SME manager’s perceived cooperative support,commitment and trust on learning and entrepreneurship orientation for firm innovation

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The upsurge of the SME failure rate in developing economies has triggered the need to foster entrepreneurial skills, awareness, and appropriate knowledge. One of the ways of effective learning is through coming together in a cooperative.

OBJECTIVE:

This study focuses on analyzing the influence of members’ cooperative support, commitment, and trust on members’ firms’ entrepreneurship and learning orientation. The study also assesses the association of entrepreneurship and learning orientation on their firm innovation performance. The study further examines the mediating role of entrepreneurship and learning orientation on perceived cooperative support, commitment, and trust-innovation performance relationship.

METHODS:

SPSS was used to calculate descriptive statistics and the partial least square (PLS) structural equation modeling employing Smart PLS software 23.

RESULTS:

The general results indicate that perceived cooperative support, commitment, and trust have a significant and positive association with entrepreneurship and learning orientation, except for trust versus entrepreneurship association with entrepreneurship orientation displayed insignificant results. Entrepreneurship and learning orientation confirmed to have a strong significant positive influence on firm innovation performance. The entrepreneurship and learning orientation significantly mediate perceived cooperative support, commitment, and trust-innovation performance relationship.

CONCLUSIONS:

Fostering saving and credits cooperatives societies should not just aim at providing financial support to its members but create associations that will orient entrepreneurial spirit to its members and attract members wise utilization of the funds accessed.

Keywords

Members’ cooperative support commitment trust learning orientation entrepreneurship orientation innovation performance

Juma Buhimila Mabula Ph.D. candidate, School of Economy and Management, Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT), Harbin, PR China. His main research interests are in the areas of Financial Literacy, Micro-, Small- and medium enterprise development and entrepreneurship.

Prof. Han Dongping Professor, Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT), Weihai, PR China. Dean and Ph.D. supervisor at the HIT’s School of Management. Her main research interests are corporate governance and management control.

Charles Denis Chivundu-Ngulube Ph.D. candidate, Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT), Harbin, PR China. His main research interests are in the areas of commercialization of smallholder agriculture, enterprise development, entrepreneurship in the agribusiness sector and strategic management of organizations.

1 Introduction

The high level of unemployment and poverty in Africa have triggered policymakers’ interest to increase their support in sensitizing high impact entrepreneurship and acquisition of appropriate knowledge of operating micro and small businesses to attain economic growth and creation of jobs [1]. Scholars confirm that there is a limited number of emerging enterprises in developing economies, characterized by a high mortality rate and stunted growth for SMEs which survives [2]. The situation stem as a good indicator of a pressing need to prepare competent entrepreneurs. The lack of access to and use of financial services, failure in enterprise management systems have been attributed to inadequate awareness, lack of knowledge, and entrepreneurial skills among entrepreneurs [3]. The situation is coupled with the myth that only experiential learning is enough for entrepreneurs to have had a costly experience for most micro and small business owners in developing economies [4]. Managers and owners of small businesses, especially in developing countries, lack access to formal avenues of developing and reshaping their entrepreneurial skills [5]. And most of the suppliers of skills and knowledge advancements seem to target audiences who are deemed to be current or potential customers for their services. One notable form of acquiring business skills and information updates is through participation in cooperatives [6]. Despite Savings and Credits Cooperatives Societies (SACCOS) to associate members with an avenue of low rated and service terms loans, they have become an agent of collaborations and training for its members in terms of sharing experiences, training designed for skills and knowledge development [7]. SACCOS are considered to play a critical role in fostering entrepreneurship in terms of financial capital tailored to the specific needs and act as a hub for information updates for members [8]. Many scholars have evidenced that for members to participate in cooperatives they are able to address many aspects of job creations, poverty reduction strategies, access to education, networking and community participation [9 –12]. Cooperatives are hypothesized as learning avenues, whereby members learn through engaging in social processes and connections while pursuing a common objective. Literature proves that learning, training, and education are essential core objectives of cooperatives [13, 14]. Cooperatives have proved to a center for acquiring business skills and enhance member’s self-awareness [15].

[16] argues that for the firm to have a potential ongoing competitive advantage, they have to implement a dynamic process embedding entrepreneurial initiatives that sensitize an ongoing flow of ideas [17]. Identifies some constraints for educating entrepreneurs in developing economies as inadequate curricula and programs for study, methods of learning are wrongly applied, poor introduction to enterprise education, lack of business and education networks and poor ICT infrastructure. Co-operative education and training are profound for skills dissemination, knowledge improvement and creating of member’s positive attitude. The knowledge of business management and entrepreneurial skills is conveyed to employees and members through training [18]. Effective education and training environment for a cooperative enables the creation of enlightened and responsible leaders [19]. As its name depicts cooperation brings together members with diverse interests in shared common objectives [20] in their research discovered that collaboration which encompasses practices reflecting the employee’s important contributions to the work design practices through rigorous socialization, training, and development. And the collaboration has a stronger effect on satisfying employees and the perceived organizational performance factor. Analysis of managerial skills and their learning styles embracing innovation concept is of apt importance. The employees as it is to SACCOS members’ and their skills comprise of potential developmental innovation which triggers proper management and involving employees in their diverse groupings of age, education, and competencies. Therefore, manager expertise and competencies will enable the development of cooperation and the development of an optimal communication model involving the diverse groups [21]. The use of social networks that may be equaled to cooperatives can identify innovation clusters constructed as a one-mode network. At the organization level the calculated number of links that the organization has with others, the betweenness and centrality measures suggest a particular research group be an important actor [22]. Fostering entrepreneurship predisposition dimensions of proactiveness and risk-taking have proved to have a significant effect on new venture performance and innovativeness [23]. The inconsistency of findings on the effect of entrepreneurial orientation, knowledge creation and innovation capability on the performance of the firm triggered [24] a new study model. In their model, they combine the resource-based theory which focuses on innovation capability and entrepreneurial orientation. and the theory of knowledge creation and created model which resulted in a positive impact of innovation capability and knowledge creation on firm performance and innovation capability.

In developing economies, the emergent of SACCOS has had the purpose of saving members with financing aids, but hard financial help without appropriate skills and knowledge on how to optimally manage the funds has led to many failures. And most of the studies in developing countries related to SACCOS and other micro-finance companies have a focus on bridging a gap of financial access to entrepreneurs. Many scholars, when it comes to SACCOS, have focused on the credit transaction network and the risk profile of such loans. Many focused on the financial benefits that individuals and firms derive from these organizations [25 –27]. This study argues that giving financial resources to people who cannot manage it properly will end up in suboptimal investments. While pursuing increase finance accessibility to entrepreneurs, SACCOS provide business skills, train and provide updates on the use of information technology for transforming their venture. Entrepreneurs need proper numeracy skills, understanding how to prepare effective business plans, poses the right skills for venture management, financial management skills, managing time, managing stress, marketing and recruitment [28]. Very few studies have endeavored to capture the member’s soft capability that has harnessed as a result of participating in such a cooperative [8, 29]. Even though cooperative learning has been focused on technical know-how to run the cooperatives, there is ample evidence that learning takes place between members [30]. This study investigates the role of SACCOS in fostering entrepreneurship and learning orientation as reflected in firm innovation performance. Specifically, this study focusses on basing of member’s perceived cooperative support, commitment and trust what are the roles of SACCOS in fostering entrepreneurship and learning orientation? What is the impact of acquired entrepreneurship orientation in fostering firm innovation performance? Do entrepreneurship and learning orientation mediate the cooperative support, commitment and trust-firm innovation performance relationship in developing economies?

The idea behind this study bank on the cooperative as entrepreneurship learning space, and since the SACCOS offers easy access to credit service, most of the members are inclined towards the establishment of ventures for making returns and creating an ability to service their loans. Therefore, with this in mind, we identify SACCOS members who own micro or small businesses based on their perceived cooperative support, commitment and trust and then evaluate how their participation in cooperatives has contributed to their ventures’ entrepreneurship and learning orientation. And then study examine how such entrepreneurship and learning orientation is reflected in their firm innovation performance.

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Overview SACCOS in Tanzania

The cooperatives in Tanzania date back on the colonial era pioneered by farmers who started informal cooperative in 1925, aiming at obtaining a share of profits of their crops. The first registered cooperative was Kilimanjaro Native Cooperatives in 1993, which increased sales of coffee [31]. The country enacted cooperative societies Act in 1991 was the beginning of the reform journey, and the cooperative development policy was developed in 1997, and later various kind of SACCOS emerged, ranging from food crop producers, cash crops, traders, fishers, teachers, and armies SACCOS [32].

The cooperative movement in Tanzania currently has a four-tier structure as per the Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 and the Act has flexibility in the sense that it recognizes federation and primary cooperatives as the elementary structure of the movement [33]. The enactment of the Cooperatives Societies Act, 2003, and its implementation gave birth to the confederation of SACCOS under the name Savings and Credit Union League of Tanzania (SCCULT) [31]. The Tanzania Federation of cooperatives (TFC) stands as the apex structure of cooperative in Tanzania and is under control of its members. TFC incorporates all cooperatives ranging from primary cooperatives, cooperative unions, and apexes. The federation has the responsibility of promoting, representing, coordinates, and serves the development of cooperatives in the country. TFC act indecently, it is a non-political, non-governmental, and non-partisan organization which abides on the international cooperative principles, and it takes part in international cooperative alliance (34)]. The SACCOS is a popular and noticeable form of cooperative organization in Tanzania. The SCCULT as organized under free membership, some of the SACCOS are not members, but they are members’ of TFC. The statistics show a continuous growth of SACCOS. This growth is reflected in increases in their number, the number of members raises increased shares, deposit increases, increase in savings, and number loan facilities increase [35]. In 2005 Tanzania moved further to establish co-operative financial regulations in 2005, and the qualified SACCOS are under the Bank of Tanzania Supervision [35].

