Strategic planning and small

business performance
An examination of the mediating role of
exploration and exploitation behaviours

Marko Kohtamäki, Teemu Kautonen and Sascha Kraus

Abstract: This paper examines the mediating role of opportunity explora-

tion and resource exploitation in the relationship between strategic
planning and small business performance. The research model is exam-
ined with a sample of 153 small Finnish firms. The results show that
exploitation, but not exploration, carries the effect of strategic planning to
the performance of a small firm. This implies that strategic plans as such
are not sufficient to improve business performance unless they are care-
fully integrated into the actual processes and behaviour of the firm.

Keywords: strategic planning; performance; exploration; exploitation;

small business
Marko Kohtamäki is Research Director in the Department of Management, University of Vaasa, PO
Box 700, FI-65101 Vaasa, Finland. E-mail: marko.kohtamaki@uwasa.fi. Teemu Kautonen is an
Academy Research Fellow at the Turku School of Economics, University of Turku,
Rehtorinpellonkatu 3, FI-20500 Turku, Finland. E-mail: teemu.kautonen@utu.fi. Sascha Kraus is a
Professor at the Institute for Entrepreneurship, University of Liechtenstein, Fürst-Franz-Josef-Str,
FL-9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein. E-mail: sascha.kraus@wu-wien.ac.at.

Given the pivotal role of small enterprises in Europe’s
economies (Bauer, 2002), there is a clear need to
investigate the factors that impact on the survival,
success and performance of those companies. Previous
research indicates that strategic planning may be one of
these success factors (Miller and Cardinal, 1994).
However, the extant research on strategic planning in
small businesses is still rather limited. Even though a
number of studies have already looked at the effect of
strategic planning on small business performance (for
example, Robinson and Pearce, 1984; Berry, 1998;
Gibbons and O’Connor, 2005), a general agreement on
the quantity and quality of this effect is yet to emerge.
Other empirical studies show that the relationship
between strategic planning and small business perform-
ance is weak and possibly even indirect (for example,
Gibson and Cassar, 2005). Therefore, scholars have
begun to suspect that other factors may mediate the
relationship between strategic planning and performance
(Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2007).
One of the more recent discussions on small-firm
strategic behaviour explores the role of ambidexterity in
explaining business performance. Ambidexterity
includes the concepts of exploration and exploitation
(see, for example, He and Wong, 2004; Gupta et al,
2006; Lubatkin et al, 2006; Raisch and Birkinshaw,
2008), referring to the exploration of new business
opportunities and the exploitation of current resources

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 11, No 3, 2010, pp 221–229 221

Strategic planning and small business performance
respectively. A central argument of this stream of
research is that a simultaneous application of these
competencies leads to better performance than an
exclusive focus on either element (March, 1991; Gibson
and Birkinshaw, 2004).
This study seeks to increase our understanding of the
relationship between strategic planning and the perform-
ance of small enterprises by examining the proposition
that exploration and exploitation behaviours carry the
effect of strategic planning to performance. The proposi-
tion is based on two assumptions. On the one hand,
companies need to implement strategic plans before
these translate into improved performance and, on the
other hand, strategic planning facilitates a more efficient
utilization of existing resources and a more systematic
approach to the exploration of new business opportuni-
ties. The research question addressed in this paper can
be summarized as follows:
‘To what extent do opportunity exploration and resource
exploitation mediate the relationship between strategic
planning and the business performance of a small firm?’
The paper is arranged as follows: the relevant literature
concerning the elements and hypothesized relationships
in the research model is reviewed first. The methodo-
logical design of the empirical study is explained
subsequently, followed by the results of the empirical
analysis. Finally, the findings are discussed and conclu-
sions and implications drawn.
Theoretical foundations
Research model
The research model employed in this study proposes
that exploration and exploitation behaviours mediate the
relationship between strategic planning and performance
(Figure 1). The following discussion begins with an
examination of the concept of strategic planning in the
broader context of strategic management. The analysis
Exploration
Strategic
Performance
planning
Exploitation
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
222
then proceeds to the relationship between strategic
planning and performance, and concludes with a
conceptualization of the mediating effect of exploration
and exploitation in this context.
Strategic management and strategic planning
Strategic management research is, broadly speaking,
concerned with identifying differences in performance
between different kinds of business enterprises by
analysing their efforts to develop sustainable competi-
tive advantages (Ireland et al, 2003). Strategic
management mainly focuses on matching the activities
of the business to its resources and to the environment in
which it operates, with the aim of maximizing the
opportunities while minimizing the threats (Tapinos et
al, 2005). One principal element of strategic manage-
ment is strategic planning.
Strategic planning is concerned with managing the
complexity and the dynamics of the business environ-
ment (Eisenhardt and Sull, 2001). It can promote
long-term thinking, help to focus on the big picture
rather than on operational details, provide a structure for
the identification and evaluation of strategic alternatives,
and contribute to a reduction of uncertainty for the
entrepreneur (Schwenk and Shrader, 1993). In general,
strategic planning is regarded as being a long-term
process (time span of three years or more), directed
towards future potentials – substantial and holistic in
nature as well as predominantly associated with the
highest management level determining the vision,
mission and culture of the company. In small businesses,
the owner-manager/entrepreneur tends to represent this
level (Kraus et al, 2011).
The present study defines strategic planning as a
detailed process that aims to explicate strategy through
the analysis of various alternative strategic options
(Collier et al, 2004; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst,
2007). However, the strategy process does not consist of
detailed planning only: it also has social characteristics
such as the explication of strategy to the company’s
personnel. Making the strategy understandable and
tangible to the personnel – for example, by setting clear
goals that are aligned with the strategy – can contribute
to personnel commitment and the success of strategy
implementation (Collier et al, 2004).
Strategic planning and business performance
The relationship between strategic planning and busi-
ness performance has been one of the major research
topics in strategy research, resulting in a respectable
number of empirical investigations (Boyd, 1991;
Stonehouse and Pemberton, 2002). These investigations
have nevertheless mostly been carried out in the context
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 11, No 3

