Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Academic Editor: Víctor Jesús
García-Morales
Received: 3 November 2024
Revised: 2 December 2024
Accepted: 13 December 2024
Published: 22 January 2025
Citation: Rehman, K.; Lim, K.B.; Yeo,
S.F.; Saif, N.; Ameeq, M. The Nexus of
Entrepreneurial Leadership and
Entrepreneurial Success with a
Mediation of Technology Management
Processes: From the Perspective of the
Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises
of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Sustainability 2025,17, 882. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su17030882
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
The Nexus of Entrepreneurial Leadership and Entrepreneurial
Success with a Mediation of Technology Management Processes:
From the Perspective of the Small- and Medium-Sized
Enterprises of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
Khalid Rehman 1, Kah Boon Lim 2, * , Sook Fern Yeo 2,3 , Naveed Saif 4and Muhammad Ameeq 5,*
1Institute of Business Administration, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan 29050, Pakistan;
khalidrehman@gu.edu.pk
2Faculty of Business, Multimedia University, Jalan Ayer Keroh Lama, Melaka 75450, Malaysia;
yeo.sook.fern@mmu.edu.my
3Department of Business Administration, Daffodil International University, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh
4Institute of Business Administration, University of Science and Technology Bannu, Bannu 28100, Pakistan;
n.saif@ustb.edu.pk
5Department of Statistics, Faculty of Computing, Islamia University Bahawalpur, Punjab 63100, Pakistan
*Correspondence: kblim@mmu.edu.my (K.B.L.); ameeq7777@gmail.com (M.A.)
Abstract: Individual leadership styles, including entrepreneurial leadership (EL), vary and
encompass creative urges, risk-taking, decision-making, and a proactive mindset. This re-
search explores how entrepreneurial leadership (EL) can positively impact entrepreneurial
success (ES). It also highlights the positive influence that EL has on ES and investigates how
technology management processes (TMPs) can play a mediating role. For this purpose, data
were collected from employees in the SMEs sector in KP, Pakistan. The results indicate that
EL has a significant relationship with ES and TMPs. Findings also reveal that TMPs partially
mediate the relationship between EL and ES. Based on the findings, policy-makers and
regulators can use the results of this study to design policies that encourage entrepreneurial
activity and foster an environment favorable to SMEs in KP. This study’s findings can help
KP officials understand the elements that influence the success of SMEs and devise policies
that encourage the growth of technology management systems and diverse teams in SMEs.
Keywords: entrepreneurial leadership; entrepreneurial success; technology manage-
ment processes
1. Introduction
Leadership is a crucial factor that determines the success of an organization. Effective
leadership directs and regulates the organization, leading it to achieve its goals [
1
]. En-
trepreneurial leadership (EL), in particular, significantly impacts entrepreneurial success.
Entrepreneurial leadership is characterized by innovation, risk-taking, and adaptability [
2
].
Entrepreneurial leaders possess the vision and ability to drive their companies’ capabilities,
maximizing their potential for success in dynamic markets [
3
]. These leaders lead their
teams and communicate, motivate, inspire, and teach their employees entrepreneurial
abilities. Their ability to effectively communicate their vision and inspire team members is
crucial in creating a shared vision and ensuring that everyone is aligned toward achieving
organizational goals [
2
]. Therefore, the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership
and entrepreneurial success is closely intertwined [
3
]. Entrepreneurial leadership drives
entrepreneurial success [
4
,
5
]. Entrepreneurial leaders create a strong foundation for their
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 https://doi.org/10.3390/su17030882
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 2 of 17
teams to succeed by nurturing understanding, fostering reactions, facilitating intentional
focusing, cultivating instinctive responding, nurturing inclusive behaving, placing pur-
poseful trust, and fostering relational beings [
6
]. In summary, the relationship between en-
trepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial success is symbiotic; effective entrepreneurial
leadership is essential for driving and achieving entrepreneurial success [
6
]. The success
of an entrepreneur is highly dependent on their leadership abilities [
3
]. Entrepreneurial
leadership [
5
] and perception [
7
] are both significantly influenced by entrepreneurial suc-
cess (ES), which is considered a critical component of entrepreneurship. Research indicates
that ES is further influenced by various leadership styles, although it is frequently associ-
ated with the accomplishment of a successful entrepreneurial venture (EV) [
8
] or personal
success [
5
,
9
]. According to theoretical and empirical research [
10
], numerous leadership
philosophies have a substantial impact on ES and business ventures. Entrepreneurial
success (ES), which encompasses personal satisfaction, is widely acknowledged as a crucial
element of firm sustainability. Microbusinesses require entrepreneurs to possess certain
traits and capabilities to achieve success, including leadership abilities, industry knowl-
edge, opportunity recognition, innovation skills, and technological expertise [
11
]. Previous
research has mostly focused on how different types of entrepreneurial leadership (EL)
affect organizational performance, employee behavior, creativity in the workplace, and
new ideas among employees [
4
,
12
–
14
]. Despite calls for research on this topic [
15
,
16
], the
link between EL and ES has thus far remained unexplored. Al Mamun et al. [
17
] note that
additional research is needed to progress business studies in the domain of EL and ES due
to the limited literature on the subject.