The new policy in Tanzania recognizes and promotes the provision of education and training [18]. Co-operative education and training also reflect the attention of the international Co-operative Alliance (ICA), which has seven guiding principles, and the fifth one is typically focused on education, training, and information. The principles provide guidelines for co-operatives in the manner of offering education and training to members, representatives, management, and employees for effective contributions towards shared benefits [36].

[37] Identifies common strategic areas of the learning environment, which can foster learning in a cooperative environment. While examining the potential of collective learning in youth-focused cooperatives in Uganda and Lesotho, Hartley, 2014 propose that co-operative members do learn together in various combination of internal and external processes. This may include participation in co-operative activities, going for external training and the individual interactions within the co-operative network and functioning inside the communal philosophic context. The collective learning is sought to be facilitated by both similarities and differences of members in the cooperative [38].

2.2 Conceptual framework

Figure 1 presents the proposed theoretical model used in this study. It suggests that member’s perceived cooperative support (PCS), commitment (CMT), and Trust may influence both entrepreneurship (EO) and learning orientations (LO). The two orientation variables may, in turn, affect the firm innovative performance (INO). The model also displays the mediating influence of the entrepreneurship and learning orientation variables on member’s perceived cooperative support, commitment, and trust-firm innovation performance relationship.

Fig. 1

The proposed theoretical model. PCS = Perceived organization support, CMT = Commitment, EO = entrepreneurship orientation, LO = Learning orientation, INO = Innovation, EO” = entrepreneurship orientation mediating role, LO” = learning orientation mediate role.

The theoretical context of this study draws light from the theory of situated learning by [39]. The theory of situated learning focuses on the social process of learning by people who are interacting together. The idea behind this theory originally stressed learning happens in apprenticeships among experts and novice. Legitimate peripheral participation was considered to be part of the process of learning. the idea was further extended towards the concept of communities of practice whereby members learn together and generate common understanding and meanings [40]. Based on the fact that cooperatives are formed by individuals who wish to start or expand their businesses to improve their living conditions they are considered to be entrepreneurs and by participating in the cooperative they form a learning space [41]. SACCOS are considered to play a critical role in fostering entrepreneurship. They do so by delivering responsive, low cost and market-oriented financial services targeting their member’s specific needs [8]. According to [2] the entrepreneurship training programs are inevitable to create personal entrepreneurial traits and then potential entrepreneurs will be able to act and have a high percentage of the likelihood for venture success. SACCOS has proved to be a vehicle for providing entrepreneurship education and has proved to positively impart improvement of management skills, acquisition of credits for startups, formulation of business plan [8]. It is stipulated in cooperatives policy that they have to provide education for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees [29].

2.3 Perceived cooperative support

Members perceived cooperative support is the concept that emanates from the employee’s organization support. Within cooperatives, even though it is not a full-time workplace for members, the support and care it exert to its members can foster mutual benefits vertically and horizontally [42]. The theory of organization support proposes that organizations are presupposed to value and care about their employee wellbeing in order to meet the social-emotional desires [43]. The theories of organization support to its members embrace the idea that the extent of the support that is exerted by the organization to its members has a positive influence on their commitment and focus [44]. Therefore, the degree to which the cooperative supervisors value the member’s contribution and care about their wellbeing, will reflect on the member’s perceptions and determine the extent of belongingness they exert toward the cooperative activities [45]. Therefore, we believe that, if cooperatives support for their members is perceived to be high, the empathy towards participation in various cooperative initiatives including learning and entrepreneurial activities will also be high. As the cooperative confer support to the members, they are likely to settle their belief on it and therefore, more propensity to learning is created. The cooperative management support upholds a sense of cohesion and learning from each other among its members and in turn, the resultant effect can be reflected through their entrepreneurial venture management.

We therefore propose the following:

Members Perceived cooperative support has a positive association with entrepreneurship orientation

Members Perceived cooperative support has a positive association with a firm learning orientation

2.4 Members trust and commitment

Member’s commitment to the organization can be defined as the ‘attitudinal commitment to the organization” [46]. The commitment is measured in affective, normative, and continuance commitment. This study only considers emotional and affective attachment to the organization, which emphasizes on members who enjoy a strong commitment to the organization. Trust can be measured in attitudes and trusting behaviors. Based on the cooperative nature, the chairman plays a key role in collecting information, marketing, and hence, the viability of the cooperation is enhanced [47]. Therefore, trusting in a chairperson has roles that have been taken as a measure of trust proxy in the cooperative.

Scholars have evidenced that trust brings commitment [44]. Particularly in cooperative members, trust tends to increase member’s affective commitment. The reasons may be attributed to member’s trust in each other and trust in the work of the management they can synchronize and constructively work together, and therefore, attain quality decisions and solve the problem together [48]. Commitment and trust can enhance collective entrepreneurship learning empathy from among members and from the cooperative management. We, therefore, argue that:

Members commitment has a positive association with entrepreneurship orientation

Member’s commitment has a positive association with a firm learning orientation

Members’ trust has a positive association with firm entrepreneurship orientation

Members’ trust has a positive association with a firm learning orientation

2.5 Entrepreneurship orientation and innovation performance

Entrepreneurial orientation can be defined as “the processes, practices, and decision-making activities that lead to new entry” [49]. An entrepreneurial organization is expected to engage in product-market innovation, undertakes considerable risky ventures, proactiveness in innovation and outperform competitors; these are the characteristics deemed to enhance business performance in the current business environment with the shortened product and the business cycle [50]. Nourishing entrepreneurial views and behavior generate numerous diversity vital hinges of performance of entrepreneurship oriented firms [51]. Having a high level of entrepreneurship orientation will result in more innovation, the undertaking of more risky and uncertain projects with higher returns increases the range of possible performance outcomes [52]. Entrepreneurship orientation and market orientation have been examined by scholars and resulted in a positive association on product innovation through research and development R&D [53]. Also, the impact of market and entrepreneurship orientation and learning organization on SMEs’ innovation development for building a successful competitive advantage was proved to have a significant influence on market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation SME innovation [54]. Total quality management was used as a mediator on the relationship between entrepreneurship orientation and organization performance [55]. The PLS-SEM model created displayed significant mediating role of total quality management on entrepreneurship orientation-organization performance relationship, the results imply that organization EO and total quality management as innovative strategies could help organizations to improve their performance and achieve competitive advantage.

Venture manager’s commitment to learning and trusting on the systematic support of the learning space is likely to increase the venture’s creativity and innovations. It is, therefore, argued that:

Entrepreneurship orientation has a positive association with firm innovation performance

Entrepreneurship orientation mediating role

Entrepreneurship orientation mediates the perceived cooperative support-firm innovation relationship

Entrepreneurship orientation mediates the commitment -firm innovation relationship

Entrepreneurship orientation mediates the cooperative member’s trust-firm innovation relationship

2.6 Learning orientation and innovation performance

Learning orientation represents organization norms and characteristics that enable the firm to continuously test the assumptions that cage the firm’s relationship with its internal and external environment [56]. Learning orientation is also conceptualized as an organization-wide action for generating and applying knowledge to improve its competitive advantage [57]. Entrepreneurial learning orientation encompasses a commitment to learning, shared vision, and open-mindedness [58] and in some instances learning orientation is used synonymously to dynamic capabilities. In the word of turbulent, rapidly changing and competitive market environment, learning orientation help in making the future by unchecking it’s past [59]. Entrepreneurship learning orientation is vital for firm survival [60], and this will cater to the witnessed higher mortality rate of the one-year business startup [61]. Learning orientation enables entrepreneurs to have the ability to acquire and process new knowledge faster than competitors’ hence attain a stable competitive advantage and superior performance [62]. It facilitates the process of managerial decision making as it provides an understanding of the myriad variables, processes relationships and market environment for offering correct customer value assessment, and choices that lead to desirable business performance [63]. Also, the learning-oriented organization tends to adopt participatory decision making, which may lead to improved firm performance [64]. Learning orientation positions the firm on knowing the nature of the firm weaknesses and strengths, trigger a superior capability to work out its competitive advantage [65]. As a result, business is enabled to react timely to new environmental opportunities and threats [66]. In the world of information and technology commitment to learning positions firms to possess state-of-the-art technology which may be reflected by the organization’s success in various activities like, innovations, financial management, marketing, and products and services improvements [67]. The applicability of entrepreneurship education to other learning cadres rather than business students was demonstrated by [68]. Where they created a model that analyze innovativeness and attitudes towards entrepreneurship intentions for engineering students, the study found that it is not enough to be aware of what to do to be an entrepreneur rather cultivating self-efficacy, entrepreneurial attitudes, innovativeness environment, and practices are important. Learning motivation was found to strongly associate with innovativeness which results in enhancing entrepreneurship intentions. [69] when analyzing firm internal capabilities included entrepreneurship orientation as one of the proxy and was found to contribute significantly to firm financial and non-financial performance.

