Generally, perceived entrepreneurs’ leadership is relatively high. To begin with CEO’s capability of integrating HR and other resource for innovation, 45.6% strongly agree that their CEO has such capability and 25.1% agree with it. Only 15.4% of respondents disagree with this including 10.8% strongly disagree and 4.6% disagree. This shows that the perceived integration capability of these CEOs is high.
The result suggests that these CEOs has a high-level capability of aligning and uniting employees toward collaboration. 74.9% of respondents agree that their CEO aligns and unites employees to make them work collaboratively including 60.0% strongly agree. Only 6.2% strongly agree with it.
Also, these CEOs have strong performance in promoting and facilitating teamworking. 66.7% of respondents agree with it including 50.8% strongly agree and 15.9% of agree. Only 15.4% of respondents strongly disagree with it. This shows that perceived performance in promoting and facilitating teamworking is high.
Furthermore, these CEOs act a model for innovation. 66.2% of respondents agree with it including 59.5% (strongly agree) and 6.7% (agree). This suggests that perceived modelling influence of CEO is high.
Moreover, perceived encouragement of employees is high. 65.1% of respondents agree that these CEOs encourage them including 25.8% agree and strongly agree 39.0 strongly agree.
60% of respondents agree with these CEOs have explicit objectives and vision for innovation including 26.7% agree and 33.3% strongly agree. This means that perceived CEO’s objectives and vision is high.
Furthermore, provided help for innovation opportunity is not high. 41.% of respondents agree that these CEOs offered them help to find out innovation opportunities including 21.5% strongly agree and 19.5% agree. However, 31.1% of respondents disagree with it.
54.9% of respondents agree that these CEOs generate an organisational culture which is helpful for identification of innovation opportunity, including 27.7% agree and 27.2% strongly agree. This suggests that these CEOs have strong capability to foster the organisational culture which is helpful for identification of innovation opportunity.
Additionally, 59.0% of respondents agree that these CEOs have strong capabilities of identifying innovation opportunity including 28.7% agree and 30.3% strongly agree. These CEOs show strong capabilities of identifying innovation opportunity. Also, the perceived capability is strong.
|
Entrepreneur’s Leadership (%) |
Strongly disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
|
My CEO integrated our company’s human resources and other resources for innovation |
10.8 |
4.6 |
13.8 |
25.1 |
45.6 |
|
My CEO aligns and unites employees to make them work collaboratively |
6.2 |
11.8 |
7.2 |
14.9 |
60.0 |
|
My CEO promotes and facilitates teamworking |
15.4 |
4.6 |
13.3 |
15.9 |
50.8 |
|
My CEO inspires and motivates me toward more innovative behaviour |
11.8 |
13.8 |
16.9 |
13.8 |
43.8 |
|
My CEO acts as a model for innovation |
12.8 |
7.7 |
13.3 |
6.7 |
59.5 |
|
My CEO encourages employees and me |
11.3 |
5.1 |
18.5 |
36.9 |
28.2 |
|
My CEO uses effective financial and non-financial rewards that are effective to motivate me and other employees |
9.2 |
15.4 |
10.8 |
25.8 |
39.0 |
|
My CEO has clear objectives and vision for innovation |
16.4 |
4.6 |
19.0 |
26.7 |
33.3 |
|
My CEO offered me help to find out innovation opportunities |
13.8 |
17.9 |
27.2 |
19.5 |
21.5 |
|
My organisational culture and environment the CEO create is helpful to identifying innovation opportunity |
14.4 |
10.3 |
20.5 |
27.7 |
27.2 |
|
My CEO has strong capabilities of identifying innovation opportunity |
10.3 |
13.8 |
16.9 |
28.7 |
30.3 |
Table 5
To identify the entrepreneurship leadership among these CEOs in the companies, this research compares the mean of each questions. It uses the mean of three companies as average level to evaluate the mean of each companies, as Table 6 shows.
In teams of passion for innovation and opportunity identification, DiDi’s founder is at the average level, PDD is above average level, and Meituan is lower than average level. This means that PDD’s founder has the greatest passion.
In terms of responsibility-taking, the mean of Meituan and PDD is higher than average level, whereas the mean of DiDi is lower than it. Hence, PDD has the greatest perceived responsibility-taking.