The role of technology management processes in the relationship between entrepreneurial
leadership and entrepreneurial success is crucial [
18
]. Technology management processes
are instrumental in supporting and enhancing the implementation of entrepreneurial
leadership in a business [
19
]. They enable entrepreneurial leaders to effectively utilize
technology resources to drive innovation, streamline operations, and create competitive
advantages [
20
]. By effectively managing technology processes, entrepreneurial leaders
can leverage technology to optimize efficiency, improve productivity, and stay ahead of
market trends [
21
]. This, in turn, contributes to the overall success of the entrepreneurial
venture [22].
The current study links the dynamic relationship between EL and entrepreneurial
success by mediating the role of technology management practices in Pakistan’s SME sector.
With the evolution of technology, the importance of small businesses has also increased
because of their crucial role in supporting the overall GDP of developing countries. Small
and medium enterprises act as catalysts to determine the growth of national development,
explicitly in developing countries such as Pakistan. According to the available statistics,
Pakistan’s GDP mainly depends on 3.2 million SMEs, with 40% of the overall development
occurring through a contribution of 35% for goods and services, while accounting for more
than 30% of country exports [
23
]. This study investigates the implications of entrepreneurial
leadership (EL) for TMPs in the context of achieving entrepreneurial success (ES), thereby
addressing the existing knowledge gaps. This study is one of the initial efforts to identify
entrepreneurial leadership (EL) as a significant precursor to entrepreneurial success (ES)
and to examine its predictive capacity for technology management processes (TMPs). This
research enhances the understanding of TMPs, contributes to the literature, and emphasizes
their critical role in advancing ES.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2presents a literature
review. In Section 3, we present the proposed method. Section 4presents the results and
discussion, and Section 5presents the limitations and future directions.
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 3 of 17
2. Literature Review
2.1. Entrepreneurial Leadership
In this era of competitiveness, organizations strive to hire leaders who can seek op-
portunities, create a vision, and create situations [
24
]. They exhibit leadership behavior
characterized by innovation, risk-taking, market responsiveness, and competitive advan-
tage [
25
]. Such leadership is regarded as entrepreneurial leadership [
5
]. It is a strategic
need for organizations looking to thrive in the current dynamic and uncertain business
environment [
26
]. Entrepreneurial leadership refers to managing scarce resources to seek a
competitive advantage in the market [
24
]. These leaders challenge the status quo, promote
experimentation, inspire teams to embrace failure as a stepping stone to success, and
encourage team members to think outside the box [
27
]. While examining the antecedents
and outcomes of entrepreneurial leadership, [
24
] reported that it is predicted by challenge
framing, entrepreneurial mindset, uncertainty absorption, ambidexterity, entrepreneurial
learning, emotions, susceptibility, and work values. Studies suggest that entrepreneurial
leadership brings promising outcomes for organizations, including strategic management
of resources [
28
], wealth creation [
29
], innovation performance [
30
], new venture or start-
up performance [
31
], employee voice [
32
] and creativity [
14
,
32
]. Moreover, EL can drive
financial success, profitability, and competitive advantage [5].
Diverse mediating and moderating mechanisms may influence the effectiveness of en-
trepreneurial leadership. It fosters an innovative culture characterized by experimentation,
openness, challenge acceptance, creativity [
14
], employee voice [
32
], and other organiza-
tional factors that in turn promote business success. Factors such as technology manage-
ment processes may amplify the EL effectiveness of entrepreneurial
leadership [33–35]
.
Hence, it can be argued that entrepreneurial leadership is not merely a leadership style but
a strategic need to cultivate a culture of innovation, agility, and resilience that drives the
organization toward long-term success. Meanwhile, tech integration brings digital tools
and solutions into every part of a company’s activities, from creating to selling products.
Entrepreneurship has emerged as a critical factor in the modern digital age, characterized
by lightning-fast technology developments and changing market dynamics, propelling
innovation, economic growth, and social transformation [36].
2.2. Entrepreneurial Success
The primary objective of a business entity or start-up is to adapt, innovate, and grab
opportunities to achieve sustainable business development and market leadership [
37
]. In
other words, this organizational growth and resilience predicts entrepreneurial success [
38
].
Contrary to the common belief in financial performance, entrepreneurial success is a broader
term encompassing an organization’s short-term financial and long-term non-financial
performance [
39
]. The extant literature suggests that entrepreneurs prefer non-monetary
features of entrepreneurial activities [
40
]. Additionally, current theoretical and empirical
studies reveal that various leadership styles influence successful business ventures and
ES [
10
]. McKenzie and Sud [
41
] argued that the ultimate ES can learn from entrepreneurial
failure. Baron and Henry [
42
] suggest that ES cannot be calculated regarding monetary
growth; it is associated with knowledge and implementing different methods to attract
investors to the business.