Therefore, it is believed that all the empathy for organization learning orientation will lead to firm innovation performance. Innovation performance engrosses the organization, customers and its suppliers by bringing new processes, new technology, new methods, new products and services, and new business development techniques [70]. Enterprise innovation performance is used to measure the level of enterprise innovation activities or results. Innovation performance refers to the degree that the enterprises take original ideas to the market encompassing the performance of the invention. Therefore, we propose that:

Learning orientation has a positive association with firm innovation performance

Learning orientation mediating role

Learning orientation mediates the member’s perceived cooperative support-firm innovation performance relationship

Learning orientation mediates the cooperative member’s commitment-firm innovation relationship

Learning orientation mediates the cooperative member’s trust-firm innovation relationship

3 Methodology

This study employs a survey design and the data was collected in Dar es Salaam regions in Tanzania. SACCOS are accounted to be the second of the thriven type of cooperative in the country surpassed by agricultural cooperatives [35]. The focus of the study was on urban-based SACCOS. These SACCOS have limited capacity, outreach, and access to capital, and in most cases, they tend to suffer from lack of staff and appropriate technology [71]. This study was more concerned with the in-reach capacity of the SACCOS in terms of providing appropriate training, information updates, and creating a collective learning environment among members. The other criteria for choosing the survey location to clinch on the fact that the region includes the high level of awareness of SACCOS operations in urban areas as the proxy for the study was to explore the learning empathy. The researcher employed convenient sampling constrained by time, proximity, and finances. The researcher visited the SACCOS premises and was able to provide questionnaires to the members. The sample of respondents acceptability was restricted to members who own SMEs.

The data collection was undertaken using a questionnaire and in most cases, the researchers had to distribute the questionnaires and collect the responses on spot to avoid response delay, misplacements, and second thought responses. As shown in Table 1, the researchers reached 17 SACCOS and managed to get responses from 348 members. The view collection was done such that only members who operate a business were eligible to be included in the analysis because the analysis is about fostering entrepreneurship and learning orientation experiences of members’ businesses as they participate in SACCOS. The study made an assumption that having micro or small business was associated with entrepreneurship. 271 (a response rate of 77.9%) turned out to be useful responses. The two-sample independent t-test for the early against the late responses including both the study and demographic variables was used [72]. The results found no significant divergencies in the variable of interest and demographic information mean based on response timing, this makes non -response bias unlikely to be a threat.

Table 1
Demographic information and participants resposes

Participants Respondents response counts and percentage in parenthesis

Strongly agree Agree Somehow agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total count

Level of Primary School 38(14.0%) 612(41.3) 423(28.5) 274(18.5) 86(5.8) 87(5.9) 1482

Education Secondary School 154(56.8%) 3,347(55.7) 1871(31.2) 483(8.0) 204(3.4) 101(1.7) 6,006

1^st degree 57(21.0%) 1,431(64.4) 519(23.3) 300(13.5) 215(9.7) 58(2.6) 2,223

Masters 21(7.8%) 408(49.8) 178(21.7 103(12.6) 86910.5) 44(5.4) 819

PhD 1(0.4%) 31(79.5) 4(10.3) 3(7.7) 1(2.6) 0(0.0) 39

Gender Male 144(53.1%) 3,135(55.8) 713(12.7) 672(12.0) 417(7.4) 679(12.1) 5,616

female 127(46.9%) 2,391(48.3) 1,722(34.8) 593(12.0) 203(4.1) 449(0.8) 4,953

Age Below 19

20–29 13(4.8%) 220(43.4) 112(22.1) 81(16.0) 59(11.6) 35(6.9) 507

30–39 125(46.1%) 2,412(49.5) 1,544(31.7) 417(8.6) 243(5.0) 259(5.3) 4,875

40–49 93(34.3%) 1,427(39.3) 1,009(27.8) 702(19.4) 334(9.2) 155(4.2) 3,627

50–59 34(12.5%) 716(54.0) 348(26.2) 164(12.4) 47(3.5) 51(3.8) 1,326

60–69 6(2.2%) 107(45.7) 85(36.3) 30(12.8) 5(2.1) 7(2.9)) 234

Business size Micro 159(58.7%) 2,934(47.3) 1,571(25.3) 624(10.1) 601(9.7) 471(7.5) 6,201

Small 87(32.1%) 2,021(59.6) 786(23.2) 347(10.2) 113(3.3) 126(3.7) 3,393

Medium 25(9.2%) 437(44.8) 326(33.4) 107(10.0) 57(5.8) 48(4.9) 975

		Participants	Respondents response counts and percentage in parenthesis
Level of	Primary School	38(14.0%)	612(41.3)	423(28.5)	274(18.5)	86(5.8)	87(5.9)	1482
Education	Secondary School	154(56.8%)	3,347(55.7)	1871(31.2)	483(8.0)	204(3.4)	101(1.7)	6,006
	1^st degree	57(21.0%)	1,431(64.4)	519(23.3)	300(13.5)	215(9.7)	58(2.6)	2,223
	Masters	21(7.8%)	408(49.8)	178(21.7	103(12.6)	86910.5)	44(5.4)	819
	PhD	1(0.4%)	31(79.5)	4(10.3)	3(7.7)	1(2.6)	0(0.0)	39
Gender	Male	144(53.1%)	3,135(55.8)	713(12.7)	672(12.0)	417(7.4)	679(12.1)	5,616
	female	127(46.9%)	2,391(48.3)	1,722(34.8)	593(12.0)	203(4.1)	449(0.8)	4,953
	Age	Below 19
	20–29	13(4.8%)	220(43.4)	112(22.1)	81(16.0)	59(11.6)	35(6.9)	507
	30–39	125(46.1%)	2,412(49.5)	1,544(31.7)	417(8.6)	243(5.0)	259(5.3)	4,875
	40–49	93(34.3%)	1,427(39.3)	1,009(27.8)	702(19.4)	334(9.2)	155(4.2)	3,627
	50–59	34(12.5%)	716(54.0)	348(26.2)	164(12.4)	47(3.5)	51(3.8)	1,326
	60–69	6(2.2%)	107(45.7)	85(36.3)	30(12.8)	5(2.1)	7(2.9))	234
Business size	Micro	159(58.7%)	2,934(47.3)	1,571(25.3)	624(10.1)	601(9.7)	471(7.5)	6,201
	Small	87(32.1%)	2,021(59.6)	786(23.2)	347(10.2)	113(3.3)	126(3.7)	3,393
	Medium	25(9.2%)	437(44.8)	326(33.4)	107(10.0)	57(5.8)	48(4.9)	975

Table 1 also displays more than 70% of the participants have just basic education of primary and secondary school. The rest of the participants either possesses a bachelor’s or master’s degree level of education. Only one respondent had a Ph.D. level of study. The motivation to participate in SACCOS seems to fall as the level of education gets higher. The other explanation for this might be those who possess micro and small business ventures are revealed to be less academic-oriented. The number of males who participated in the sample of this study is higher by 6.28% than the female counterparts. Though the gender disparity is not too high, this depiction still portrays male dominance in SACCOS’ participation and the establishment of entrepreneurial ventures. In terms of age, a total of 86.62% concentrate on the years 30–49, very few members fall in the age interval of 60–69, this indicates that these SACCOS are dominated by the still active, productive and energetic population who may be flexible to learn and unlearn some new insights. Microbusinesses dominate the types of businesses that are run by these entrepreneurs by 58.67%, and only 9.23% are medium enterprises, the rest are small venture managers’. Also Table 1, shows, throughout the entire demographic information response category of “strongly agree” surpass the other responses, and the trend follows a percentage reduction as we move towards “strongly disagree” responses exception of primary school level of education, male gender, the age gap between 30–39 and 60–69 and the small sizes firm owners, the aspects having more “strongly disagree” responses than “disagree” responses. The study used Partial least square structural equation modeling to analyze the significance of the hypothesized relationship.

3.1 Variable definition and source

Table 2 shows various variables that are used in the study and where they were adopted. All variables were in the form of Likert scale questions that asked respondents to respond on a personal basis. All the scales had 5 point Likert scale questions.