For risk-taking, PDD has the highest mean followed by Meituan and DiDi. This means that PDD has the best risk-taking entrepreneur.
In the aspects of ambition, DiDi has the highest mean followed by Meituan and PDD. This means that DiDi’s entrepreneur has the great ambition.
For innovativeness, PDD’s entrepreneur has the highest mean, showing the greatest innovativeness, followed by Didi and Meituan.
Moreover, PDD’s entrepreneur has the highest mean of confidence of controlling company to address challenges, followed by Meituan and DiDi. This shows that the entrepreneur has strongest confidence in controlling.
Additionally, PDD’s entrepreneur shows the highest level of goal orientation (the largest mean), followed by Meituan and DiDi.
Generally, PDD’s entrepreneur (Colin Huang) shows the highest level of entrepreneur’s characteristics, Meituan (Wang Xing) has the lowest, while DiDi (Cheng Wei) holds at a middle level.
|
Mean Average |
Mean DiDi |
Mean Meituan |
Mean PDD |
|
|
Entrepreneur’s Characteristics |
||||
|
Passion affecting employees’ innovation behaviour performance of identifying innovation opportunity |
3.5385 |
3.5385 |
3.4462 |
3.6308 |
|
Taking responsibility |
2.5846 |
2.3846 |
2.6000 |
2.7692 |
|
Taking risks |
2.5846 |
2.2615 |
2.7077 |
2.7846 |
|
Ambition |
3.8718 |
4.0154 |
3.7385 |
3.8615 |
|
Innovativeness |
3.3026 |
3.2923 |
3.1846 |
3.4308 |
|
Strong confidence that he can control our company to address challenges |
3.6051 |
3.4000 |
3.6308 |
3.7846 |
|
Being goal oriented |
2.9282 |
2.7385 |
2.9692 |
3.0769 |
Table 6
For entrepreneur’s leadership, DiDi (Cheng Wei) has the best performance. He has the highest mean that showing that he is the strongest in the following aspects: 1) integrating resources for innovation, 2) aligning and uniting, 3) promoting and facilitating teamworking, 4) acting as a model, 5) encouraging employees, 6) setting objectives and visions for innovation, and 7) identifying innovation opportunities. Meanwhile, PDD’s entrepreneur (Colin Huang) also has the highest mean in many aspects and show his strong capabilities in the following aspects: 1) using effective financial and non-financial rewards, 2) offering help for innovation opportunity identification, and 3) creating organisational culture and environment for innovation opportunity. However, Meituan’s entrepreneur (Wang Xing) has no outstanding performance in both leadership and characteristics.
|
Entrepreneur’s Leadership |
Mean Average |
Mean DiDi |
Mean Meituan |
Mean PDD |
|
Integrating company’s human resources and other resources for innovation |
3.9026 |
4.4154 |
3.6615 |
3.6308 |
|
Aligning and uniting employees to make them work collaboratively |
4.1077 |
4.4000 |
3.9231 |
4.0000 |
|
Promoting and facilitating teamworking |
3.8205 |
4.3846 |
3.3846 |
3.6923 |
|
Inspiring and motivating me toward more innovative behaviour |
3.6359 |
4.6154 |
3.0308 |
3.2615 |
|
Acting as a model for innovation. |
3.9231 |
4.4615 |
3.5692 |
3.7385 |
|
Encouraging employees and me. |
3.6564 |
3.8308 |
3.5077 |
3.6308 |
|
Using effective financial and non-financial rewards that are effective to motivate me and other employees |
3.6974 |
3.8154 |
3.4308 |
3.8462 |
|
Having clear objectives and vision for innovation |
3.5590 |
3.9385 |
3.1846 |
3.5538 |
|
Offering me help to find out innovation opportunities |
3.1692 |
3.2154 |
3.0308 |
3.2615 |
|
Creating organisational culture and environment that promotes identification of innovation opportunity |
3.4308 |
3.5231 |
3.2154 |
3.5538 |
|
Strong capabilities of identifying innovation opportunities |
3.5487 |
3.7385 |
3.3846 |
3.5231 |
Table 7
4.2 Correlation Analysis
The correlation co-efficient reaches 0.681 (larger than 0.299), suggesting a moderate relationship between entrepreneurs’ characteristics and innovation performance.