of established, large companies, and less in small
businesses. This is where the present study comes in.
Even though strategic planning has been studied
increasingly in the context of small enterprises (for
example, Robinson and Pearce, 1984; Delmar and
Shane, 2003; Gibson and Cassar, 2005), many doubts
and contradictory results have been presented concern-
ing the relationship between strategic planning and
business performance (Boyd, 1991). While some studies
suggest that effective strategic planning can contribute
to better business performance (see Schwenk and
Shrader, 1993), a number of other studies have found
either no relationship or only a weak relationship
between the two variables (Gable and Topol, 1987;
Schulte, 2008).
Nevertheless, the majority of previous studies con-
clude that the relationship between strategic planning
and small business performance is a positive one. This
was demonstrated in the literature analysis of 24 empiri-
cal studies on this topic by Kraus et al (2008), in which
79% of the reviewed investigations had found such a
positive relationship. Also, Berman et al (1997) argue
that enterprises that undertake strategic planning obtain
better financial results, which implies that resources
invested in planning activities would be compensated
financially. This hypothesis has been confirmed repeat-
edly in empirical studies. For example, Schwenk and
Shrader (1993) showed in their meta-analysis that the
existence of strategic planning correlates significantly
and positively with a business enterprise’s financial
success. Similar results were presented by Robinson and
Pearce (1984) in an earlier meta-analysis, by Bracker
and Pearson (1985) in an analysis of small enterprises in
the cleaning industry, by Sexton and Van Auken (1982)
in an investigation of 357 small enterprises in the USA,
by Bracker et al (1988) in a study of 217 managers of
small electronics firms, and by Kraus et al (2008) in a
study of 468 young small businesses in Austria.
Furthermore, Matthews and Scott (1995) found that
planning activities could help to reduce the level of
uncertainty in the company, whereas Schwenk and
Shrader (1993) came to the conclusion that strategic
planning promotes long-term thinking, reduces the
focus on operational details and provides a structure
for the identification and evaluation of strategic
alternatives. In their analysis of 51 small enterprises in
the USA, Robinson et al (1984) showed that even
simple planning activities could have a positive influ-
ence on the success of small enterprises. Moreover, the
process of planning itself seems to have a positive
effect in that it leads to a better understanding of the
business and to the recognition of a broader range of
strategic alternatives (Lyles et al, 1993). Based on
these results, we hypothesize that:
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 11, No 3
Strategic planning and small business performance
H1: Strategic planning will have a positive impact on
small business performance.
The mediating role of exploration and exploitation
While previous investigations have focused on the direct
relationship between strategic planning and small
business performance, this research proposes that the
effect of strategic planning is in fact mediated by
behaviours aimed at opportunity exploration and
resource exploitation. Mediation means that while there
is a significant relationship between an independent
variable (strategic planning) and the dependent variable
(performance), one or more variables (exploration and
exploitation) carry the influence of the independent
variable to the dependent variable (Baron and Kenny,
1986). The exploration and exploitation behaviours form
the two dimensions of the concept of ambidexterity,
which the literature defines as the ‘ability to simultane-
ously pursue both incremental and discontinuous
innovation and change’ (Tushman and O’Reilly III,
1996, p 24) or as the company’s capability to adapt to
environmental changes while aligning to today’s
business demands (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004).
Exploration implies firm behaviours characterized by
search, discovery, experimentation, risk-taking and
innovation, while exploitation entails behaviours
characterized by refinement, implementation, efficiency,
production and selection (March, 1991; Cheng and Van
de Ven, 1996). In other words, the primary purpose of
exploration is to create new business opportunities,
while exploitation aims at an efficient management of
the firm’s current business opportunities.
Previous studies have indicated that ambidextrous
strategic behaviour, manifested as an interaction of
exploration and exploitation, can have a positive effect
on business performance (Birkinshaw and Gibson,
2004; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; He and Wong,
2004; Kuckertz et al, 2010). Creating new business
opportunities alone is not sufficient to develop a profit-
able business if the firm does not possess the capability
to utilize them effectively and efficiently (Teece et al,
1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Furthermore, even
though an exclusive exploitation strategy may work in
the short run, in the long run it neglects the need for
renewing business models, developing new products and
other innovative activities required to keep up with the
competition.
Since exploitation behaviour focuses on the develop-
ment of the firm’s current products and resources,
strategic planning can facilitate these activities by
providing and explicating strategic development targets