Table 2
Variables, Discriptions and Sources

Item Description Source

PCS Perceived cooperative support Jussila, Byrne, &Tuominen, 2012; Österberg &Nilsson, 2009)

PCS1 My cooperative cares about my well-being

PCS2 My cooperatives strongly consider my goals and values

PCS3 My cooperative shows great concern for me

PCS4 My cooperative cares about my opinion

PCS5 My cooperative is willing to help me if I need a special favor

PCS6 Help is available from my cooperative when I have a problem

PCS7 My cooperative would forgive an honest mistake on my part

CMT Members commitment to the Cooperative Österberg &Nilsson, 2009

CMT1 I treat the cooperative business as my own

CMT2 Feeling proud of cooperative development

CMT3 I have high emotion attachment to the cooperative

CMT4 I treat cooperation members as family

CMT5 I am proud to tell others of my cooperative membership

Trust Members trust in the Cooperative Martins, Faria, Prearo, &Arruda, 2017; Österberg &Nilsson, 2009

Trust1 I trust in cooperative leader’s character

Trust2 I trust in the cooperative management ability

Trust3 Cooperative has a great reputation for being reliable

Trust4 The leaders are honest and fair

Trust5 They have high integrity

EO Entrepreneurship Orientation De Clercq, Honig, &Martin, 2013; Keskin, 2006; Nasution, Mavondo, Matanda, &Ndubisi, 2011; K. Y. Wang, Hermens, Huang, &Chelliah, 2015

EO1 Initiating change upon which competitors react

EO2 First to introduce new products/services

EO3 Take a very competitive oriented approach

EO4 Strongly emphasis on R&D and innovation

EO5 Strongly emphasis on new product development

EO6 First to imprement innovative process

EO7 Getting involved in high-risk projects

EO8 explore business environment carefully

LO Learning orientation De Clercq, Honig, &Martin, 2013; Keskin, 2006; Nasution, Mavondo, Matanda, &Ndubisi, 2011; K. Y. Wang, Hermens, Huang, &Chelliah, 2015

Open-mindedness

LO1 Reflect critically on the shared assumptions made about customers

LO2 Continually questioning the way market place is perceived

LO3 Continually judge the quality of decisions and activities overtime

Commitment to learning

LO4 Consider the ability to learn as key to competitive advantage

LO5 Learning is key to improvement

Shared Vision

LO6 Agreement in organization vison

LO7 Partnering in changing the direction of the business

LO8 Bring about the commonality of purpose in the organization

INO Innovation Performance Andersson et al., 2011; Camisón &Villar-López, 2014; Hogan, Soutar, McColl-Kennedy, &Sweeney, 2011; Lin, Chen, &Kuan-Shun Chiu, 2010

INO1 Within three years we have developed unique and superior products from our competitors

INO2 Within three years we have created new products/services

INO3 Within three years we have significantly improved the production processes

INO4 Within three years we have adopted innovative work design

INO5 Within three years we have introduced new managerial work, process, and designs superior from our competitor’s

INO6 We have implemented new market methods to promote our products/services

Item	Description	Source
PCS	Perceived cooperative support	Jussila, Byrne, &Tuominen, 2012; Österberg &Nilsson, 2009)
PCS1	My cooperative cares about my well-being
PCS2	My cooperatives strongly consider my goals and values
PCS3	My cooperative shows great concern for me
PCS4	My cooperative cares about my opinion
PCS5	My cooperative is willing to help me if I need a special favor
PCS6	Help is available from my cooperative when I have a problem
PCS7	My cooperative would forgive an honest mistake on my part
CMT	Members commitment to the Cooperative	Österberg &Nilsson, 2009
CMT1	I treat the cooperative business as my own
CMT2	Feeling proud of cooperative development
CMT3	I have high emotion attachment to the cooperative
CMT4	I treat cooperation members as family
CMT5	I am proud to tell others of my cooperative membership
Trust	Members trust in the Cooperative	Martins, Faria, Prearo, &Arruda, 2017; Österberg &Nilsson, 2009
Trust1	I trust in cooperative leader’s character
Trust2	I trust in the cooperative management ability
Trust3	Cooperative has a great reputation for being reliable
Trust4	The leaders are honest and fair
Trust5	They have high integrity
EO	Entrepreneurship Orientation	De Clercq, Honig, &Martin, 2013; Keskin, 2006; Nasution, Mavondo, Matanda, &Ndubisi, 2011; K. Y. Wang, Hermens, Huang, &Chelliah, 2015
EO1	Initiating change upon which competitors react
EO2	First to introduce new products/services
EO3	Take a very competitive oriented approach
EO4	Strongly emphasis on R&D and innovation
EO5	Strongly emphasis on new product development
EO6	First to imprement innovative process
EO7	Getting involved in high-risk projects
EO8	explore business environment carefully
LO	Learning orientation	De Clercq, Honig, &Martin, 2013; Keskin, 2006; Nasution, Mavondo, Matanda, &Ndubisi, 2011; K. Y. Wang, Hermens, Huang, &Chelliah, 2015
Open-mindedness
LO1	Reflect critically on the shared assumptions made about customers
LO2	Continually questioning the way market place is perceived
LO3	Continually judge the quality of decisions and activities overtime
Commitment to learning
LO4	Consider the ability to learn as key to competitive advantage
LO5	Learning is key to improvement
Shared Vision
LO6	Agreement in organization vison
LO7	Partnering in changing the direction of the business
LO8	Bring about the commonality of purpose in the organization
INO	Innovation Performance	Andersson et al., 2011; Camisón &Villar-López, 2014; Hogan, Soutar, McColl-Kennedy, &Sweeney, 2011; Lin, Chen, &Kuan-Shun Chiu, 2010
INO1	Within three years we have developed unique and superior products from our competitors
INO2	Within three years we have created new products/services
INO3	Within three years we have significantly improved the production processes
INO4	Within three years we have adopted innovative work design
INO5	Within three years we have introduced new managerial work, process, and designs superior from our competitor’s
INO6	We have implemented new market methods to promote our products/services

3.2 Results and discussion

Basically, there are two types of structural equation modeling techniques: covariance-based and variance-based techniques [73]. This study uses the partial least (PLS) square of the variance-based technique. The choice of this approach is due to the following reasons: first PLS can be useful in estimating path model even when the sample sizes are small, second, the PLS path algorithms models use unrestricted computation of cause-effect relationship in both reflective and formative measurement models. Third, the PLS model has ana allowance of being too complex while still not affecting the estimations. And fourthly, the PLS method can still be useful with highly skewed and the unlikelihood of variable independence.

3.2.1 Measurement model

First, we asses the measurement model by analyzing the individual items’ reliability, construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity for all constructs. For adequate item reliability, a loading of greater than 0.6 is required to be achieved [74]. Other studies have established a threshold of above 0.5 [75 –77]. In Table 3, all the items that have loading lower than 0.6 were dropped in the final analysis because they add very little to the explanatory power of the model and may potentially bias the estimation of the parameters linking the constructs. The remainder of the construct items all were above the threshold.

Table 3
Reliability and convergent validity

Mean Standard deviation Loading t-statistic Remark

Perceived cooperative support (composite reliability = 0.817; AVE = 0.771)

PCS1< -PCS 0.812 0.165 0.877 5.606

PCS2< -PCS 0.835 0.152 0.892 11.492

PCS3< -PCS 0.450 0.347 0.489 1.941 Dropped-low loading

PCS4< -PCS 0.710 0.183 0.775 7.342**

PCS5< -PCS 0.621 0.199 0.692 4.231*

PCS6< -PCS 0.401 0.275 0.445 1.967* Dropped-low loading

PCS7< -PCS 0.399 0.277 0.431 1.927 Dropped-low loading

Commitment (composite reliability = 0.720; AVE = 0.855)

CMT1< -CMT 0.699 0.178 0.711 6.735

CMT2< -CMT 0.810 0.161 0.837 9.257

CMT3< -CMT 0.704 0.187 0.751 4.836

CMT4< -CMT 0.656 0.201 0.699 4.773

CMT5< -CMT 0.811 0.143 0.863 8.354

Trust (composite reliability = 0.713; AVE = 0.667)

Trust1< -Trust 0.823 0.145 0.885 10.245

Trust2< -Trust 0.742 0.166 0.761 4.384

Trust3< -Trust 0.732 0.159 0.773 9.372

Trust4< -Trust 0.622 0.221 0.671 3.317

Trust5< -Trust 0.822 0.151 0.841 8.451

Entrepreneurship orientation (composite reliability = 0.772; AVE = 0.674)

EO1< -EO 0.853 0.142 0.895 7.554**

EO2< -EO 0.398 0.332 0.443 1.993* Dropped-low loading

EO3< -EO 0.733 0.179 0.776 4.352

EO4< -EO 0.694 0.182 0.718 6.783

EO5< -EO 0.824 0.137 0.887 9.216

EO6< -EO 0.788 0.148 0.818 6.446

EO7< -EO 0.421 0.288 0.459 2.115* Dropped -low loading

EO8< -EO 0.443 0.311 0.481 1.972* Dropped-low loading

Learning orientation (composite reliability = 0.833; AVE = 0.630)

LO1< -LO 0.701 0.182 0.734 4.129

LO2< -LO 0.711 0.167 0.744 5.311

LO3< -LO 0.445 0.281 0.489 2.102* Dropped-low loading

LO4< -LO 0.683 0.159 0.701 4.192

LO5< -LO 0.727 0.163 0.757 4.391

LO6< -LO 0.808 0.113 0.841 7.210

LO7< -LO 0.831 0.131 0.873 6.331

LO8< -LO 0.336 0.336 0.386 1.982* Dropped-low loading

Innovation performance (composite reliability = 0.776; AVE = 0.587)