|
Correlations |
|||
|
|
Innovation Performance |
Entrepreneurs’ Characteristics |
|
|
Innovation Performance |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
0.681** |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
0.000 |
|
|
N |
195 |
195 |
|
|
Entrepreneurs’ Characteristics |
Pearson Correlation |
0.681** |
1 |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.000 |
|
|
|
N |
195 |
195 |
|
|
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
|||
Table 8
Given that the correlation coefficient is 0.725 (larger than 0.299), there is a moderate relationship between entrepreneurship leadership and innovation.
|
Correlations |
|||
|
|
Entrepreneurship Leadership |
Innovation Performance |
|
|
Entrepreneurship Leadership |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
0.725** |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
0.000 |
|
|
N |
195 |
195 |
|
|
Innovation Performance |
Pearson Correlation |
0.725** |
1 |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.000 |
|
|
|
N |
195 |
195 |
|
|
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
|||
Table 9
4.3 Regression Analysis
The R is 0.774, suggesting a moderate relationship between the independent variables (entrepreneurs’ leadership and entrepreneurs’ characteristics) and the dependent variable (innovation performance). The R Square is 0.599, suggesting that 59.9% of variants in innovation performance can be predicted by entrepreneurs’ leadership and entrepreneurs’ characteristics. Meanwhile, 40.1% of variants in innovation performance cannot be explained by the two factors.
|
Model Summary |
||||
|
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
|
|
0.774a |
0.599 |
0.595 |
0.65460 |
|
|
a. Predictors: (Constant), Entrepreneurs’ Leadership, Entrepreneurs’ Characteristics |
||||
Table 10
The P-value in the below table is 0.000 (< 0.0001). This means that the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable is significant.
|
ANOVAa |
||||||
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
123.056 |
2 |
61.528 |
143.590 |
0.000b |
|
Residual |
82.272 |
192 |
.428 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
205.328 |
194 |
|
|
|
|
|
a. Dependent Variable: Innovation Performance |
||||||
|
b. Predictors: (Constant), Entrepreneurs’ Leadership, Entrepreneurs’ Characteristics |
||||||
Table 11
This dissertation uses the following equation to run the regression analysis.
Innovation Performance = β + Entrepreneurs’ Characteristics (β) + Entrepreneurs’
Leadership (β)
P-value of entrepreneurs’ characteristics is 0.000 (< 0.0001), implying that there is a significant relationship between entrepreneurs’ characteristics and innovation performance. Also, P-value of entrepreneurs’ leadership is 0.000 (< 0.0001), suggesting a significant relationship between entrepreneurs’ leadership and innovation performance.
Based on results, the regression equation is showed in the below:
Innovation Performance = 0.149 + 0.424 Entrepreneurs’ Characteristics + 0.511 Entrepreneurs’ Leadership
|
Coefficientsa |
||||||
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
0.149 |
0.193 |
|
.774 |
0.440 |
|
Entrepreneurs’ Characteristics |
0.424 |
0.072 |
0.359 |
5.924 |
0.000 |
|
|
Entrepreneurs’ Leadership |
0.511 |
0.063 |
0.489 |
8.058 |
0.000 |
|
|
a. Dependent Variable: Innovation Performance |
||||||
Table 12
4.4 Reliability Test
As Table 12 shows, the Cronbach’s Alpha of the question group for entrepreneur’s characteristics is 0.806 (> 0.699), suggesting a high reliability of these 7 questions.
|
Reliability Statistics |
|
|
Cronbach's Alpha |
N of Items |
|
0.806 |
7 |
Table 13: Reliability of Questions for Entrepreneur’s Characteristics
The Cronbach’s Alpha of the questions for entrepreneur’s leadership is 0.895 (> 0.699), suggesting a high reliability of these 11 questions.
|
Reliability Statistics |
|
|
N of Items |
|
|
0.895 |
11 |
Table 14: Reliability of Questions for Entrepreneur’s Leadership
The Cronbach’s Alpha of the questions for innovation performance is 0.776 (> 0.699). This means that reliability of these 3 questions is high.
|
Reliability Statistics |
|
|
Cronbach's Alpha |
N of Items |
|
0.776 |
3 |
Table 15: Reliability of Questions for Innovation
4.5 Summary of Findings
The major findings of this chapter is showed in the below.
|
Relationship with innovation performance |
Correlation Analysis |
Regression Analysis |
Status |
|
Entrepreneur’s Characteristics |
0.681 Moderate |
0.000 Significant |
H0 is rejected H1 is accepted |
|
Entrepreneur’s Leadership |
0.725 Moderate |
0.000 Significant |
H0 is rejected H1 is accepted |
Table 16
5.0 Discussion
What are the differences and similarities in entrepreneurial leadership of the founders among Meituan, DiDi and Pinduoduo?