The literature has conceptualized entrepreneurial success at the entrepreneur and
firm levels [
37
] using monetary or non-monetary criteria [
43
]. At the firm level, growth
measured by indicators such as sales, profit, and employees predominantly conceptual-
izes entrepreneurial success. However, studies have reported weak correlations between
growth indicators, indicating various antecedents [
44
]. Non-financial factors, such as envi-
ronmental and sustainability goals, job creation, and the entrepreneur’s satisfaction with the
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 4 of 17
performance of the firm, are also important, particularly in social entrepreneurship, where
success is determined by both non-financial and financial metrics [
45
]. However, because
social value creation is subjective, standardizing non-monetary criteria remains difficult.
Entrepreneurial success is traditionally measured by personal wealth creation and income
generation [
46
]. However, recent research has focused on non-monetary criteria, defining
“subjective entrepreneurial success” as an entrepreneur’s achievement assessment [
47
].
This emerging stream explores how non-monetary criteria influence performance outcomes
and highlights the importance of understanding entrepreneurs’ definitions of success [
37
].
2.3. Technology Management Processes
According to Nguyen et al. [
12
], technology management (TM) is a collection of
management practices that focus on creating a competitive edge by controlling the techni-
cal aspects of a business. Strategic planning, decision-making, project frameworks, and
technology roadmaps are essential components. Industries emphasize technological man-
agement more, which calls for combining technical knowledge with an entrepreneurial
spirit. Technopreneurs, who focus on technology-driven initiatives, thus play an increas-
ingly important role in today’s technological landscape [
48
]. According to research by
academics, governments and practitioners acknowledge technology as a competitive ad-
vantage in manufacturing. Gaining this edge necessitates thoroughly comprehending
particular technologies and efficient management techniques; with the speed and complex-
ity of technological innovation, it is becoming increasingly important [
49
]. Entrepreneurial
leadership is crucial for the success and sustainability of small- and medium-sized busi-
nesses, particularly in adapting to evolving technological environments. It emphasizes
creativity, proactivity, and risk-taking, which are vital for recognizing and capitalizing
on opportunities in competitive marketplaces [
50
]. Entrepreneurial leaders cultivate a
culture of innovation and flexibility, allowing firms to respond adeptly to swift technical
progress and evolving client needs [
51
]. Additional research has emphasized that this type
of leader prioritizes knowledge acquisition, employs it to integrate technology management
processes, and connects technical skills with strategic objectives.
Bessant and Tidd [
52
] state that technology management in today’s high-tech firms
mainly focuses on planning, developing, implementing, and monitoring technological
resources to enhance productivity and foster innovation. These processes are crucial for
competition in industries characterized by frequent technological upheavals. Most busi-
ness organizations, constrained by resources relative to larger organizations, depend on
entrepreneurial leadership to develop cost-effective solutions that correspond with their
business objectives [
53
]. The potential of cutting-edge technologies has increased owing
to the changing technological paradigm, which has profoundly changed entrepreneurial
activities [
54
]. Leaders frequently participate in collaborative ecosystems, including collabo-
rations with academic institutions or technology companies, to address resource deficiencies
and expedite technology adoption [
55
]. Entrepreneurial leadership dictates the effective
implementation of digital transformation. Leaders with a strategic vision for digitization
and effective technology management processes can improve an organization’s resilience
and customer engagement [
56
]. Financial limitations, insufficient technical proficiency,
and resistance to change have frequently undermined the initiatives aimed at this goal.
Given these obstacles, an entrepreneurial leader should adopt an organizational culture that
fosters technological learning and agility [
57
]. Entrepreneurship has emerged as a critical
factor in the modern digital age, characterized by lightning-fast technology developments
and changing market dynamics, propelling innovation, economic growth, and social trans-
formation [
58
] Entrepreneurs face new possibilities and threats due to the disruption of
established business structures. To overcome these problems, firms must leverage strategic
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 5 of 17
innovation and integrate technology. Strategic innovation aims to generate value and
obtain a competitive advantage by creating new ideas, processes, and business models [
59
].
Meanwhile, technology integration brings digital tools and solutions into every part of a
company’s activities, from building to selling products [36].
2.4. Theory and Hypotheses Development
2.4.1. Entrepreneurial Leadership and Entrepreneurial Success
The extant literature has examined the role of leadership in driving successful in-
dividual, team, and organizational outcomes [
13
]. Studies suggest that leaders bearing
the characteristics of proactiveness, creativity, and innovation; the ability to lead diverse
teams; and the ability to take risks can drive the economic growth and development of
the firm [
5
]. These leaders are entrepreneurial leaders having a clear vision and intentions
for the firm’s success and the ability to manage the available resources to seek opportu-
nities and advantages strategically [
24
]. While examining antecedents, outcomes, and
moderators of entrepreneurial leadership, Ranjan [
24
] found that entrepreneurial leaders
are performance-oriented, insightful, visionary, ambitious, confidence-builders, successful
bargainers, inspirational, progressive, enthusiastic, and team-builders. Similarly, Hussain
and Li [
5
] hold that entrepreneurial leaders are characterized by unique qualities such as
innovation, intuition, and risk-taking. They also need to be able to inspire and guide others
to collaborate successfully.