INO1< -INO 0.819 0.139 0.874 9.127

INO2< -INO 0.691 0.149 0.710 5.421

INO3< -INO 0.803 0.133 0.823 9.320

INO4< -INO 0.788 0.137 0.801 7.823

INO5< -INO 0.409 0.272 0.433 1.992* Dropped-low loading

INO6< -INO 0.417 0.266 0.471 1.893 Dropped-low loading

	Mean	Standard deviation	Loading	t-statistic	Remark
Perceived cooperative support (composite reliability = 0.817; AVE = 0.771)
PCS1< -PCS	0.812	0.165	0.877	5.606**
PCS2< -PCS	0.835	0.152	0.892	11.492**
PCS3< -PCS	0.450	0.347	0.489	1.941	Dropped-low loading
PCS4< -PCS	0.710	0.183	0.775	7.342**
PCS5< -PCS	0.621	0.199	0.692	4.231*
PCS6< -PCS	0.401	0.275	0.445	1.967*	Dropped-low loading
PCS7< -PCS	0.399	0.277	0.431	1.927	Dropped-low loading
Commitment (composite reliability = 0.720; AVE = 0.855)
CMT1< -CMT	0.699	0.178	0.711	6.735**
CMT2< -CMT	0.810	0.161	0.837	9.257**
CMT3< -CMT	0.704	0.187	0.751	4.836**
CMT4< -CMT	0.656	0.201	0.699	4.773**
CMT5< -CMT	0.811	0.143	0.863	8.354**
Trust (composite reliability = 0.713; AVE = 0.667)
Trust1< -Trust	0.823	0.145	0.885	10.245**
Trust2< -Trust	0.742	0.166	0.761	4.384**
Trust3< -Trust	0.732	0.159	0.773	9.372**
Trust4< -Trust	0.622	0.221	0.671	3.317**
Trust5< -Trust	0.822	0.151	0.841	8.451**
Entrepreneurship orientation (composite reliability = 0.772; AVE = 0.674)
EO1< -EO	0.853	0.142	0.895	7.554**
EO2< -EO	0.398	0.332	0.443	1.993*	Dropped-low loading
EO3< -EO	0.733	0.179	0.776	4.352**
EO4< -EO	0.694	0.182	0.718	6.783**
EO5< -EO	0.824	0.137	0.887	9.216**
EO6< -EO	0.788	0.148	0.818	6.446**
EO7< -EO	0.421	0.288	0.459	2.115*	Dropped -low loading
EO8< -EO	0.443	0.311	0.481	1.972*	Dropped-low loading
Learning orientation (composite reliability = 0.833; AVE = 0.630)
LO1< -LO	0.701	0.182	0.734	4.129**
LO2< -LO	0.711	0.167	0.744	5.311**
LO3< -LO	0.445	0.281	0.489	2.102*	Dropped-low loading
LO4< -LO	0.683	0.159	0.701	4.192**
LO5< -LO	0.727	0.163	0.757	4.391**
LO6< -LO	0.808	0.113	0.841	7.210**
LO7< -LO	0.831	0.131	0.873	6.331**
LO8< -LO	0.336	0.336	0.386	1.982*	Dropped-low loading
Innovation performance (composite reliability = 0.776; AVE = 0.587)
INO1< -INO	0.819	0.139	0.874	9.127**
INO2< -INO	0.691	0.149	0.710	5.421**
INO3< -INO	0.803	0.133	0.823	9.320**
INO4< -INO	0.788	0.137	0.801	7.823**
INO5< -INO	0.409	0.272	0.433	1.992*	Dropped-low loading
INO6< -INO	0.417	0.266	0.471	1.893	Dropped-low loading

Where **p < 0.01 and *p < 0.05.

The convergent validity is assessed by considering the average variance extracted (AVE). For convergent validity to be established the AVE is supposed to be above 0.5 [78, 79]. From Table 3, all the construct AVE is above 0.5, therefore, the study model is confirmed to have satisfactory convergent validity.

The composite reliability is used to measure the construct reliability, whereby the reliability of each latent variable is assessed [78]. In the PLS model composite reliability is favored above Cronbach’s alpha because the later can under/overestimate the scale of reliability [80]. Ideally, the composite reliability is supposed to exceed 0.7 for each latent variable. The results in Table 3 indicate that the composite reliability scores are well above 0.7 indicating the acceptable construct reliability for the variable used in the model.

3.2.2 Model fit

Table 4, displays the model fit results. The standardized root means square residual (SRMR) measures the mean absolute value of covariance residual and a value of less than 0.1 is considered as a good fit [81]. The second measurement of goodness of fit is the Normed Fit Index (NFI). The NFI is defined as 1 less the Chi-square value of the proposed model divided by the Chi-square values of the Null model. The resultant values are supposed to be between 0 and 1 and the closer to 1 the better the fit. The measure is computed from the Chi-square values from the null model. Based on these two measures our model seem to have a good fit.

Table 4
Model Fit

Saturated Model Estimated model

SRMR 0.073 0.073

d_ULS 1.057 1.057

d_G 0.261 0.261

Chi-Square 153.901 153.901

NFI 0.883 0.883

	Saturated Model	Estimated model
SRMR	0.073	0.073
d_ULS	1.057	1.057
d_G	0.261	0.261
Chi-Square	153.901	153.901
NFI	0.883	0.883

The discriminant validity of the construct also was assessed by examining the cross-loading and the Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). A model is supposed to have indicators that load well on their intended factors. The cross-loading with other factors are supposed to be insignificant. The rule of thumb provides less than 0.3 as the threshold. From Table 5, depict all the cross-loadings are below 0.3, confirming that our constructs have acceptable construct validity. Further confirmation of discriminant validity was done by analyzing the HTMT. The HTMT is defined as the geometric mean of the heterotrait-heteromethod correlation divided by the average monotrait-heteromethod correlations. With HTMT to establish an acceptable range of construct validity has to be below 1. And literature has established a cut-off point of below 0.9. From Table 6, the results indicate all the HTMT results are well below 0.9 [82]. These results confirm further that our constructs have satisfactory discriminant validity.

Table 5

Cross-Loading

Item	Cross-Loading
	PCS	CMT	Trust	EO	LO	INO
PCS1	0.877	0.151	0.110	0.129	0.147	0.211
PCS2	0.892	0.212	0.131	0.118	0.027	0.101
PCS4	0.775	0.150	0.141	0.209	0.214	0.142
PCS5	0.692	0.141	0.063	0.086	0.210	0.093
CMT1	0.123	0.711	0.201	0.233	0.200	0.124
CMT2	0.217	0.837	–0.232	0.141	0.146	–0.143
CMT3	0.091	0.751	0.211	0.142	0.145	0.049
CMT4	0.210	0.699	0.217	0.073	0.171	0.099
CMT5	0.142	0.863	0.214	0.049	0.039	–0.275
Trust1	0.211	0.131	0.885	0.093	0.032	0.234
Trust2	0.123	0.111	0.761	0.222	0.121	0.141
Trust3	0.131	0.102	0.773	0.231	0.123	0.059
Trust4	0.122	0.064	0.671	0.092	0.072	0.122
Trust5	0.022	0.027	0.841	0.031	0.084	0.027
EO1	0.091	0.032	0.041	0.895	0.073	0.033
EO3	0.032	0.211	0.190	0.776	0.034	–0.232
EO4	0.054	0.152	0.132	0.718	0.162	0.039
EO5	0.213	0.066	0.110	0.887	0.183	0.077
EO6	0.119	0.032	–0.032	0.818	0.021	0.203
LO1	0.212	0.011	0.210	0.138	0.734	0.082
LO2	0.021	0.072	0.092	0.090	0.744	0.051
LO4	0.133	0.124	0.033	0.120	0.701	0.032
LO5	0.081	0.093	0.031	0.126	0.757	0.052
LO6	0.213	0.089	0.067	0.094	0.841	0.094
LO7	0.127	0.032	0.023	0.021	0.873	0.032
INO1	0.101	0.201	0.217	0.233	0.112	0.874
INO2	0.216	0.020	0.032	0.021	0.125	0.710
INO3	0.043	0.210	0.231	0.023	0.154	0.823
INO4	0.225	0.210	0.037	0.048	0.129	0.801

Table 6

Discriminant Validity and Hetero Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) in Parenthesis

	PCS	CMT	Trust	EO	LO	INO
PCS	0.878
CMT	0.272 (0.544)	0.925
Trust	–0.174 (0.321)	0.084 (0.432)	0.816
EO	–0.335 (0.355)	–0.293 (0.531)	0.076 (0.544)	0.860
LO	–0.093 (0.437)	0.022 (0.612)	–0.212 (0.441)	0.061 (0.631)	0.794
INO	–0.373 (0.561)	–0.237 (0.436)	0.224 (0.422)	0.125 (0.341)	–0.349 (0.320)	0.766

In the next step, the structural model results are presented and then interpreted. The evaluation of the structural model is undertaken by testing the strength and the direction of the path coefficients. The statistical significance of the constructs is obtained after bootstrapping with 1000 replacements [83]. From Table 7 and Fig. 2, the results indicate that member’s cooperative support has a positive and highly significant on entrepreneurship and learning orientation at p < 0.01 and at 0 < 0.001. The results support H₁ and H₂ which stated that members perceived cooperative support have a positive association with entrepreneurship and learning orientation. The results indicate that cooperative member’s commitment has a positive and strong association with entrepreneurship orientation at p < 0.01. The result support H₃ which hypothesized that cooperative member’s commitment is positively associated with entrepreneurship orientations of its members. The results also indicate that there is a weak significant positive association between the member’s commitment and learning orientation at p < 0.05. The result also supports H₄ of the study which states that cooperative member’s commitment has a positive association on learning orientation.