as well as by involving company personnel in the
planning process. Through this involvement, the shared
strategic planning process may develop the motivation
223
Strategic planning and small business performance
and commitment towards resource development activi-
ties and hence increase the efficiency of implementation
(Collier et al, 2004). The development activities, rather
than strategic planning per se, contribute to business
performance. Therefore we postulate that:
H2a: The relationship between strategic planning
and small business performance will be mediated by
exploitation of the firm’s current resources.
Further, we suggest that strategic planning can facilitate
exploration behaviour by providing appropriate proc-
esses, structures and incentives for explorative activities
to take place, as well as by systematically fostering a
culture in which such behaviour can thrive. If explora-
tion is successful, it is the outcomes of these activities,
such as new products and services, which contribute to
business performance, while strategic planning fulfils a
facilitator role. Thus we propose that:
H2b: The relationship between strategic planning
and small business performance will be mediated by
opportunity exploration.
Methodology
Data
The following empirical analysis is based on data from a
September 2007 survey of small firms from Finland
(employing fewer than 50 people). The sample was
drawn from the Business Register maintained by
Statistics Finland, which is a government agency that
maintains and develops official national statistics. The
Business Register includes all Finnish businesses that
are liable to pay value added tax. The sampling frame
included all businesses that had registered in the period
from 2000 to 2006, amounting to a total of 97,804
enterprises. A random sample was drawn, and 1,089
questionnaires were sent out by regular mail, which
resulted in 153 usable responses (response rate 14%).
Although missing values were few (five or less per
variable), they were estimated by means of the expecta-
tion maximization (EM) algorithm in SPSS in order not
to lose any cases in the final analysis.
The final sample of owner-managers employed in this
analysis comprised 65% males and 35% females, the
average age of the respondents was 43 years, approxi-
mately one-third had a higher education degree, and
25% had founded at least one business before the
current one. Corresponding to the Finnish small busi-
ness population as a whole (Statistics Finland, 2005),
most of the firms in the sample were micro-enterprises:
that is, they employed fewer than 10 people (European
Commission, 2003). Slightly more than half of the
sampled firms operated in the service sector.
224
Measures and questionnaire design
The survey instrument used to collect the data was
designed specifically to consider the relationships
between strategic planning, exploration, exploitation and
business performance. All variables were measured on a
seven-point Likert scale. This also means that all
variables reflect the respondent’s opinions and percep-
tions, rather than indisputable facts. Measurement
instrument item scales were adapted from previous
studies, translated into Finnish and slightly modified to
suit the context of the present study. The wordings of the
scale variables and their means, standard deviations and
loadings are displayed in the Appendix.
The strategic planning measurement scale was
adapted from Collier et al (2004). The scale measures
the level of formalization in the company’s strategic
planning by capturing various dimensions, such as the
level of detail in strategic planning, preciseness of
strategic objectives, strategic choice and the explication
of strategy.
Exploration and exploitation were measured with
items adapted from He and Wong (2004; see also Jansen
et al, 2006; Kuckertz et al, 2010). The exploration items
addressed dimensions such as activeness in seeking new
business opportunities, frequency of introducing new
products and emphasis placed on expanding the current
product portfolio. The measures employed to capture
exploitation behaviour included the level of quality
development, investments in current resources and
development of the company’s current business to
become more cost-effective.
Performance was measured by means of four items,
which were adapted from Wolff and Pett (2006; see also
Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). The items measure the
overall performance of the company, its growth rate and
profitability compared with the competition, as well as
the owner’s subjective satisfaction with the company’s
performance. Perception-based performance measures
are commonly used and they have been found to
correlate with objective measures of business perform-
ance (Murphy and Callaway, 2004; Richard et al, 2009).
Common method variance
We tested the possible effects of common method
variance for the construct variables using Harman’s
(1976) one-factor test. If common method variance were
a serious problem in the study, we would expect a single
factor to emerge from a factor analysis or one general
factor to account for most of the covariances in the
independent and dependent variables (Podsakoff and
Organ, 1986). All 14 items of the main measures of the
research model were factor analysed using principal axis
factoring in which the unrotated factor solution was
examined (Podsakoff et al, 2003). Factor analytic results
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 11, No 3
 Strategic planning and small business performance