Entrepreneurial leadership has the potential to (i) inspire team members to grab op-
portunities in the market, (ii) challenge the status quo, and (iii) offer innovative ideas
to launch entrepreneurial initiatives [
12
]. Furthermore, this leadership style promotes a
culture of empowerment, accountability, and autonomy that empowers employees to take
responsibility for their jobs and add to the company’s success [
26
]. A firm’s success encom-
passes both monetary and non-monetary attributes. Monetary success includes personal
wealth creation and income generated [
46
], while the non-monetary characteristics of en-
trepreneurial success include environmental and sustainability goals, job creation, and the
entrepreneur’s satisfaction with the firm’s performance [
37
]. Collectively, entrepreneurial
leadership makes a business competitive, resilient, creative, and innovative, now capturing
maximum market share [
60
]. Drawing upon resource-based theory [
61
], we argue that
entrepreneurial leadership may be seen as a “managerial resource”, which may prove
instrumental in entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurial leadership is a distinctive ap-
proach that emphasizes utilizing various skills to navigate creatively and resourcefully
within competitive landscapes. Entrepreneurial leaders proactively foresee and tackle
potential challenges by negotiating with internal and external stakeholders, securing es-
sential resources, overcoming obstacles, and generating value. Entrepreneurial leadership
drives entrepreneurial success for small and medium enterprises. Thus, we hypothesize
the following:
H1: Entrepreneurial leadership has a positive impact on entrepreneurial success.
2.4.2. Entrepreneurial Leadership and Technology Management Processes
The prime focus of entrepreneurship research is to identify the causes and characteris-
tics of uncertainty in entrepreneurial activities and how entrepreneurial behaviors change
when faced with such challenges [
56
]. Many small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
worldwide have shifted their focus from traditional operating procedures to technology
and innovation due to the COVID-19 epidemic [
12
,
62
]. According to Jin and Cho [
63
],
emerging countries are expected to shift from industrial to entrepreneurial societies, where
entrepreneurial success largely depends on entrepreneurial leadership and technology man-
agement. Despite this, scholars have raised numerous important questions regarding the
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 6 of 17
relationship between digital technologies and entrepreneurship. These questions highlight
the need to examine how the unique features of digital technologies affect entrepreneurial
activities [
56
]. Currently, a company’s adoption of cutting-edge technologies, rather than
its physical assets, determines its worth. Adam and Alarifi [
64
] assert that technology
and innovation propel small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to achieve higher
performance and gain a competitive edge.
Additionally, the need for a competitive market greatly impacts an organization’s
performance, and technology enhances market-driven value and adds credibility to its
assets [
5
]. The entrepreneurial leader fosters an inventive mindset personally and within
the company culture, navigating through experiences while accepting trial and error as
essential ideas for effectively managing the technology [
65
]. Entrepreneurial leadership
markedly improves these processes by facilitating the strategic incorporation of technol-
ogy to generate market disruption and sustained growth. Leaders play a crucial role in
fostering collaboration across interdisciplinary teams, facilitating cross-functional knowl-
edge transfer, and addressing the complexities of technological commercialization [
66
].
Furthermore, entrepreneurial leadership impacts technology management processes via
strategic decision-making and resource distribution. Leaders that are aware of technical
trends and market dynamics may guide a business to prioritize investments in research
and development, collaborations, and digital transformation efforts [
5
,
67
]. We may thus
hypothesize that:
H2: Entrepreneurial leadership has a positive impact on technology management processes.
2.4.3. Technology Management Processes and Entrepreneurial Success
The extant literature has examined the role of entrepreneurial leadership in achieving
success in high-tech industries, where quick thinking, flexibility, and strategic vision are
critical [
68
]. Entrepreneurs succeed by embracing uncertainty and fostering innovation,
positioning themselves as the key drivers of modern business success. In contrast, tra-
ditional leadership often struggles to keep pace with technological changes and intense
competition [
69
]. Over the years, breakthroughs in digital innovation have increased
the demand for technological solutions, transformed business dynamics, and redefined
models through IT integration. The evolving technological landscape has significantly
influenced entrepreneurial success by expanding the potential of advanced tools [
54
]. The
widespread adoption of contemporary advancements such as information and communica-
tion technology (ICT) has opened new avenues for promoting entrepreneurial success [
70
].
Technologies that have revolutionized sectors and opened new avenues for innovation and
entrepreneurship include artificial intelligence, cloud computing, big data analytics, and
the Internet of Things.
Entrepreneurs in this dynamic environment must negotiate a complicated, interwoven
ecosystem in which opportunities and challenges are presented by digital disruption [
36
].