Table 7

Path coefficients

Path	Sample	Mean	Standard deviation	t-statistic
PCS->EO	0.412	0.403	0.116	3.514**
PCS->LO	0.572	0.499	0.154	4.338***
CMT->EO	0.533	0.516	0.132	4.117***
CMT->LO	0.374	0.346	0.137	2.182*
Trust->EO	0.191	0.187	0.184	1.839
Trust->LO	0.531	0.511	0.098	6.131***
EO->INO	0.488	0.447	0.122	3.645**
LO->INO	0.439	0.414	0.089	3.112**

Where ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01 and *p < 0.05.

Fig. 2

The model results after bootstrapping.

Table 7 and Fig. 2 also provide the results that trust has an insignificant positive association between members’ trust and entrepreneurship orientation. Therefore, H₅ was not supported. On the other end members trust is depicted to have significant and positive associations with learning orientation at p < 0.001. Therefore, H₆ is supported by the structural model.

The strength and direction of the path also indicate that there is a positive significant association between learning orientation with firm innovation performance at p < 0.01. Hence, H₇ is also supported by the data. Also, Table 7 and Fig. 2 depict that there is a positive significant association between entrepreneurship orientation with firm innovation performance. the result support H₈, which proposed that: entrepreneurship orientation has a positive and significant association with firm innovation performance.

3.2.3 Test of mediation

This study went as far as testing the mediation role of entrepreneurship and learning orientation variables on SACCOS member’s perceived cooperative support, commitment, and trust to firm innovation performance. The mediation test employs the Sobel test of mediation, which is an online calculator available at http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm. The Sobel test uses the following error function: $\erf (x) = \frac{2}{\sqrt{π}} \int_{0}^{x} e^{- t^{2}} dt$ (1)

The second formula is the normal distribution cumulative distribution function $F (x; μ, {SD}^{2}) = \frac{1}{2} [1 + \erf (\frac{x - μ}{SD \sqrt{2}})]$ (2)

Where ‘μ’ is the mean, ‘SD’ is the standard deviation, and ‘erf’ is the error function.

Sobel test statistic is then calculated as: $Z = \frac{ab}{\sqrt{b^{2} {SE}_{a}^{2} + a^{2} {SE}_{b}^{2}}}$ (3)

Whereby ‘a’ is the regression coefficient for the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator, ‘b’ is the regression coefficient for the relationship between the mediator and the independent variable SE_a is the standard error of the relationship between the independent and the mediator variables, SE_b is the standard error of the relationship between the mediator and the independent variable, and ‘t’ is the definite integral time that defines the area covered under Gaussian error function from t = 0 to t = x and brings infinite error function equal to 1.

The mediation results in Table 7 indicate that all the proposed models have significant Sobel statistic Z. this implies that entrepreneurship and learning orientation have a significant mediating role on PCS, CMT, and Trust-INO relationship. Except for the mediation role of learning orientation on the Trust-innovation relationship, the remainder is all termed to be complimentary partial mediation. They are complementary partial mediation because the paths of direct relationship between the dependent variables (PCS, CMT, and trust) and independent variable (INO) is significant. This implies that only a portion of the effect of the independent variable on dependent variables is mediated through the mediator (EO and LO). Therefore, these results confirm our hypothesis H_9a, H_9b, H_9c, H_10a, and H_10b.

The results in Table 8, also provide that there is a full mediation of learning orientation on the trust-innovation performance relationship. The full mediation happens because there are insignificant positive association member’s trust and innovation performance. Hence, H_10c is as well supported.

Table 8

Sobel test of mediation results

Model	DV->ID Path coefficients	a	b	${SE}_{a}^{2}$	${SE}_{b}^{2}$	Z
PCS->EO->INO	0.241*	0.411	0.053	0.482	0.097	4.26622383**
CMT->EO->INO	0.256*	0.519	0.044	0.482	0.087	5.0146339**
Trust->EO->INO	0.312**	0.196	0.091	0.481	0.064	2.070449917*
PCS->LO->INO	0.214*	0.557	0.073	0.413	0.094	3.80749759**
CMT->LO->INO	0.256*	0.376	0.058	0.414	0.092	3.72671856**
Trust->LO->INO	0.194	0.513	0.031	0.417	0.052	7.2165409**

Where **p < 0.01 and *p < 0.05; DV = dependent variable and ID = independent variable.

3.2.4 Discussion

The objective of the study was to examine the perceived cooperative support, commitment and trust influence on member’s entrepreneurship and learning orientation. The model, further, examined the association of entrepreneurship and learning orientation on firm innovation performance and the mediation role of entrepreneurship and learning orientation.

Interestingly results show all the self-efficacy variables of SACCOS members’ indicate positive significant results on either entrepreneurship or learning orientation of their venture except for the association of member’s trust and entrepreneurship orientation. The results are also confirmed by the qualitative data results across all variables where the number of ‘Strongly agree’ responses were higher than and across all demographic variables and the percentages reduce as we move to the aspects of ‘strongly disagree’ responses. The study indicates that PCS has a positive and significant association with both EO and LO. The results hinge on the organization support theory which implies that the cooperatives’ personifications of member’s preference in terms of their policy, culture, and norms have a strong contribution to fostering entrepreneurship and learning orientation [84]. The result is also consistent with the findings on [45, 85]. And, therefore, H₁ and H₂ were supported.

CMT is indicated to have a positive and significant influence on EO and LO. Supporting the study hypothesis H₃ and H₄. CMT indicates a relative strongest association with EO compared to the influence it seemingly exerts on LO. The results indicate members’ strong attachment to the cooperative can foster venture entrepreneurship and learning empathy. The results are consistent with the findings in [41, 86].

Trust was found to have an insignificant association of EO, bearing to not supporting H₅. Even though it is difficult to draw a conclusion on insignificant results reserving for any model limitations that may be the cause, this may speculatively be explained. The result may indicate that the member’s trust as a psychological factor may have factors that foster long term inculcation like the reputation that may have been excluded in the model. However, the indirect relationship between trust and firm innovation is significantly mediated by entrepreneurship orientation.

Nevertheless, Trust has been indicated in the model to exert the strongest association of all the associations in the model (t-value 0.531; P < 0.001). The concept of trust in the cooperative executive has become an essential factor for foster trustworthiness horizontally and vertically [87]. This result is consistent with the findings on [85] and supports the study proposition H₆.

Both firm EO and LO are displayed to have a significant association on INO. And hence support H₇ and H₈. Entrepreneurship and learning orientation impact on firm performance has proved to have a great influence on general firm performance [61, 88]. Robustly, EO and LO have a special influence on the innovation performance of the firm [60 , 90].

In the case of the mediating role of EO and LO, EO indicated to significantly mediate the PCS-INO relationship. The results add to the body of knowledge and imply that the influence of PCS on INO is more explained when there is firm EO in developing economies. EO exert partial mediation since the direct relationship between PCS and INO was significant. Therefore, the proposition H_9a was supported.

Also, the result indicates that EO significantly mediates the CMT-INO relationship. In this quest, EO has a relative strong mediation role compared to other tested CMT mediation roles in the model. The result implies that the association of SACCOS members’ CMT on firm INO can more be expounded when there is firm EO. The results add novel insights to the body of knowledge. Hence H_9b supported.

The model result also displays EO significantly mediates the Trust-INO relationship. The results connote that the Trust-INO relationship can be more explicated when the firm is managed in the light of EO. The EM mediation on the relationship is partial since the direct relationship between Trust and INO was significant. Such a mediation role adds to the body of knowledge. And the results support the proposition H_9c.

The model result presents LO to significantly mediate the PCS-INO relationship. This means that the PCS-INO relationship is more explained when there is LO empathy in the firm. Again, the LO mediation on this relationship is partial since the direct relationship between PCS and INO is significant. The LO mediation role adds to the body of knowledge of firm management and knowledge creation theories. That to foster more innovation in the firm while creating trustworthiness on the learning environment, firm LO ad more clarity in the process. H_10a supported

LO has been indicated to make significantly mediation on the CMT-INO relationship. the implication of this proposes that CMT-INO is more clarified when the firm becomes learning-oriented. The mediation role is partial since the direct relationship between CMT and INO is significant. The results also add more insights to the body of literature on the theories of commitment to learning, learning empathy and firn innovations. Therefore, H_10b was supported

Interestingly LO has the strongest mediation role on Trust-INO relationship among all the mediation role models. And this is a full mediation since the direct relationship between Trust and INO is insignificant. The results mean that LO fully explains the relationship between trust and firm innovation. The results bring new insights to the body of knowledge such that learning-oriented SMEs which foster trust in members learning environment will automatically open more avenues for innovativeness. The results support the proposition H_10c .

4 Conclusion and research implications

In the environment of where unemployment is prevalent urban cooperatives promote formation entrepreneurial ventures, provide self-employment, and eventually leads to poverty reduction. SACCOS are more inclusive and is open to societal members in various cadres and ages. As it has been demonstrated that the majority of the members are in the productive age of 30–49 years. As all members at least have gone through some basic schooling, it indicated that they can easily be trained and emulate new knowledge and skills. The presence of substantial numbers of masters-level of education among members in the SACCOS indicates the ability of the members to learn from each other and training can flow horizontally focusing on imparting knowledge and skills to members who just attained basic education in the same cooperative. Cooperative members’ support, commitment, and trust reflect the level of members’ cohesion which in turn can significantly foster plausible vertical and horizontal entrepreneurial learning. The repercussions are reflected in their firm entrepreneurship and learning orientation which eventually enhances firm innovation performance.