indicated the existence of four factors with Eigenvalues

Table 1. Construct reliability measures – Cronbach’s α,
greater than 1 (KMO = 0.805). These four factors composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE).
explained 71% of the variance among the 14 items,
while the first factor accounted for 32% of the variance. Construct Cronbach’s α Composite AVE
reliability
Since several factors, as opposed to one single factor,
Performance 0.79 0.86 0.61
were identified and since the first factor did not account Exploitation 0.66 0.81 0.60
for the majority of the variance, there did not appear to Exploration 0.83 0.90 0.74
be a substantial amount of common method variance. Strategic 0.87 0.91 0.72
planning
Analysis
The research model was examined by utilizing the
partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural Table 2. Construct discriminant validity – squared latent
equation modelling (for example, Wold, 1985; variable correlations (off-diagonal elements) versus average
variance extracted (AVE) (diagonal elements, italicized).
Lohmöller, 1989) with the software package SmartPLS
2.0 (Ringle et al, 2005). We decided in favour of the Perform- Exploita- Explora- Strategic
ance tion tion planning
PLS approach due to its non-parametric nature, which
makes it suitable for analysing relatively small datasets Performance 0.61
Exploitation 0.18 0.59
with non-normally distributed variables (Chin, 1998). Exploration 0.02 0.24 0.75
Whereas covariance-based methods of structural Strategic 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.72
equation modelling require relatively large sample sizes planning
(Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1982), PLS requires as a mini-
mum number of cases only 10 times the number of (Chin, 1998). Moreover, the average variance extracted
independent variables that affect the dependent latent (AVE) scores indicate that for every construct more than
variable with the most predictors, in case only reflective 50% of the variance is explained, thus exceeding the
measurement models are employed (Chin and Newsted, measurement error. Even though the scale for exploita-
1999), as is the case in the present study. A model such tion requires further refinement in future research, the
as the present one in which a maximum of three inde- reliability measures as a whole show satisfactory values.
pendent variables predict a dependent variable requires a Discriminant validity is assessed both at the item level
minimum sample size of just 30 observations for stable and at the construct level. With respect to item discrimi-
and reliable estimates. Thus, our sample size of 153 can nant validity, an inspection of indicator cross-loadings
be regarded as quite sufficient. reveals that all indicators are loading at their highest
with their respective constructs and that no indicator
loads higher on other constructs than on its intended
Results construct. Therefore it is safe to assume item discrimi-
nant validity. At the construct level, the comparison of
Assessment of the measurement model each reflective construct’s AVE and the squared latent
The research model consists of four latent variables in variable correlations (Chin, 1998) suggests that there is
Mode A: that is, they employ reflective measurement satisfactory discriminant validity since the AVE for each
models (see Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006). Most construct exceeds the respective squared latent variable
item measures show loadings of more than 0.7 to their correlations (Cool et al, 1989). Table 2 presents the
respective constructs, indicating satisfactory convergent favourable results of this test. Overall, the evaluation of
validity, while one loading in the exploitation construct the reflective measurement models reveals that all
remains below the recommended threshold (see Appen- constructs are of satisfactory reliability and validity.
dix). This indicates a need to reconsider this item in
future studies. However, Chin (1998) argued that this Assessment of the structural model
threshold value could be flexible. Therefore, in order to The structural model was estimated utilizing the path
retain theoretical consistency, we decided not to drop weighting scheme, which is the only weighting scheme
any items at this stage. that explicitly considers the directions of the causal
The construct reliability measures for the latent relationships between exogenous and endogenous
variables are satisfactory (Table 1). Even though the variables (Lohmöller, 1989; Chin, 1998). Following
Cronbach alpha value of the exploitation construct common conventions, the abort criterion for the iterative
remains below the usual threshold value of 0.7 estimation process was selected as a change of the
(Nunnally, 1978), the composite reliability scores in all estimated values of just 10–5% between two iterations. A
constructs clearly exceed the recommended value of 0.7 standard bootstrapping procedure (Efron and