Generally, Colin Huang shows the highest level of entrepreneur’s characteristics, Wang Xing has the lowest, while Cheng Wei holds at a middle level. Colin Huang has the greatest entrepreneurial characteristics. It has great innovation and opportunity identification. Chen (2007) agree the importance of opportunity identification to entrepreneurship leadership. Furthermore, McGrath and Macmillan (2000) also agree that opportunity identification is important for an entrepreneurship leader. Also, Huang has highest responsibility-taking, which aligns with Lippitt (1987)’s argument. Huang has the highest risking taking, while Kuratko (2007) highlights that entrepreneurship leaders must have high level of risk-taking. He also has the highest level of ambition, which is related with need for achievement. Need for achievement is an essential characteristic of entrepreneurial characteristics (Kerr et al., 2017). More importantly, Huang has greatest innovativeness. McGrath and Macmillan (2000) highlight that innovativeness is an important element for entrepreneurship leadership. Utsch and Rauch (2000) illustrate that innovativeness is related with need for achievement which affect corporate performance. Moreover, He holds the greatest confidence of controlling company to address challenges. This is related with locus of control (Frank et al., 2007), which means that Huang has confidence in controlling his company to address challenges. McGrath and Macmillan (2000) agree with importance of confidence. Furthermore, Huang also shows the greatest goal orientation. Meanwhile, goal orientation is essential for entrepreneurial characteristics (McGrath and Macmillan, 2000 and Kerr et al., 2017). Based on previous studies’ argument, it is safe to say that have great level of entrepreneur’s characteristics.
However, comparing Collin Huang, Cheng Wei is relatively weak in terms of entrepreneur’s characteristics. He is weak in responsibility-taking, risk-taking, innovativeness, and goal-orientation. In terms of innovativeness, Cheng Wei’s DiDi adopts a business model very similar with Uber. This can reflect his innovativeness. Also, Wang Xing has the lowest innovativeness, which also reflects in his career. He has been stimulating Facebook, Twitter, Groupon, and Yelp. However, Collin Huang’s career path can clearly demonstrate his high innovativeness. He developed the new business model featuring consumer community, group purchase and Customer-to-Manufacture (C2M) model. This is much more innovative, creative and original than Cheng Wei and Wang Xing. Also, His PinDuoDuo only used four years to reach Alibaba’s scale, suggesting his strong characteristics.
In terms of entrepreneur’s leadership, Cheng Wei has the best performance. The most important capability he has is to integrate resources for innovation, which is the second dimension of entrepreneurship leadership in McGrath and Macmillan (2000)’s theory. Also, he is good at aligning and uniting employees, which is consistent with McGrath and Macmillan (2000)’s argument about importance of team orientation. Also, Gupta et al. (2004) and Chen (2007) also underline the importance of encouraging employees to work collaboratively. Furthermore, Cheng Wei has proficiency in acting as a model, which consistent with Covin and Slevin (1991)’s argument that entrepreneurial leaders act a model to inspire and motivate employees. Also, Cheng Wei is good at encouraging employees, which is supported by McGrath and Macmillan (2000). Moreover, Cheng Wei devises objectives and visions for innovation, which shows that he has clear goal and vision. This is critical for entrepreneurship leadership to facilitate innovation (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Furthermore, Cheng Wei has strong capabilities in identifying innovation opportunities. Swierce and Lydon (2002) agree that entrepreneurship leaders should identify opportunities to facilitate corporate performance in high technology companies.
