Keywords

Entrepreneurial Orientation, Active Learning, Knowledge Workers.

Introduction

Numerous studies have established a strong correlation between EO and the financial and non-financial performance of businesses. Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) can be described as the process of developing a plan for decision-making to gain a competitive advantage (Al Mamun, Kumar et al., 2017; Bolton & Lane, 2012; Lomberg, et al., 2017).

The concept of knowledge as a resource that organizations could use to boost competitiveness arose in the 1990s. Organizations' ability to monitor their expertise has been described as the primary catalyst of internal innovation (Schmitz et al., 2014). Businesses' most important assets are their knowledgeable staff since they could earn the best return for the company. Knowledge workers are described as employees who, regardless of their educational context, are continually on the lookout for novel ways to solve problems and improve enterprise value through the production, creation, development, and application of knowledge at work (Jia & Fan, 2014). Thus, the research aims to explore knowledge workers' active learning in light of their entrepreneurial orientation, as entrepreneurial orientation is manifested in an organization's behaviors and values and focuses on the proactive promotion of sustainable growth opportunities.

Literature Review

Entrepreneurial Orientation

The definition of EO was initially defined in terms of three dimensions, namely proactiveness, risk-taking, and innovativeness, and then expanded to include two additional dimensions, namely competitive aggressiveness and autonomy. EO defines as a set of processes, procedures, and decision-making behaviors that result in creating novel objects. (Almeida, Daniel, & Figueiredo, 2019; Lomberg et al., 2017; Zehir et al., 2015).

The term innovative refers to the pursuit of novel, imaginative, and distinct solutions to a problem or need. These solutions can manifest as new methods, new products, or new services. Risk-takers demonstrate a desire to commit substantial capital to fair prospects that include measured and controlled uncertainties to avert costly failure. Meanwhile, proactivity refers to the act of initiating new initiatives to predict and capitalize on opportunities. This pioneering conduct necessitates perseverance, adaptability, and a tolerance to mistake (Dewi, et al., 2017; Moghaddam et al., 2015). The autonomy factor refers to the proclivity to behave independently and the ability to experiment and take calculated risks. The final two dimensions dubbed the dimensions of autonomy and competitive aggressiveness, serve as the foundation for EO research, with five behavioral dimensions (Almeida et al., 2019; Bolton & Lane, 2012; Lomberg et al., 2017; Parsian & Mobaraki, 2016; Zehir et al., 2015). Entrepreneurial orientation has recently been seen as a rationale for firm progress as well as a strategic guide to decision making. That is, firms with a high degree of strategic responsiveness are more likely to search out, identify, create, and launch new venture opportunities and strategic renewal to retain competitive advantages are unique variables (Salleh & Huang, 2011).

Active Learning as the Basis of Organizational Learning

Knowledge is a critical competitive advantage and resource for businesses. Knowledge management is a collection of knowledge-based practices that encompasses behavioural patterns and processes and knowledge, individual capabilities, and interactions. Organizations produce knowledge-based activities that allow effective use of the skills, knowledge, strengths, ideas, and commitments (Ismail & Yusof, 2010). It supports the firms' learning processes which involve integrating pre-existing skills, assimilation, and application to generate new knowledge and capabilities (Zhao et al., 2018). Additionally, it is referred to as active learning or independent learning and serves as the foundation for knowledge management. (Armstrong, 2015).

Entrepreneurial orientation manifests itself in an organization's attitudes and beliefs, focusing on proactively pursuing opportunities and innovating. Companies with a high degree of entrepreneurialism need organizational learning mechanisms to foster an atmosphere conducive to learning and creativity by fostering mutually beneficial partnerships between workers and their organizations. Developing an organization's learning capacity is one strategy for keeping up with a changing world. Active learning is a form of knowledge-based resource skill, has been recognized as a critical mechanism for effective innovation, and ultimately defines and facilitates an organization's performance (Salleh & Huang, 2011).

Hypotheses

H₁: There is a significant difference between knowledge worker's active learning based on the entrepreneurial orientation

Research Methodology

This study aims to examine knowledge workers' active learning behaviors in greater Jakarta, Indonesia, concerning their entrepreneurial orientation. The study was concluded in April 2021. Two questionnaires were created based on the literature review. The first questionnaire examined the entrepreneurship orientation of knowledge workers, while the second examined their active learning habits. Although 387 knowledge workers from various sectors engaged in this research, only 328 responses can be analyzed further. Males outnumber females 49% to 51%, with 17% holding a vocational diploma, 73% holding a bachelor's degree, 9% holding a master's degree, and 1% holding a doctoral degree. Their average age is 63 percent in their twenties, 12 percent in their thirties, 17 percent in their forties, and 8 percent in their fifties. Banking and financial services account for 13%, education accounts for 4%, health care accounts for 3%, private businesses account for 46%, government employees account for 5%, information and technology accounts for 9%, consulting offices account for 7%, creative arts and crafts account for 6%, and leisure and hospitality account for 8%.