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 11, No 3 225

Strategic planning and small business performance
Exploration
R2 = 0.09
Q2 = 0.06
0.31*** –0.06
Strategic –0.01 Performance
planning R2 = 0.18
Q2 = 0.09
0.39*** 0.45***
Exploitation
R2 = 0.15
Q2 = 0.08
Figure 2. Results of the partial least squares analysis.
Note: Path coefficients reported. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p <
0.001 (based on one-sided t-test with 500 df).
Tibishirani, 1993; Yung and Bentler, 1996) with 500 re-
samples consisting of the same number of cases as in the
original sample was applied in order to determine the
significance of each estimated path.
Prior to estimating the full structural model, we
analysed the direct effect of strategic planning on
performance without the mediating variables in the
model. This is necessary because mediation can only
exist when there is a significant relationship between the
independent and dependent variables. The path coeffi-
cient turned out to be significant at the p < 0.001 level,
with strategic planning explaining 5% of the variance in
the dependent variable. This finding supports Hypoth-
esis 1, which postulated a positive relationship between
strategic planning and performance.
Next, the mediating variables were added to the
model (Figure 2). Overall, the PLS algorithm results in
acceptable explanatory power of the three endogenous
variables in the model, with R2 values ranging from 0.09
to 0.18. Moreover, the Q2 values associated with the
Stone-Geisser criterion are consistently higher than zero,
indicating that the prerequisites of predictive relevance
for the model are fulfilled (Krafft et al, 2005). In order
for exploration and/or exploitation to mediate the effect
of strategic planning on performance, the path coeffi-
cients from strategic planning to the mediators and those
from the mediators to the dependent variable should be
significant (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Moreover, the path
coefficient of the direct path from strategic planning to
performance should diminish as a result of the introduc-
tion of the mediators to the model.
An examination of the path coefficients indicates that
strategic planning has a significant positive effect on
exploration and exploitation at the p < 0.001 level, while
the path from strategic planning to performance is now
non-significant. Further, since the path model shows a
positive and statistically significant (p < 0.001) effect
from exploitation to performance, it appears that
226
exploitation mediates the effect of strategic planning on
performance. Thus, Hypothesis 2a receives support.
Since the relationship between exploration and perform-
ance is non-significant, Hypothesis 2b is not supported.
Conclusion
This study responds to the recommendation in previous
research to seek factors that either mediate or moderate
the relationship between strategic planning and business
performance (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2007)
by examining exploration and exploitation behaviours as
potential mediators in this context. The empirical results
based on a sample of 153 small Finnish enterprises
suggest that the processes, routines, methods and
structures aimed at enhancing the exploitation of current
resources so as to maximize the benefit from existing
business opportunities, mediate the impact of strategic
planning on small business performance. Hence, the
study contributes to previous strategy literature by
presenting a construct that carries the effect of strategic
planning to the performance of a small firm. We contend
that the positive impact of strategic planning on exploi-
tation may at least partially result from setting and
explicating clear strategic targets that steer the resource
development efforts, and hence create energy and
efficiency for strategy implementation (Collier et al,
2004).
The results also show that a focus on the exploration
of new business opportunities – even though clearly a
subject of strategic planning in the sample companies –
does not directly translate into improved performance.
However, this finding does not mean that the exploration
of new business opportunities is irrelevant to business
performance. It means rather that the impact of explora-
tion on performance is indirect, and thus likely to be
mediated or moderated by other factors, such as the
company’s innovation capabilities or the company
having an organized innovation process (Raisch and
Birkinshaw, 2008). Thus, further research is required to
investigate the variables that mediate or moderate the
impact of exploration on business performance.
Three particular limitations of the study should be
considered in further research. One is that all measure-
ment items were reflective and thus based on the
respondents’ impressions, opinions or ‘gut feelings’
(Miller and Ireland, 2005), rather than on ‘objective’
facts. A more appropriate way of measuring strategic
planning, business performance and perhaps even the
exploration and exploitation variables might be to apply
formative measures (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006)
either exclusively or, preferably, alongside reflective
measures. This way, reflective and formative measures
could validate each other. Business performance, for
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 11, No 3