Furthermore, Colin Huang also has the highest mean in many aspects and show his strong capabilities in the following aspects. Firstly, he has strongest performance in using effective financial and non-financial rewards. This is supported by McGrath and Macmillan (2000)’s argument. These rewards can motivate employees to have better performance (Gupta et al., 2004). Also, Colin Huang offers help for innovation opportunity identification. This is critical for entrepreneurial leadership (Swierce and Lydon, 2002). Additionally, Huang is effective in creating organisational culture and environment for innovation opportunity, which aligns with Swierce and Lydon (2002)’s argument. Wang Xing has no outstanding performance in both leadership and characteristics.
In the comparison, Wang Xing generally has a weak performance in terms of entrepreneur’s leadership and characteristics. His career path may reflect this finding. He failed his first three entrepreneurship and finally succeed in Meituan. Even though he clearly improved his capabilities and achieved personal growth during this career, some traits of entrepreneurs may never change, including need for achievement, locus of control and risk-taking propensity.
What are the impacts of entrepreneurial leadership on worker’s innovation performance?
This research finds that entrepreneurial leadership has positive impacts innovation performance. Entrepreneur’s characteristics and entrepreneur’s leadership have a positive and significant relationship with innovation performance, respectively. This finding is supported by many previous studies. Bagheri (2017) find that entrepreneurial leadership has positive relationship with innovation performance in Chinese high-tech SMEs, which is supported by Harrison (2019). Entrepreneurial leadership positively affects innovation and creativity so as to improve company performance (Harrison et al., 2019). Also, there are some relevant evidences that can be used to deduce the positive impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation performance (Cai et al., 2018 and Mishra and Misra, 2017). Thus, it is safe to say that entrepreneurial leadership has positive impacts innovation performance in Chinese high-tech industry.
How entrepreneurial leaderships contribute to innovation performance?
This research finds that entrepreneur’s characteristics and leadership contribute to innovation performance. The important leadership activities that facilitate innovation including to integrate human resources and other resources for innovation, to align and unite employees to make them work collaboratively, to promote and facilitate teamworking, to inspire and motivate employee toward more innovative behaviour, to act as a model for innovation, to encourage employees, to adopt effective financial and non-financial rewards that are effective to motivate me and other employees, to have clear objectives and vision for innovation, to offer employees help to find out innovation opportunities and to create organisational culture and environment that promotes identification of innovation opportunity. These findings are supported by many previous studies, as discussed on above.
Also, this research finds important entrepreneur’s characteristics including to have passion affected employees innovation behaviour and performance identifying innovation opportunity, to take responsibility, to take high risks, to have strong need for achievement and great ambition, to be innovative, to have strong locus of control and confidence, and to be goal oriented. These findings also are supported by many previous studies, as discussed on above.
6.0 Conclusions
6.1 Summary of Findings
This research finds that entrepreneurship leadership contributes to innovation performance. Entrepreneur’s characteristics and entrepreneur’s leadership have a positive and significant relationship with innovation performance, respectively. This research finds that entrepreneur’s characteristics and leadership contribute to innovation performance. The important leadership activities for innovation including to integrate resources for innovation, to align and unite employees for working collaboratively, to promote teamworking, to inspire and motivate employee toward more innovative behaviour, to act as a model, to encourage employees, to adopt financial and non-financial rewards, to have clear objectives and vision, to offer help and to create proper organisational culture and environment.
Also, this research finds critical entrepreneur’s characteristics including: passion affected employees innovation behaviour and performance identifying innovation opportunity, responsibility-taking, risk-taking propensity, strong need for achievement and great ambition, innovativeness, strong locus of control and confidence, and great goal orientation.
6.2 Recommendations for entrepreneurial leaderships in Chinese high-tech companies
Using those leaders who have great entrepreneurs’ characteristics and leadership is critical. A qualified entrepreneurship leader must have those important leadership skills and capabilities and critical characteristics, discussed in section 6.1. Adopting psychological tests and experiments can examine entrepreneurs’ performance and strengths in these aspects. Investors may consider the two factors when they make investment decisions.
6.3 Recommendations for Further Research
This research collects primary for three Chinese high-end companies by survey and positivism, whereas the limitation of positivism is its weakness of exploiting insights. 40.1% of variants in innovation performance cannot be explained by this research. Further research should exploit out insights by interpretivism and interviews. Furthermore, there may be mediating factors affecting the relationship between entrepreneurship leadership and innovation performance. Further research can explore out these factors by interviews.