Entrepreneurs’ endeavors are essential for a company’s success. The increasing significance
of venture start-ups has enhanced the commercial landscape and facilitated entrepreneurial
success. Examining new venture success has attracted considerable attention, emphasiz-
ing company expansion, economic development, and value creation [
71
]. According to
Wach et al. [
72
], entrepreneurship is a major factor in corporate success, especially when
digital information is incorporated into company procedures. Businesses can achieve
digitally centered entrepreneurial success through technological improvements and robust
learning capabilities [
73
]. Entrepreneurs spur innovation by bringing digital product inno-
vations into the market [
74
]. Technological information increases market value by creating
modernized information networks, whereas ongoing digital advances produce knowledge
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 7 of 17
that enables businesses to investigate the beneficial transformations of corporate resources.
We may thus hypothesize that:
H3: Technology management processes have a positive impact on entrepreneurial success.
2.4.4. Technology Management Processes as a Mediator of Entrepreneurial Leadership and
Entrepreneurial Success
Kalko et al. [
75
] indicate that TMPs enhance organizational performance through
higher productivity and promoting innovation culture. Similar results were reported by
Xu et al. [
76
], who suggested that by applying TMP practices, the organization’s overall
performance increased in the shape of higher profit. Hussain and Li [
5
] indicate that EL
and ES positively correlate through a mediating knowledge management mechanism. In
contrast, Kalko et al. [
75
] suggest that TMPs enhance innovation among Ethiopian firms.
Marei et al. [
77
] stated that technological and entrepreneurial skills improve organizational
performance. Based on the experiential learning theory (ELT) approach proposed by
Ferreira [
78
] and validated by Hussain and Li [
5
], this study attempts to link the relationship
between the entrepreneurial leadership (EL) and entrepreneurial success (ES) of SMEs
through the involvement of TMPs. Experiential learning theory shows that during the
transition phase from an ordinary organizational setup to an entrepreneurial mindset,
applying the latest technological innovation trends provides researchers with opportunities
to understand the importance of the entrepreneurial approach.
The extant literature has examined the antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial
leadership [
24
]. Studies have examined the direct effect of entrepreneurial leadership on
entrepreneurial success [
5
,
11
,
68
] as well as the mediating mechanisms, knowledge man-
agement processes, organizational factors, and conflicts through which entrepreneurial
leadership affects entrepreneurial success [
5
,
12
,
33
]. However, we are still unclear about the
mediating mechanism of this relationship, i.e., which factors buffer or foster the effect of en-
trepreneurial leadership on entrepreneurial success. Hence, there is a dire need to examine
the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on entrepreneurial success in SMEs in Pakistan.
Furthermore, there is also a need to explore the mediating role of technology management
processes (TMPs) in this relationship. The suggested mechanism enhances comprehension
of how entrepreneurial leadership influences entrepreneurial success. Furthermore, the
mediating function of TMPs elucidates the connection between EL and ES as TMPs signify
alignment with prevailing market trends. This study aims to improve comprehension of EL,
ES, and TMPs in SMEs by addressing gaps in the current literature. Drawing upon resource-
based theory [
61
], entrepreneurial leadership is seen as a “managerial resource”, which
may prove instrumental in entrepreneurial success. As an organizational resource, we
believe that entrepreneurial leadership strongly emphasizes human capital management.
It strives to create a diversified team characterized by entrepreneurial behaviors, processes,
and competencies such as risk-taking, new entry-joining, innovation, and dynamic capabil-
ities within small firms [
79
,
80
]. Based on resource-based theory and experiential learning
theory (ELT), our study examines how entrepreneurial leadership fosters entrepreneurial
success. We also examine how technology management processes amplify the impact of
entrepreneurial leadership on entrepreneurial success.
H4: Technology management processes mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership
and entrepreneurial success.
3. Methods
This study used a descriptive survey design and a quantitative method to examine the
connection between entrepreneurial leadership (EL), entrepreneurial success (ES), and the
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 8 of 17
role of technology management processes (TMPs) in small- and medium-sized businesses
in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The theoretical framework of this study is shown in Fig-
ure 1.The convenience sampling collected data from managers, supervisors, and employees
of SMEs, yielding 300 valid responses from an initial sample size of 352. A standardized
questionnaire adapted from prior studies measured the EL, ES, and TMP constructs. We
analyzed the collected data using SPSS and Smart PLS software for structural equation
modeling (SEM). This study used descriptive statistics to examine how the data were
spread, Cronbach’s alpha to test for reliability, and factor loadings, AVE, and discriminant
validity criteria to ensure that the measurement model was correct.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
applying the latest technological innovation trends provides researchers with opportuni-
ties to understand the importance of the entrepreneurial approach.
The extant literature has examined the antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial
leadership [24]. Studies have examined the direct effect of entrepreneurial leadership on
entrepreneurial success [5,11,68] as well as the mediating mechanisms, knowledge man-
agement processes, organizational factors, and conflicts through which entrepreneurial
leadership affects entrepreneurial success [5,12,33]. However, we are still unclear about
the mediating mechanism of this relationship, i.e., which factors buffer or foster the effect
of entrepreneurial leadership on entrepreneurial success. Hence, there is a dire need to
examine the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on entrepreneurial success in SMEs in
Pakistan. Furthermore, there is also a need to explore the mediating role of technology
management processes (TMPs) in this relationship. The suggested mechanism enhances
comprehension of how entrepreneurial leadership influences entrepreneurial success.