instance, could be measured with a number of objective
proxies, such as increase in turnover or number of
employees, in addition to the (subjective) reflective
impressions of the owner-manager as in the present
study. Similarly, strategic planning could be
operationalized as the extent and types of different
strategy tools being applied in the company (Kraus et al,
2006), rather than merely as subjective opinions of the
entrepreneur concerning the extent to which strategy is
planned. Another limitation of the study relates to the
cross-sectional survey data, which limit the demonstra-
tion of causation. Future studies should thus seek to
develop longitudinal research designs. A further limita-
tion is our relatively small and cross-sectoral dataset,
which consists primarily of micro-enterprises. Larger
samples are required to refine the model further and
confirm its findings, while controlling, for example, for
the effects of firm size and industry. This is where
further empirical research could commence.
The results suggest several managerial implications.
Since strategic planning impacts on performance via
exploitation behaviour, a particular role of strategic
planning for small businesses is to facilitate the recogni-
tion of resource development requirements, such as
investments in production lines or personnel develop-
ment and the implementation of the respective
development initiatives, which contribute to short- or
medium-term business performance. Even if this study
did not show a direct relationship between exploration
behaviour and business performance, the results do
indicate that Finnish small businesses consider the
exploration of new opportunities in their strategic
planning. In order to transform these activities into
enhanced business performance, companies may need
suitable methods such as structured innovation proc-
esses in order not only to recognize, but also to utilize
the new business opportunities.
References
Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986), ‘The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: concep-
tual, strategic, and statistical considerations’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 51, No 6, pp 1173–
1182.
Bauer, B. (2002), Kleine und mittlere Unternehmen – Übersicht
über Bedeutung, bereits getroffene und mögliche weitere
Maßnahmen auf EU-Ebene und in Österreich, Federal
Ministry of Finance, Vienna.
Berman, J. A., Gordon, D. D., and Sussmann, G. (1997), ’A study
to determine the benefits small business firms derive from
sophisticated planning versus less sophisticated types of
planning’, Journal of Business and Economic Studies, Vol 3,
No 3, pp 1–11.
Berry, M. (1998), ‘Strategic planning in small high tech compa-
nies’, Long Range Planning, Vol 31, No 3, pp 455–466.
Birkinshaw, J., and Gibson, C. (2004), ‘Building ambidexterity
into an organization’, Sloan Management Review, Vol 45, No
4, pp 47–55.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 11, No 3
Strategic planning and small business performance
Boyd, B. K. (1991), ‘Strategic planning and financial perform-
ance: a meta-analytic review’, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol 28, No 4, pp 353–374.
Bracker, J. S., Keats, B. W., and Pearson, J. N. (1988), ‘Planning
and financial performance among small firms in a growth
industry’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 9, No 6, pp
591–603.
Bracker, J. S., and Pearson, J. N. (1985), ‘The impact of consult-
ants on small firm strategic planning’, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol 23, No 3, pp 23–30.
Cheng, Y. T., and Van de Ven, A. H. (1996), ‘Learning the
innovation journey: order out of chaos?’ Organization Science,
Vol 7, No 6, pp 593–614.
Chin, W. W. (1998), ‘The partial least squares approach to
structural equation modeling’, in Marcoulides, G. A., ed,
Modern Methods in Business Research, Earlbaum, Hillsdale,
NJ, pp 295–336.
Chin, W. W., and Newsted, P. R. (1999), ‘Structural equation
modeling analysis with small samples using partial least
squares’, in Hoyle, R. H., ed, Statistical Strategies for Small
Sample Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 307–341.
Collier, N., Fishwick, F., and Floyd, S. W. (2004), ‘Managerial
involvement and perceptions of strategy process’, Long
Range Planning, Vol 37, No 1, pp 67–83.
Cool, K., Dierickx, I., and Jemison, D. (1989), ‘Business strategy,
market structure and risk-return relationships: a structural
approach’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 10, No 6, pp
507–522.
Delmar, F., and Shane, S. (2003), ‘Does business planning
facilitate the development of new ventures?’ Strategic
Management Journal, Vol 24, No 12, pp 1165–1185.
Diamantopoulos, A., and Siguaw, J. A. (2006), ‘Formative versus
reflective indicators in organizational measure development –
a comparison and empirical illustration’, British Journal of
Management, Vol 17, No 4, pp 263–282.
Efron, B., and Tibishirani, R. (1993), An Introduction to the
Bootstrap, Chapman & Hall, New York.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Martin, J. A. (2000), ‘Dynamic capabilities:
what are they?’ Strategic Management Journal, Vol 21, No 10,
pp 1105–1121.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Sull, D. N. (2001), ‘Strategy as simple
rules’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 79, No 1, pp 107–116.
European Commission (2003), SME Definition: Commission
Recommendation of 06 May 2003, European Commission,
Brussels.
Gable, M., and Topol, M. T. (1987), ‘Planning practices of small-
scale retailers’, American Journal of Small Business, Vol 12,
No 2, pp 19–32.
Gibbons, P. T., and O’Connor, T. (2005), ‘Influences on strategic
planning processes among Irish SMEs’, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol 43, No 2, pp 170–186.
Gibson, C. B., and Birkinshaw, J. (2004), ‘The antecedents,
consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidex-
terity’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 47, No 4, pp
209–226.
Gibson, B., and Cassar, G. (2005), ‘Longitudinal analysis of
relationships between planning and performance in small
firms’, Small Business Economics, Vol 25, No 3, pp 207–222.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., and Shalley, C. E. (2006), ‘The
interplay between exploration and exploitation’, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol 49, No 4, pp 693–706.
Harman, H. H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, 3 ed, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
He, Z.-L., and Wong, P.-K. (2004), ‘Exploration vs. exploitation:
an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis’, Organiza-
tion Science, Vol 15, No 4, pp 481–494.
Hutzschenreuter, T., and Kleindienst, I. (2007), ‘Strategy-process