Reference
Ackerman, L. (1985). Leadership vs. managership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 6(2), 17-19.
Bagheri, A. (2017) The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behaviour and opportunity recognition in high-technology SMEs, Journal of High Technology, 28, 159-166
Baruch, Y. (1998). Leadership - Is That What We Study? The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 100-124.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership And Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers
Cai, W., Lysova, E., Khapova, S. N., and Bosslink B. A. (2019). Does Entrepreneurial Leadership Foster Creativity Among Employees and Teams? The Mediating Role of Creative Efficacy Beliefs, Journal of Business and Psychology, 34: 203 – 217.
Chen, M. (2007). "Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: Creativity in entrepreneurial teams," Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 239-249.
CGTN (2019). Wang Xing: The 'poet entrepreneur' behind Meituan Dianping, Retrieved from: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-09-04/Wang-Xing-The-poet-entrepreneur-behind-Meituan-Dianping-JIlyHZ5y1O/index.html#:~:text=Unlike%20many%20of%20China's%20reform,Beijing's%20Tsinghua%20University%20in%202001.
Covin, J. G.,& Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.
Crowther, D. and Lancaster, G. (2008) “Research Methods: A Concise Introduction to Research in Management and Business Consultancy” Butterworth-Heinemann
Crunchbase (2020). Overview – Wei Cheng, Retrieved from: https://www.crunchbase.com/person/wei-cheng
Collins, C.J., P.J. Hanges & E.A. Locke. (2004). The relationship of achievement motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17, 95–117.
Cunningham, J. B. and Lischeron, J. (1991). "Defining entrepreneurship," Journal of Small Business Management, 29(1), 45.
Esmer, Y. and Dayi, F. (2017) Entrepreneurial Leadership: A Theoretical Framework, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 112-126
Kerr, P. S., Kerr, Xu, T. (2017). Personality Traits of Entrepreneurs: A Review of Recent Literature, Harvard Business School, Working Paper, 18 – 047.
Fernald L, W., Jr. and Solomon, G. T. (1996) ‘Entrepreneurial leadership: Oxymoron or new paradigm?’, The Journal of Management Systems, 8, 2-16.
Fernald, L. W. Jr., Solomon, G. T. and Tarabishy, A. (2005), “A new paradigm: Entrepreneurial leadership”, Southern Business Review, 30(2): p 1-10
Frank, H., M. Lueger & C. Korunka. (2007). The significance of personality in business startup intentions, startup realization and business success. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(3), 227-251.
Frese, M. (2009). Towards a psychology of entrepreneurship: An action theory perspective. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5, 437-49
Freeman, D., and Siegfried, R. L. (2015). Entrepreneurial leadership in the context of company start-up and growth. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(4), 35–39.
Gupta, V. and MacMillan, I.C. (2002). Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing a cross-cultural construct, Proceedings from the Academy of Management Science, Denver Colorado
Gupta, V., MacMillan, I. C. and Surie, G., (2004), “Entrepreneurial leadership: developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct”, Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2): p 241–260
Harrison, Burnard, K. and Paul, S. (2017) Entrepreneurial leadership in a developing economy: A skill-based analysis, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 25(2), 1-41
Harrison, C., Pual, S., and Burnard, K. (2019) Entrepreneurial leadership: A Systematic Literature Review. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 235-264.
Koleski, K. (2017) The 13th Five-Year Plan, [online] Available at: < https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/The%2013th%20Five-Year%20Plan_Final_2.14.17_Updated%20(002).pdf>. [Accessed on 10 July 2020]
Korunka, C., H. Frank, M. Lueger & J. Mugler. (2003). The entrepreneurial personality in the context of resources, environment, and the startup process—A configurational approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 23-42
Lippitt, G.L. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurial leadership: A performing art’. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 21, 3, 264-270.
Macrotrends (2020). Pinduoduo Revenue 2018-2020, Retrieved from: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PDD/pinduoduo/revenue
McGrath, R.G. and McMillan, I. (2000). The Entrepreneurial Mindset.: Harvard Business School Press
Mishra, P., Kumar, R. and Misra, K. R. (2017). Entrepreneurial Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Executives and Non-executives, Procedia Computer Science, 122, 71 – 78.