The Rash Model Approach uses to analyze the data, including the research instrument's validity and reliability test. The Rasch Model using Winstep was performed in version 3.73. The Rasch Model is a data analysis method that can transform ordinal responses from Likert rating scales into interval values (Miftahuddin, et al., 2020). It also helps to predict the respondents' responses to be correctly predicted on all items. The Rasch Model rearranges item scores into a set of ordinal values (measure) called "unit of opportunity logarithms" (logit) (Miftahuddin et al., 2020).

The first instrument is a five-dimensional assessment of entrepreneurial orientation. These include autonomy, innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, and competitive aggression. The second is about active learning habits, which are often referred to as knowledge management behaviors, and it is divided into three dimensions. These are knowledge creation, knowledge dissemination, and knowledge renewal. The first table below focused on the validity and reliability of the testing instruments—table 1 summarizes the reliability test results.

Table 1 Reliability Test of the Task-Positive Attitude Instrument
Summary statistics	Person	Item
Reliability	0.92	0.99
Cronbach Alpha	0.93

Table 1 reveals that the Cronbach's alpha for measuring research instrument reliability is 0.93, indicating an excellent interaction between the items and the respondents' responses (Sumintono, 2014). The person's accuracy in their responses is 0.92, suggesting a consistent response of the respondents. The accuracy of the test item reliability is 0.99, meaning that the research instrument's items are also outstanding. Both values explain that there is a firm consistency in respondents' responses, and the quality of the items is excellent to measure both research variables (Sumintono, 2014). However, the validity test results indicate two items (R5 and A2) that are outliers as the logit values are above 1.5 logit (Sumintono, 2014). This was subtracted from the risk-taking and autonomy dimensions.

Table 2 Active Learning Behaviour among Knowledge Worker
Knowledge Worker		Measure
High entrepreneurial orientation	246	3.07
Low entrepreneurial orientation	82	0.76
Mean Total	328	2.50
Significance level 0.05	0.00 < 0.05

Findings and Discussion

The first result is about knowledge workers' entrepreneurial orientation (see Figure 1). It demonstrates that 75% of knowledge workers have a higher entrepreneurial orientation because their measure logit is greater than the mean logit (0.34 logit), while 25% have a lower entrepreneurial orientation because their measure logit is less than the mean logit. The knowledge worker's most difficult entrepreneurial orientation item to agree on is the willingness to take steps to accomplish goals, while the easiest item to agree on is that they are accountable for the choices they make. It means that knowledge workers are less risk-averse.

The second study focuses on knowledge workers' active learning behaviors. The results indicate that knowledge workers with a strong entrepreneurial orientation are more involved in their active learning behaviors (3.07 logit) since the measure value is higher than the mean measure (2.50 logit) at the 0.00 stage of significance. Additionally, knowledge workers with a low entrepreneurial orientation engage in slightly less active learning, as measured by a lower measure value (0.76 logit) at the 0.00 level of significance (Sumintono, 2014). It implies that the research hypothesis was accepted "there is a difference between knowledge worker's active learning based on the entrepreneurial orientation" at significance level 0.05.

The research findings corroborate prior research about how entrepreneurial orientation manifests itself in an organization's attitudes and ideals, with a particular focus on active knowledge pursuit and innovation. Businesses with a high level of entrepreneurialism need organizational learning systems that foster an atmosphere conducive to innovating new things creatively. Entrepreneurial orientation could be a significant enabler in active learning as a form of knowledge-based capacity (Salleh & Huang, 2011).

The study indicates that knowledge workers are keen to receive updates from experts, collaborate with others to address challenges, learn how to improve themselves, use their skills, and share knowledge to assist others. Those are the types of active learning that occur as a result of daily experiences.

Conclusion

It is important to understand Entrepreneurial Orientation and its relationship to active learning, which is the bedrock of organizational learning. The majority of early research has concentrated on entrepreneurial orientation as a developing method within entrepreneurial principles and corporate culture. Though corporate enterprise is gaining popularity in today's dynamic and disruptive climate, it emphasizes companies as collective bodies. It necessitates a deeper understanding of how firms study and engage in entrepreneurship processes to sustain performance improvement. The study demonstrates a more nuanced view of the entrepreneurial learning process.