4.1 Theoretical implications

This study provides many considerable theoretical contributions worth recognition. The investigation of the impact of PCS, CMT and Trust on EO and LO in a cooperative environment stands to be a contribution that deserves scholarly attention. The phenomenal effect has been supported except for one proposition can be a call for more scholarly research in this regard. Additionally, the mediating role of EO and LO as a mechanism that explains the between PCS, CMT and Trust-INO relationship theoretically contributes to the existing body of knowledge. In general stance, there are very few studies that have endeavored to analyze cooperatives as a learning space and an avenue for fostering appealing and productive entrepreneurship. However, this study is one of the particular few empirical analyses.

4.2 Practical implications

The fact that EO and LO significantly mediate the relationship between PCS, CMT and Trust-INO relationship brings new insight to the literature. This implies that the effort to cohesively attach members’ to the interest of the financial cooperatives does not just foster minimization of default rate but it also fosters the environment of learning that adds probable ingredients to the firm innovativeness. The presence of EO and LO in the quest clearly exemplifies the link between the two antecedents.

On a practical sense as learning in a cooperatives happens in a multifaced ways, while SACCOS in developing economies foster access to finance and facilitate creation of business venture, they are called to focus on fostering members attachment empathy on entrepreneurship and learning business skills to manage their ventures which may, in turn, increase their firm competitive advantage. While aiming at minimizing the cost of finances, SACCOS should put more effort into grooming entrepreneurs for optimum business performance and ongoing innovations, it will indirectly minimize default rate increase cooperative capital. As demonstrated in this study the provision of knowledge and skills in managing entrepreneurs venture in developing economies is a point at stake. While SACCOS and other financial organizations emphasize on access financial capitals is being on guard, the same effort needs to be demonstrated in providing entrepreneurship literacy while creating a sense of continuous entrepreneurship and learning orientations. As the business environment turbulence increases due to typical changes in information technology, market orientations, and new financial products being open to learning become apparent means to enhance firm innovation performance.

4.3 Limitations and future research

This study considered only a few antecedents of cooperative members’ attachment and their venture learning empathy. Future research may aim at exploring more member’s self-efficacy characteristics on connections to their venture market orientation and innovativeness.

The study sample was based on SACCOS members who might have the same business empathy as their cooperatives are finance-based. Further studies might venture into including other kinds of cooperatives to make inter-industry view comparison.

This study was limited to SACCOS entrepreneurs members who own an entrepreneurial venture, and it focused on cooperative as entrepreneurial learning space; the extension of this study may consider involving other forms of cooperatives and may not limit the respondents to entrepreneurs only.

References

Abubakar

. Entrepreneurship development and financial literacy in Africa. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development. 2015;11(4):281–94.

Nelson

, Johnson

. Entrepreneurship education as a strategic approach to economic growth in Kenya. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. 1997;35:7–21.

Kojo Oseifuah

. Financial literacy and youth entrepreneurship in South Africa. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies. 2010;1(2):164–82.

Cope

. Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Business Venturing. 2011;26(6):604–23.

Rosa

, Kodithuwakku

, Balunywa

. Entrepreneurial Motivation in Developing Countries: What does’ Necessity’and’Opportunity’Entrepreneurship Really Mean? 2008.

Woodin

. Co-operation, learning and co-operative values: Contemporary issues in education: Routledge; 2014.

Maleko

, Liheta

, Aikaruwa

, Lukas

, Sumari

. Women participation in microfinance institutions of Tanzania: The case of savings and credit co-operative societies (SACCOS). Journal of Business Administration and Education. 2013;4(2).

Mwangi

, Wanjau

. The Role of SACCO in Growth of Youth Entrepreneurship in Kenya: A Case of Nairobi County. Greener Journal of Business and Management Studies. 2013;3(3):113–8.

Birchall

. Rediscovering the cooperative advantage-Poverty reduction through self-help: International Labour Organisation; 2003.

10.

Adebayo

. Cooperative association as a tool for rural development and poverty reduction in Rwanda: A study of Abahuzamugambi ba kawa in Maraba sector. 2010.

11.

Develtere

, Pollet

, Wanyama

. Cooperating out of poverty: The renaissance of the African cooperative movement: International Labour Organisation; 2008.

12.

Kuria

, Christopher

, Mayunga

. Regional Cooperation for Quality Assurance: The IUCEA/DAAD East African Quality Assurance Initiative. GIZ; 2011.

13.

Kumburu

, Chambo

, Bee

, Machimu

, Bäckman

, Tenaw

, et al. Cooperatives as a tool for poverty reduction and promoting business in Tanzania. 2013.

14.

Kwapong

, Korugyendo

. Revival of agricultural cooperatives in Uganda. Uganda Strategy Support Program (USSP) Policy Note No. 10.Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); 2010.

15.

Chivundu-Ngulube

, Li

. Agricultural cooperatives, entrepreneurship and food security in Malawi. Human Systems Management. 2019;38(2):99–109.

16.

Shepherd

, Krueger

. An intentions–based model of entrepreneurial teams’ social cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2002;27(2):167–85.

17.

Schoof

. Stimulating Youth Entrepreneurship: Barriers and incentives to enterprise start-ups by young people. International Labour Organization, 2006.

18.

Anania P

RGC

. Co-operative Education and Training as A Means to Improve Performance in Co-operative Societies. Sumerianz Journal of Science. 2018;1(2):39–50.

19.

Wanyama

, Develtere

, Pollet

. Reinventing the wheel? African cooperatives in a liberalized economic environment. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. 2009;80(3):361–92.

20.

Trunk Širca

, Babnik

, Breznik

. Towards organisational performance: Understanding human resource management climate. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 2013;113(3):367–84.

21.

Sitko-Lutek

, Jakubiak

. Skills and Learning Styles of Innovative Companies’ Employees. International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning. 2016;5(2):189–200.

22.

Breznik

. Using social network analysis to identify innovation clusters. International Journal of Innovation and Learning. 2016;19(3):272–85.

23.

Khan

, Yang

, Khan

, Waheed

. Entrepreneurship posture and new venture performance in Pakistan. Human Systems Management. 2019;38(1):55–72.

24.

Omar

, Aris

, Nazri

. The effect of entrepreneurial orientation, innovation capability and knowledge creation on firm performance: A perspective on small scale entrepreneurs. Jurnal Pengurusan (UKM Journal of Management). 2016;48.

25.

Magali

. Factors affecting credit default risks for rural Savings and Credits Cooperative Societies (SACCOs) in Tanzania. 2013.

26.

Kwai

, Urassa

. The contribution of savings and credit cooperative societies to income poverty reduction: A case study of Mbozi District, Tanzania. 2015.

27.

Duncan

, Tirimba

. Effect of Cash Management on Financial Performance of Deposit Taking SACCOs in Mount Kenya Region. 2015.

28.

Chigunta

. Youth entrepreneurship: Meeting the key policy challenges: Education Development Center; 2002.

29.

Okwany

, editor Transformative Development: Harnessing Cooperative Entrepreneurship Advantage for Women and Youth in Africa. 11th SACCA Congress Meeting on fostering the Culture of entrepreneurship and Innovation in SACCO’s held in Swaziland; 2010.

30.

Stefanson

. Adult educators in co-operative development: Agents of change. 2002.

31.

Maghimbi

. Cooperatives in Tanzania mainland: Revival and growth: ILO; 2010.

32.

Mwakajumilo

. The role of informal microfinance institutions in saving mobilization, investment and poverty reduction. A case of savings and credit cooperative societies (Saccos) in Tanzania from -World. 2011;47:49.

33.

Bibby

. Tanzania’s cooperatives look to the future. Accessed on http://www andrewbibby com/pdf/Tanzaniapdf. 2006;19:03–15.

34.

Sizya

. The role cooperatives play in poverty reduction in Tanzania. United Nations International Day for Eradication of Poverty. 2001;17.

35.

Bwana

. Issues in SACCOS development in Kenya and Tanzania: The historical and development perspectives. 2013.

36.

Anania

, Sambuo

. The Co-Operative Enterprise and Youths Employment Creation: Prospects and Challenges,(Reflections from Tanzanian Agricultural Sector). Noble International Journal of Business and Management Research. 2017;1(2):55–67.

37.

Hartley

. Collective learning in youth-focused co-operatives in Lesotho and Uganda. Journal of International Development. 2014;26(5):713–30.

38.

Wilson

, Johnson

. Learning for development: Zed Books Ltd.; 2013.

39.

Lave

, Wenger

. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation: Cambridge university press; 1991.

40.

Wenger

. Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker. 1998;9(5):2–3.

41.

Agbasi

. The Role of cooperative in entrepreneurial development ‘. Nkamnebe, AD and. 2010.

42.

Byrne

, McCarthy

, Ward

. Meeting the Credit Needs of Low-Income Groups: Credit unions-v-moneylenders: Combat Poverty Agency; 2005.

43.

Eisenberger

, Stinglhamber

, Vandenberghe

, Sucharski

, Rhoades

. Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002;87(3):565.