Myers, M.D. (2008) “Qualitative Research in Business & Management” SAGE Publications
Prnewswire (2019). Meituan to Showcase Autonomous Delivery Technologies at CES 2019, Retrieved from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/meituan-to-showcase-autonomous-delivery-technologies-at-ces-2019-300772873.html
Rowold, R. and A. Rohmann, (2009). "Relationships between leadership styles and followers’ emotional experience and effectiveness in the voluntary sector," Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 270-286.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) “Research Methods for Business Students” 6th edition, Pearson Education Limited
Shane, S. and S. Venkataraman, (2000). "The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research," The Academy of Management Review, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 217-226.
Singh, S. (2019). Give Way Uber, DiDi Signals Its Ambitions And They Encompass Wheels On Every Continent, Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarwantsingh/2019/01/30/give-way-uber-didi-signals-its-ambitions-and-they-encompass-wheels-on-every-continent/#58d471f4350f
Surie, G. and A. Ashley, (2008). "Integrating pragmatism and ethics in entrepreneurial leadership for sustainable value creation," Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 235-246
Swiercz, P. M., and Lydon, S. R. (2002). Entrepreneurial leadership in high-tech firms: A field study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(7), 380–389.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Utsch, A.& A. Rauch. (2000). Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between achievement orientation and venture performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 45-62.
Wang, Z. M. and Satow, T. (1994). "Leadership styles and organizational effectiveness in Chinese – Japanese joint ventures," Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 31-36.
Wilson, J. (2010) “Essentials of Business Research: A Guide to Doing Your Research Project” SAGE Publications, p.7
Xinhua (2020) ‘Economic Watch: High-tech manufacturing shines as China's industrial profits exceed 6 trln yuan’, [Online] Available at: < http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/03/c_138752151.htm >. [Accessed on 20 June 2020]
Appendix - Questionnaires
Dear respondents
I am student and collecting data for my final year dissertation. This is the latest research before my graduation. It will take you about 15 minutes, please help me. Thank you.
This research aims at the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behaviour and opportunity in China’s high-tech industry. Its purpose is to identify the casual relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and employee’s innovation performance and find out an effective entrepreneurial leadership for innovation. The expected results are to inform Chinese high-tech companies the effective entrepreneurial leadership that can contribute to innovation.
I pay heavy attention to ethical issues and strictly obeys the University’s ethical conducts. It was an innominate and confidential research that did not collect any information about your identity and involved no debriefing. The data was planned to be destroyed by 1st November. Furthermore, this research was honest and straightforward. You have the right to withdraw from this research or their data before 28th August 2020. However, please complete the questionnaires.
I am grateful for your participants.
Demographic Information
How old are you?
Below 30
31 – 40
41 – 50
Above 50
What is your gender
Male
Female
What is your monthly income in your company? (CNY)
Below 20,000
20,001 – 40,000
40,001 – 60,000
60,001 – 80,000
Above 80,000
What is your education level?
Below bachelor
Bachelor
Master
Doctor
Hong long have you been working in your company?
Below 3 year
3 – 6 years
6 - 9 years
Above 9 years
What is your job position in your company?