Furthermore, the mediating function of TMPs elucidates the connection between EL and
ES as TMPs signify alignment with prevailing market trends. This study aims to improve
comprehension of EL, ES, and TMPs in SMEs by addressing gaps in the current literature.
Drawing upon resource-based theory [61], entrepreneurial leadership is seen as a “mana-
gerial resource”, which may prove instrumental in entrepreneurial success. As an organ-
izational resource, we believe that entrepreneurial leadership strongly emphasizes human
capital management. It strives to create a diversified team characterized by entrepreneur-
ial behaviors, processes, and competencies such as risk-taking, new entry-joining, innova-
tion, and dynamic capabilities within small firms [79,80]. Based on resource-based theory
and experiential learning theory (ELT), our study examines how entrepreneurial leader-
ship fosters entrepreneurial success. We also examine how technology management pro-
cesses amplify the impact of entrepreneurial leadership on entrepreneurial success.
H4: Technology management processes mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial leader-
ship and entrepreneurial success.
3. Methods
This study used a descriptive survey design and a quantitative method to examine
the connection between entrepreneurial leadership (EL), entrepreneurial success (ES), and
the role of technology management processes (TMPs) in small- and medium-sized busi-
nesses in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The theoretical framework of this study is
shown in Figure 1.The convenience sampling collected data from managers, supervisors,
and employees of SMEs, yielding 300 valid responses from an initial sample size of 352.
A standardized questionnaire adapted from prior studies measured the EL, ES, and TMP
constructs. We analyzed the collected data using SPSS and Smart PLS software for struc-
tural equation modeling (SEM). This study used descriptive statistics to examine how the
data were spread, Cronbach’s alpha to test for reliability, and factor loadings, AVE, and
discriminant validity criteria to ensure that the measurement model was correct.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
3.1. Population and Sampling
This study examines the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership (EL) and
entrepreneurial success (ES) in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa while considering the mediating role of the technology management process.
To ensure the representation of the SME industry population, data were gathered from
managers, supervisors, and employees of SMEs in KP, Pakistan. Non-probability sampling
techniques, specifically convenience sampling, were utilized to facilitate data collection, as
suggested by prior research [
4
,
81
]. Based on the recommendations of a known population,
a sample size of 352, in which 52 respondents were missing, was determined to obtain data
from the target sample [82].
3.2. Measurement
Three constructs were measured to test the study’s hypothesis: entrepreneurial leader-
ship (EL), entrepreneurial success (ES), and technology management processes. A ques-
tionnaire was employed as an instrument to collect data, which is recognized as a reliable
method for gathering consistent and legitimate information. The questionnaire is an
objective-oriented system that uses standardized responses, ensuring that the collected
data are identical and can be analyzed effectively [
82
,
83
]. Adopted scales from the studies
of [5,75] were used to measure the study variables.
3.3. Data Analysis
The data from this study were examined using several statistical methods. The struc-
tural and measurement model was validated using smart PLS after fundamental descriptive
statistics were utilized [
84
]. Measurement and structural models are crucial when using
software like smart PLS for structural equation modelling (SEM). The measurement model
establishes the reliability and validity of the measuring instruments used to assess con-
structs [
85
] It ensures that the observable variables appropriately reflect the underlying
constructs. Subsequently, the structural model examines the constructs’ relationships to
illuminate plausible causal pathways. Smart PLS facilitates this procedure by enabling
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 9 of 17
researchers to assess structural models and measures at the same time. Additionally, it
provides robust statistical analysis.
4. Result and Discussion
4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Analysis
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1, where the mean, SD, skewness, kurtosis,
minimum, maximum, and Cronbach’s alpha values are calculated. The average score of
each variable (TMP = 4.93, ENLD = 4.65, ESC = 4.65) shows the central tendency of the
responses of the three variables. The SD values (TMP = 1.18, ENLD = 1.31, and ESC = 1.36)
are slightly increasing in variability. In skewness, all variables have negative skewness
(TMP =
−
0.679, ENLD =
−
0.640, ESC =
−
0.494), which suggests that the data distribution
is slightly left-skewed, with more responses being concentrated at the higher end. The
kurtosis values are near zero, indicating that all variables have negative kurtosis, which
is slightly flatter than the normal curve. The scores of all variables ranged from 1 to 7.
All Cronbach’s alpha values (TMP = 0.954, ENLD = 0.899, ESC = 0.908) were above 0.7,
indicating the high reliability of the scale used to measure these constructs.
Table 1. Descriptive analysis.
Description TMP ENLD ESC
Mean 4.9307 4.6513 4.6492
Std. Deviation 1.17896 1.31410 1.36620
Skewness −0.679 −0.640 −0.494
Kurtosis −0.109 −0.130 −0.425
Minimum 1 1 1
Maximum 7 7 7
Cronbach Alpha 0.954 0.899 0.908
TMPs = Technology management processes, ENLD = entrepreneurial leadership, ESC = entrepreneurial success.