research: what have we learned and what is still to be
explored’, Journal of Management, Vol 32, No 5, pp 673–720.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., and Simon, D. G. (2003), ‘A model of
strategic entrepreneurship: the construct and its dimensions’,
Journal of Management, Vol 29, No 6, pp 963–989.
227
Strategic planning and small business performance
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., and Volberda, H. W.
(2006), ‘Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and
performance: effects of organizational antecedents and
environmental moderators’, Journal of Management, Vol 52,
No 11, pp 1661–1674.
Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. (1982), ‘Recent developments
in structural equation modeling’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol 19, No 4, pp 404–416.
Krafft, M., Götz, O., and Liehr-Gobbers, K. (2005), ‘Die
Validierung von Strukturgleichungsmodellen mit Hilfe des
Partial-Least-Squares (PLS)-Ansatzes’, in Bliemel, F., et al,
eds, Handbuch PLS-Pfadmodellierung, Schäffer-Poeschel,
Stuttgart, pp 71–86.
Kraus, S., Harms, R., and Schwarz, E. J. (2006), ‘Strategic
planning in smaller enterprises – new empirical findings’,
Management Research News, Vol 29, No 6, pp 334–344.
Kraus, S., Harms, R., and Schwarz, E. (2008), ‘Strategic
business planning and success in small firms’, International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol
8, No 4, pp 381-–396.
Kraus, S., Kauranen, I., and Reschke, C. H. (2011), ‘Strategic
entrepreneurship: identifying domains in a developmental
configuration approach’, Management Research Review
(formerly Management Research News), Vol 34 (in press).
Kuckertz, A., Kohtamäki, M., and Körber, C. (2010), ‘Why the fast
eat the slow – the impact of strategy and innovation timing on
technology-oriented ventures’, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol 52, No 1/2.
Lohmöller, J. (1989), Latent Variable Path Modelling with Partial
Least Squares, Physica, Heidelberg.
Lubatkin, M. H., et al (2006), ‘Ambidexterity and performance in
small- to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top manage-
ment team behavioral integration’, Journal of Management,
Vol 32, No 5, pp 646–672.
Lyles, M. A., et al (1993), ‘Formalized planning in small business:
increasing strategic choices’, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol 31, No 2, pp 38–50.
March, J. G. (1991), ‘Exploration and exploitation in organiza-
tional learning’, Organization Science, Vol 2, No 1, pp 71–87.
Matthews, C. H., and Scott, S. G. (1995), ‘Uncertainty and
planning in small and entrepreneurial firms: an empirical
assessment’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol 33,
No 4, pp 34–52.
Miller, C. C., and Cardinal, L. B. (1994), ‘Strategic planning and
firm performance: a synthesis of more than two decades of
research’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 37, No 6, pp
1649–1665.
Miller, C. C., and Ireland, R. D. (2005), ‘Intuition in strategic
decision making: friend or foe in the fast-paced 21st century?’
Academy of Management Executive, Vol 19, No 1, pp 19–30.
Murphy, G. B., and Callaway, S. K. (2004), ‘Doing well and happy
about it? Explaining variance in entrepreneurs’ stated
satisfaction with performance’, New England Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Vol 7, No 2, pp 15–26.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Podsakoff, P. M., et al (2003), ‘Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
228
recommended remedies’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol
88, No 5, pp 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., and Organ, D. W. (1986), ‘Self-reports in
organizational research: problems and prospects’, Journal of
Management, Vol 12, No 4, pp 531–544.
Raisch, S., and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), ‘Organizational ambidex-
terity: antecedents, outcomes and moderators’, Journal of
Management, Vol 34, No 3, pp 375–409.
Richard, P. J., et al (2009), ‘Measuring organizational perform-
ance: towards methodological best practice’, Journal of
Management, Vol 35, No 3, pp 718–804.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0,
University of Hamburg, Website: http://www.smartpls.de.
Robinson, R. B., and Pearce, J. A. (1984), ‘Research thrusts in
small firm strategic planning’, Academy of Management
Review, Vol 9, No 1, pp 128–137.
Robinson, R. B., et al (1984), ‘The relationship between stage of
development and small firm planning and performance’, Jour-
nal of Small Business Management, Vol 22, No 2, pp 45–52.
Schulte, R. (2008), ‘Pre-start-up planning sophistication and new
venture performance’, in Fink, M., and Kraus, S., eds, The
Management in Small and Medium Enterprises, Routledge,
London, pp 3–19.
Schwenk, C. R., and Shrader, C. B. (1993), ‘Effects of formal
strategic planning on financial performance in small firms: a
meta-analysis’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol 17,
No 3, pp 53–64.
Sexton, D. K., and Van Auken, P. (1982), ‘Prevalence of strategic
planning in small business’, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol 20, No 1, pp 20–26.
Statistics Finland (2005), Enterprises, 2005, Statistics Finland,
Helsinki.
Stonehouse, G., and Pemberton, J. (2002), ‘Strategic planning in
SMEs – some empirical findings’, Management Decision, Vol
40, No 9, pp 853–861.
Tapinos, E., Dyson, R. G., and Meadows, M. (2005), ‘The impact
of performance measurement in strategic planning’, Interna-
tional Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol 54, No 5/6, pp 370–384.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997), ‘Dynamic capabili-
ties and strategic management’, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol 18, No 7, pp 509–533.
Tushman, M. L., and O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996), ‘Ambidextrous
organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary
change’, California Management Review, Vol 38, No 4, pp 8–
30.
Wold, H. (1985), ‘Partial least squares’, in Kotz, S., and Johnson,
N. L., eds, Encyclopaedia of Statistical Science, Wiley, New
York, pp 581–591.
Wolff, J. A., and Pett, T. L. (2006), ‘Small-firm performance –
modeling the role of product and process improvements’,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol 44, No 6, pp
268–284.
Yung, Y., and Bentler, P. M. (1996), ‘Bootstrapping techniques in
analysis of mean and covariance structures’, in Marcoulides,
G. A., and Schumacker, R. E., eds, Advanced Structural
Equation Modelling. Issues and Techniques, Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, pp 195–226.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 11, No 3
 Strategic planning and small business performance