44.

Pesämaa

, Pieper

, Da Silva

, Black

, Hair

Jr . Trust and reciprocity in building inter-personal and inter-organizational commitment in small business co-operatives. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management. 2013;1(2):81–92.

45.

Jussila

, Byrne

, Tuominen

. Affective commitment in co-operative organizations: What makes members want to stay? International Business Research. 2012;5(10):1.

46.

Solinger

, Van Olffen

, Roe

. Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008;93(1):70.

47.

Hendrikse

, Feng

. Interfirm cooperatives. Chapters. 2013.

48.

Sholihin

, Pike

, Mangena

, Li

. Goal-setting participation and goal commitment: Examining the mediating roles of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust in a UK financial services organisation. The British Accounting Review. 2011;43(2):135–46.

49.

Lumpkin

, Dess

. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of management Review. 1996;21(1):135–72.

50.

Wiklund

, Shepherd

. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of business venturing. 2005;20(1):71–91.

51.

Wiklund

, Shepherd

. Where to from here? EO-as-experimentation, failure, and distribution of outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2011;35(5):925–46.

52.

Wales

. Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research directions. International Small Business Journal. 2016;34(1):3–15.

53.

Park

, Park

, Lee

. A study on the effect of entrepreneurship orientation and market orientation on innovation performance: Mediation of innovation capabilities. Information (Japan). 2017;20:771–8.

54.

Widyastuti

, Qosasi

, Noor

, Kurniawati

. Enhancing the Competitive Advantage of SMEs through Innovation: The Role of Market and Entrepreneurship Orientation, Learning Organizations. International Journal of Economic Research. 2017:203-21.

55.

Al-Dhaafri

, Al-Swidi

, Yusoff

RZB

. The mediating role of total quality management between the entrepreneurial orientation and the organizational performance. The TQM Journal. 2016;28(1):89–111.

56.

Baker

, Sinkula

. The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1999;27(4):411–27.

57.

Calantone

, Cavusgil

, Zhao

. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management. 2002;31(6):515–24.

58.

Sinkula

, Baker

, Noordewier

. A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1997;25(4):305.

59.

Carrillo

, Gaimon

. Managing knowledge-based resource capabilities under uncertainty. Management Science. 2004;50(11):1504–18.

60.

Huang

, Wang

Y-L

. Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and innovation in small and medium enterprises. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011;24:563–70.

61.

Wang

. Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2008;32(4):635–57.

62.

Slater

, Narver

. Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing. 1995;59(3):63–74.

63.

Celuch

, Kasouf

, Peruvemba

. The effects of perceived market and learning orientation on assessed organizational capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management. 2002;31(6):545–54.

64.

Liao

S-h

, Wu

C-c

. The relationship among knowledge management, organizational learning, and organizational performance. International Journal of Business and Management. 2009;4(4):64–76.

65.

Martinette

, Obenchain-Leeson

. The relationship between learning orientation and business performance and the moderating effect of competitive advantage: A service organization perspective. Journal of Service Science (Online). 2012;5(1):43.

66.

Packard

. Staff perceptions of variables affecting performance in human service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2010;39(6):971–90.

67.

Hung

RY-Y

. Business process management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2006;17(1):21–40.

68.

Law

, Breznik

. Impacts of innovativeness and attitude on entrepreneurial intention: Among engineering and non-engineering students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2017;27(4):683–700.

69.

Khan

, Shuangjie

, Khan

, Anwar

. Entrepreneurial orientation, intellectual capital, IT capability, and performance. Human Systems Management. 2019;38(3):297–312.

70.

Zhai

Y-M

, Sun

W-Q

, Tsai

S-B

, Wang

, Zhao

, Chen

. An empirical study on entrepreneurial orientation, absorptive capacity, and SMEs’ innovation performance: A sustainable perspective. Sustainability. 2018;10(2):314.

71.

Ahlén

. Rural Member-Based Microfinance Institutions: A field study assessing the impacts of SACCOS and VICOBA in Babati district, Tanzania. 2012.

72.

Roberts

, Johnson

. Practical analysis for refactoring: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 1999.

73.

Gefen

, Straub

, Boudreau

M-C

. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2000;4(1):7.

74.

Nunnally

, Bernstein

. Validity. Psychometric theory. 1994;3:99–132.

75.

Chin

. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research. 1998;295(2):295–336.

76.

Götz

, Liehr-Gobbers

, Krafft

. Evaluation of structural equation models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. Handbook of partial least squares: Springer; 2010. pp. 691-711.

77.

Hair

, Sarstedt

, Ringle

, Mena

. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2012;40(3):414–33.

78.

Fornell

, Larcker

. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981:39-50.

79.

Vandenbosch

. Confirmatory compositional approaches to the development of product spaces. European Journal of Marketing. 1996;30(3):23–46.

80.

Garson

. Partial Least Square: Regression and Structural Equation Models. North Carolina State University: Statistical Associates 2016.

81.

Hair

, Henseler

, Dijkstra

, Sarstedt

. Common beliefs and reality about partial least squares: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann. 2014.

82.

Henseler

, Ringle

, Sarstedt

. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2015;43(1):115–35.

83.

Hartmann

, Slapničar

. How formal performance evaluation affects trust between superior and subordinate managers. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 2009;34(6-7):722–37.

84.

Hurley

, Hult

GTM

. Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing. 1998;62(3):42–54.

85.

Hakelius

, Hansson

. Members’ attitudes towards cooperatives and their perception of agency problems. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 2016;19(4):23–36.

86.

Datta

, Gailey

. Empowering women through social entrepreneurship: Case study of a women’s cooperative in India. Entrepreneurship theory and Practice. 2012;36(3):569–87.

87.

Österberg

, Nilsson

. Members’ perception of their participation in the governance of cooperatives: The key to trust and commitment in agricultural cooperatives. Agribusiness: An International Journal. 2009;25(2):181–97.

88.

Long

. The relationship among learning orientation, market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and firm performance of Vietnam marketing communications firms. Philippine Management Review. 2013;20.

89.

Keskin

. Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs: An extended model. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2006;9(4):396–417.

90.

Zeng

, Xie

, Tam

. Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation. 2010;30(3):181–94.

		Participants	Respondents response counts and percentage in parenthesis
			Strongly agree	Agree	Somehow agree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Total count
Level of	Primary School	38(14.0%)	612(41.3)	423(28.5)	274(18.5)	86(5.8)	87(5.9)	1482
Education	Secondary School	154(56.8%)	3,347(55.7)	1871(31.2)	483(8.0)	204(3.4)	101(1.7)	6,006
	1^st degree	57(21.0%)	1,431(64.4)	519(23.3)	300(13.5)	215(9.7)	58(2.6)	2,223
	Masters	21(7.8%)	408(49.8)	178(21.7	103(12.6)	86910.5)	44(5.4)	819
	PhD	1(0.4%)	31(79.5)	4(10.3)	3(7.7)	1(2.6)	0(0.0)	39
Gender	Male	144(53.1%)	3,135(55.8)	713(12.7)	672(12.0)	417(7.4)	679(12.1)	5,616
	female	127(46.9%)	2,391(48.3)	1,722(34.8)	593(12.0)	203(4.1)	449(0.8)	4,953
	Age	Below 19
	20–29	13(4.8%)	220(43.4)	112(22.1)	81(16.0)	59(11.6)	35(6.9)	507
	30–39	125(46.1%)	2,412(49.5)	1,544(31.7)	417(8.6)	243(5.0)	259(5.3)	4,875
	40–49	93(34.3%)	1,427(39.3)	1,009(27.8)	702(19.4)	334(9.2)	155(4.2)	3,627
	50–59	34(12.5%)	716(54.0)	348(26.2)	164(12.4)	47(3.5)	51(3.8)	1,326
	60–69	6(2.2%)	107(45.7)	85(36.3)	30(12.8)	5(2.1)	7(2.9))	234
Business size	Micro	159(58.7%)	2,934(47.3)	1,571(25.3)	624(10.1)	601(9.7)	471(7.5)	6,201
	Small	87(32.1%)	2,021(59.6)	786(23.2)	347(10.2)	113(3.3)	126(3.7)	3,393
	Medium	25(9.2%)	437(44.8)	326(33.4)	107(10.0)	57(5.8)	48(4.9)	975

SME manager’s perceived cooperative support,commitment and trust on learning and entrepreneurship orientation for firm innovation

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVE:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSIONS:

Keywords

1 Introduction

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Overview SACCOS in Tanzania

2.2 Conceptual framework

2.4 Members trust and commitment

2.5 Entrepreneurship orientation and innovation performance

2.6 Learning orientation and innovation performance

3 Methodology

3.2.1 Measurement model

Table 4 Model Fit Saturated Model Estimated model SRMR 0.073 0.073 d_ULS 1.057 1.057 d_G 0.261 0.261 Chi-Square 153.901 153.901 NFI 0.883 0.883

4 Conclusion and research implications

4.1 Theoretical implications

4.2 Practical implications

4.3 Limitations and future research

References

Table 4
Model Fit

Saturated Model Estimated model

SRMR 0.073 0.073

d_ULS 1.057 1.057

d_G 0.261 0.261

Chi-Square 153.901 153.901

NFI 0.883 0.883