4.2. Validity Test
As directed by Hair et al. [
86
], the current study tries to connect the relationship
between variables through structural and measurement model analysis. First, item loading,
Cronbach’s alpha, and average variance extraction are used to clarify the validity and
reliability of the items. Next, the HTMT ratio and the Fornell and Larcker procedure are
used to validate the discriminant validity of the questions.
Factor loadings show the degree of correlation between each item and its correspond-
ing construct. Higher numbers suggest a stronger relationship. Usually, these values
range from 0 to 1. Factor loadings greater than 0.5 are generally considered acceptable; for
robust measuring, values near 0.7 or higher are preferable [
86
]. AVE evaluates convergent
validity by displaying the percentage of variance in the observed variables that can be
accounted for by the core construct. AVE values range from 0 to 1, with values above 0.5
being considered acceptable for good convergent validity [
87
]. CR provides an alternative
measure of internal consistency reliability. Like AVE, CR values range from 0 to 1, with
values above 0.7 generally being considered acceptable for reliable measurement [
86
]. The
results from Table 2indicate that the values are in the acceptable range. Hence, validity is
determined for the current model.
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 10 of 17
Table 2. Measurement model.
Loading A CR AVE Item Loading αCR AVE
EL1 0.569 0.909 0.913 0.505 TMP1 0.764 0.954 0.957 0.502
EL10 0.724 TMP2 0.777
EL2 0.761 TMP3 0.648
EL3 0.713 TMP7 0.649
EL4 0.833 TMP8 0.701
EL5 0.815 TMP9 0.675
EL6 0.723 TMP10 0.728
EL7 0.760 TMP11 0.728
EL8 0.745 TMP12 0.559
EL9 0.777 TMP13 0.716
ES1 0.764 0.899 0.901 0.555 TMP14 0.709
ES2 0.777 TMP15 0.713
ES3 0.648 TMP16 0.772
ES4 0.674 TMP17 0.812
ES5 0.716 TMP18 0.727
ES6 0.816 TMP19 0.799
ES7 0.762 TMP20 0.626
ES8 0.786 TMP21 0.564
ES9 0.746 TMP22 0.731
TMP1 0.764 0.954 0.957 0.502 TMP23 0.638
TMP = Technology management process, EL = entrepreneurial leadership, ES = entrepreneurial success.
The data in Table 3represent discriminant validity measures between constructs
using the Fornell and Larcker criterion and the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of
correlations. The values in the diagonal represent the square root of the AVE (average
variance extracted) for each construct. The off-diagonal values are the correlations between
constructs. Discriminant validity is established when the square root of the AVE for each
construct is more significant than its correlation with other constructs. For example, the
value of 0.745 for EL represents the square root of the AVE for entrepreneurial leadership. It
should be greater than the correlations between EL and other constructs (ES and TMP). The
heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio compares the correlations between constructs to assess
discriminant validity. Discriminant validity is established when the correlations between
constructs are smaller than those between items within the same construct. For example, the
value of 0.804 for EL and ES represents the correlation between entrepreneurial leadership
and entrepreneurial success. The correlations between items within EL and ES should be
smaller than those in EL. Overall, these measures help assess whether the constructs in the
study are distinct, providing evidence of discriminant validity.
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 11 of 17
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
Fornell and Larcker HTMT
EL ES TMP EL ES TMP
EL 0.745 EL
ES 0.804 0.745 ES 0.89
TMP 0.832 0.794 0.709 TMP 0.887 0.852
TMP = Technology management process, EL = entrepreneurial leadership, ES = entrepreneurial success.
Figure 2shows the measurement model analysis. Table 4depicts the coefficients of de-
termination (R-squared), which measure the proportion of variance in each dependent vari-
able explained by the independent variables in the regression models. For entrepreneurial
success, the independent variables account for approximately 69.7% of the variance, while
for the technology management process, approximately 69.2% of the variance is explained.
The adjusted R-squared values, which account for the number of predictors in the model,
are also provided, indicating a slightly lower variance explanation but still substantial
explanatory power in both cases.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
correlations. The values in the diagonal represent the square root of the AVE (average
variance extracted) for each construct. The off-diagonal values are the correlations be-
tween constructs. Discriminant validity is established when the square root of the AVE
for each construct is more significant than its correlation with other constructs. For exam-
ple, the value of 0.745 for EL represents the square root of the AVE for entrepreneurial
leadership. It should be greater than the correlations between EL and other constructs (ES
and TMP). The heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio compares the correlations between
constructs to assess discriminant validity. Discriminant validity is established when the
correlations between constructs are smaller than those between items within the same
construct. For example, the value of 0.804 for EL and ES represents the correlation between
entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial success. The correlations between items
within EL and ES should be smaller than those in EL. Overall, these measures help assess
whether the constructs in the study are distinct, providing evidence of discriminant va-
lidity.