Business performance is a concept that refers to a company's success in achieving strategic goals over a specified period. Human resources, which corresponds to an organization's employees, is a critical resource. As a consequence, corporate performance is described as the total of the outcomes of individual employees. The competitive advantage of a company may contribute to an employee's ability to perform assigned tasks. It results from the amount and quality of work that employees will do in connection with their delegated roles using specialized skills such as team building, problem solving, and entrepreneurial principles that enable the essential essence of continuous learning. Organizational learning is essential as companies grow to keep capital and expertise current with internal and external demand. This research demonstrates that knowledge workers with a robust entrepreneurial orientation are more likely to engage in active learning or knowledge management behaviors. The study can be expanded to examine the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on active learning.

Acknowledgement

We would like to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to Mr Bambang Sumintono, Ph.D, who taught us about Rasch Model Analysis and gave us opportunities to practice more using the Winstep software version 3.73 in Rasch Model Analysis.

References

1. Al Mamun, A., Kumar, N., Ibrahim, M.D., &amli; Bin Yusoff, M.N.H. (2017). Validating the measurement of entrelireneurial orientation. Economics and Sociology, 10(4), 51–66.
2. Almeida, J., Daniel, A.D., &amli; Figueiredo, C. (2019). Understanding the role of entrelireneurial orientation in junior enterlirises. Journal of Entrelireneurshili Education, 22(2), 1–14.
3. Armstrong, M. (2015). Handbook of Reward Management liractice.
4. Bolton, D.L., &amli; Lane, M.D. (2012). Individual entrelireneurial orientation: Develoliment of a measurement instrument. Education and Training, 54(2–3), 219–233.
5. Dewi, S., Kasali, R., Balqiah, T.E., &amli; Widjaja, A.W. (2017). The Role of Entrelireneurial Orientation in Achieving Organization lierformance Through Business Model Innovation and Strategic Collaboration. 36(Icbmr), 238–249.
6. Ismail, M., &amli; Yusof, Z. (2010). The Imliact of Individual Factors on Knowledge Sharing Quality. Journal of Organizational Knolwedge Management, 2010, 1–13.
7. Jia, J., &amli; Fan, L. (2014). Research Framework of Human Resource Develoliment Based on Comlietency about Knowledge Enterlirise. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(11), 107–111.
8. Lee, S.M., &amli; Lim, S. (2009). Entrelireneurial orientation and the lierformance of service business. Service Business, 3(1), 1–13.
9. Lomberg, C., Urbig, D., Stöckmann, C., Marino, L.D., &amli; Dickson, li.H. (2017). Entrelireneurial Orientation: The Dimensions' Shared Effects in Exlilaining Firm lierformance. Entrelireneurshili: Theory and liractice, 41(6), 973–998.
10. Miftahuddin, A., Hermanto, B., Raharja, S.J., &amli; Chan, A. (2020). City brand attractiveness on tourism using rasch model aliliroach. International Journal of Sulilily Chain Management, 9(2), 150–156.
11. Moghaddam, J.Y., Khorakian, A., &amli; Maharati, Y. (2015). Organizational Entrelireneurshili and its Imliact on the lierformance of Governmental Organizations in the City of Mashhad. lirocedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 169(2014), 75–87.
12. liarsian, M., &amli; Mobaraki, M.H. (2016). Investigating of the effect of entrelireneurial orientations on formation of entrelireneurial identity. Management Science Letters, 6, 627–634.
13. Salleh, K., &amli; Huang, C.C. (2011). Value Creation Through Knowledge Management And Intellectual Caliital : An Emliirical Investigation. (2000), 478–485.
14. Schmitz, S., Rebelo, T., Gracia, F.J., &amli; Tomás, I. (2014). Learning culture and knowledge management lirocesses: To what extent are they effectively related? Revista de lisicologia Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones, 30(3), 113–121.
15. Sumintono, B. (2014). RASCH SUMINTONO.lidf.
16. Zehir, C., Can, E., &amli; Karaboga, T. (2015). Linking Entrelireneurial Orientation to Firm lierformance: The Role of Differentiation Strategy and Innovation lierformance. lirocedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, 358–367.
17. Zhao, J., Zhu, C., lieng, Z., Xu, X., &amli; Liu, Y. (2018). User willingness toward knowledge sharing in social networks. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(12), 1–27.