Appendix
Construct variables (translated from Finnish)

Variable (all measured on a 7-point Likert scale) Mean SD Loading

Performance (adapted from Wolff and Pett, 2006; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). Question: ‘How do you
assess the current performance of your business on the following criteria?’
The performance of my business is excellent compared with my competitors. 5.13 1.24 0.85
The business has grown rapidly compared with competitors. 3.85 1.70 0.71
The business is very profitable compared with competitors. 4.69 1.38 0.78
The owners of the business are satisfied with its performance. 4.92 1.55 0.77
Exploitation (adapted from He and Wong, 2004; Kuckertz et al, 2010; Jansen et al, 2006). Question: ‘How
well do the following statements describe the development of your company’s operations?’
Our company actively develops the quality of its existing products or services. 5.59 1.14 0.85
Our company invests strongly in the development of its existing business. 5.33 1.28 0.88
Our company actively develops its current business in order to cut costs. 4.68 1.48 0.54
Exploration (adapted from He and Wong, 2004; Kuckertz et al, 2010; Jansen et al, 2006). Question: ‘How
well do the following statements describe the development of your company’s operations?’
Our company actively strives to find new business opportunities in the market. 4.48 1.72 0.86
Our company frequently introduces new products or product groups. 3.96 1.86 0.86
Our company strives to expand its product portfolio. 4.03 1.75 0.87
Strategic planning (adapted from Collier et al, 2004). Question: ‘How well do the following statements
describe your company’s strategic planning?’
Strategy is planned on a detailed level. 3.74 1.59 0.88
We analyse multiple alternatives before choosing a strategy. 4.13 1.69 0.82
We have precisely defined strategic objectives. 3.86 1.66 0.87
Our strategy has been made visible by drafting a detailed plan. 3.25 1.67 0.83

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 11, No 3 229