Top manager
Middle manager
Low level manager
Employees
Please choose your option toward the following statement
|
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Entrepreneur’ Characteristics
My CEO’s passion affected my innovation behaviour and performance identifying innovation opportunity
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO can take responsibility.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO can take risks.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO is ambitious.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO is innovative
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO has strong confidence that he can control our company to address challenges.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO is goal oriented.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Entrepreneur’s leadership
My CEO integrated our company’s human resources and other resources for innovation.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO aligns and unites employees to make them work collaboratively.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO promotes and facilitates teamworking
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO inspires and motivates me toward more innovative behaviour
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO acts as a model for innovation.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO encourages employees and me.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO uses effective financial and non-financial rewards that are effective to motivate me and other employees.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO has clear objectives and vision for innovation
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO offered me help to find out innovation opportunities
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My organisational culture and environment the CEO create is helpful to identifying innovation opportunity
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My CEO has strong capabilities of identifying innovation opportunity
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Innovation Performance
My innovation performance is improved by our CEO
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
My team’s innovation performance is improved by our CEO
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Our company has a better innovation performance due to our CEO
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Appendix -Results
195 data
|
Descriptive Statistics |
|||||
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
|
C1 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.5385 |
1.21939 |
|
C2 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.5846 |
1.35721 |
|
C3 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.5846 |
1.33423 |
|
C4 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.8718 |
1.21798 |
|
C5 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.3026 |
1.27050 |
|
C6 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6051 |
1.28952 |
|
C7 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.9282 |
1.29431 |
|
L1 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.9026 |
1.32219 |
|
L2 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
4.1077 |
1.30174 |
|
L3 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.8205 |
1.47962 |
|
L4 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6359 |
1.44869 |
|
L5 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.9231 |
1.48158 |
|
L6 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6564 |
1.25587 |
|
L7 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6974 |
1.36440 |
|
L8 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.5590 |
1.41434 |
|
L9 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.1692 |
1.33048 |
|
L10 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.4308 |
1.36566 |
|
L11 |
195 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.5487 |
1.32441 |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
195 |
||||
|
Reliability Statistics |
|
|
Cronbach's Alpha |
N of Items |
|
.776 |
3 |
|
Reliability Statistics |
|
|
Cronbach's Alpha |
N of Items |
|
.806 |
7 |
|
Cronbach's Alpha |
N of Items |
|
0.895 |
11 |
DiDi
|
Descriptive Statistics |
|||||
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
|
C1 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.5385 |
1.07641 |
|
C2 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.3846 |
1.24615 |
|
C3 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.2615 |
1.07931 |
|
C4 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
4.0154 |
.94360 |
|
C5 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.2923 |
1.27136 |
|
C6 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.4000 |
1.14291 |
|
C7 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.7385 |
1.18950 |
|
L1 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
4.4154 |
.99832 |
|
L2 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
4.4000 |
1.16994 |
|
L3 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
4.3846 |
1.07081 |
|
L4 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
4.6154 |
.97935 |
|
L5 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
4.4615 |
1.23841 |
|
L6 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.8308 |
1.03937 |
|
L7 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.8154 |
1.40192 |
|
L8 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.9385 |
1.18423 |
|
L9 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.2154 |
1.19232 |
|
L10 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.5231 |
1.30033 |
|
L11 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.7385 |
1.20256 |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
65 |
||||
MeiTuan
|
Descriptive Statistics |
|||||
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
|
C1 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.4462 |
1.27513 |
|
C2 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.6000 |
1.33229 |
|
C3 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.7077 |
1.38883 |
|
C4 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.7385 |
1.41727 |
|
C5 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.1846 |
1.14417 |
|
C6 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6308 |
1.35288 |
|
C7 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.9692 |
1.28658 |
|
L1 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6615 |
1.40620 |
|
L2 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.9231 |
1.40654 |
|
L3 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.3846 |
1.65541 |
|
L4 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.0308 |
1.27438 |
|
L5 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.5692 |
1.52037 |
|
L6 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.5077 |
1.31248 |
|
L7 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.4308 |
1.36896 |
|
L8 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.1846 |
1.51958 |
|
L9 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.0308 |
1.27438 |
|
L10 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.2154 |
1.36350 |
|
L11 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.3846 |
1.38848 |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
65 |
||||
PinDuoDuo
|
Descriptive Statistics |
|||||
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
|
C1 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6308 |
1.30587 |
|
C2 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.7692 |
1.47658 |
|
C3 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
2.7846 |
1.46301 |
|
C4 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.8615 |
1.24846 |
|
C5 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.4308 |
1.39160 |
|
C6 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.7846 |
1.35199 |
|
C7 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.0769 |
1.39539 |
|
L1 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6308 |
1.38710 |
|
L2 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
4.0000 |
1.28695 |
|
L3 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6923 |
1.48874 |
|
L4 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.2615 |
1.51324 |
|
L5 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.7385 |
1.53375 |
|
L6 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.6308 |
1.38710 |
|
L7 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.8462 |
1.30181 |
|
L8 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.5538 |
1.43648 |
|
L9 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.2615 |
1.51324 |
|
L10 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.5538 |
1.42556 |
|
L11 |
65 |
1.00 |
5.00 |
3.5231 |
1.37053 |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
65 |
||||