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
Fornell and Larcker HTMT
EL ES TMP EL ES TMP
EL 0.745
EL
ES 0.804 0.745
ES 0.89
TMP 0.832 0.794 0.709 TMP 0.887 0.852
TMP = Technology management process, EL = entrepreneurial leadership, ES = entrepreneurial suc-
cess.
Figure 2 shows the measurement model analysis. Table 4 depicts the coefficients of
determination (R-squared), which measure the proportion of variance in each dependent
variable explained by the independent variables in the regression models. For entrepre-
neurial success, the independent variables account for approximately 69.7% of the vari-
ance, while for the technology management process, approximately 69.2% of the variance
is explained. The adjusted R-squared values, which account for the number of predictors
in the model, are also provided, indicating a slightly lower variance explanation but still
substantial explanatory power in both cases.
Figure 2. Measurement model analysis.
Figure 2. Measurement model analysis.
Table 4. Coefficient of determination (R2).
R-Square R-Square Adjusted
Entrepreneurial Success 0.697 0.695
Technology Management Process 0.692 0.692
Table 5presents the effect sizes (F-squared) of the relationships between different con-
structs. Effect sizes indicate the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that can
be attributed to the independent variable(s). For the relationship between entrepreneurial
leadership and entrepreneurial success, an F-squared value of 0.222 suggests a moderate
effect size, indicating that about 22.2% of the variance in entrepreneurial success can be ex-
plained by entrepreneurial leadership. Similarly, the relationship between entrepreneurial
leadership and the technology management process shows a moderate effect size with
an F-squared value of 2.252, suggesting that approximately 225.2% of the variance in the
technology management process can be explained by entrepreneurial leadership. In con-
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 12 of 17
trast, the effect size for the relationship between the technology management process and
entrepreneurial success is weaker, with an F-squared value of 0.166, indicating that only
about 16.6% of the variance in entrepreneurial success can be explained by the technol-
ogy management process. Overall, these effect sizes help to quantify the strength of the
relationships between the constructs, providing insights into their relative importance in
explaining variations in each other.
Table 5. Result of effect size (F-square).
F2 Description
Entrepreneurial
Leadership—Entrepreneurial Success 0.222 Moderate
Entrepreneurial Leadership—Technology
Management Process 2.252 Moderate
Technology Management
Process—Entrepreneurial Success 0.166 Weak
Table 6reveals the structural path analysis of the research variables. EL
→
ES: Ac-
cording to this theory, entrepreneurial success (ES) and entrepreneurial leadership (EL)
are positively correlated. The link between EL and ES is moderately favorable, as the path
coefficient of 0.468 indicates. The high T statistic of 6.796 provides strong support for the
hypothesis, which suggests that this association is statistically significant. The information
thus supports the hypothesis that more ES correlates with higher levels of EL.
Table 6. Structural path analysis.
Hypothesis
Variable Relationship
Path Coefficient T Statistics Results
H1 EL →ES 0.468 6.796 Accept
H2 EL →TMP 0.832 40.764 Accept
H3 TMP →ES 0.405 6.228 Accept
H4 EL →ES →TMP 0.337 6.033 Mediation
TMP = Technology management process, EL = entrepreneurial leadership, ES = entrepreneurial success.
EL
→
TMP: According to this hypothesis, the technology management process (TMP)
and EL have a direct and beneficial link. The sizable path coefficient of 0.832 and the
extraordinarily high T statistic of 40.764 show that EL and TMP have a sturdy and statisti-
cally significant positive association. The idea that strong EL has a favorable impact on an
organization’s TMP is thus amply supported by the evidence.
TMP
→
ES: This hypothesis proposes a direct positive relationship between TMP and
ES. The path coefficient of 0.405 and the significant T statistic of 6.228 suggest a moderate
positive relationship between TMP and ES, which is statistically supported and indicates
that effective management of technology processes contributes positively to ES.
EL
→
ES
→
TMP (mediation): This hypothesis examines the indirect relationship
between (EL), (ES), and (TMP), suggesting that ES partially mediates the relationship
between EL and TMP. The path coefficient of 0.337 and the significant T statistic of 6.033
support this mediation effect, indicating that entrepreneurial success partially explains the
relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and the technology management process.
It suggests that the influence of entrepreneurial leadership on the technology management
process is partially mediated by its impact on entrepreneurial success. These explanations
provide insights into the direct and mediated relationships between variables, offering a
comprehensive understanding of the structural dynamics within the model.
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 13 of 17
5. Discussion and Conclusions
In conclusion, the positive relationship between entrepreneurial leadership (EL) and
entrepreneurial success (ES) underscores the pivotal role of effective leadership in driving
business performance and achievement. Through visionary guidance, strategic decision-
making, and fostering a culture of innovation and risk-taking, entrepreneurial leaders
empower their teams to capitalize on opportunities, overcome challenges, and realize
organizational goals. As evidenced by numerous studies, such as those by [
4
,
5
], EL
cultivates an environment conducive to growth, creativity, and adaptability, ultimately
leading to enhanced entrepreneurial outcomes. By leveraging their leadership skills and
entrepreneurial mindset, leaders can inspire and motivate individuals, navigate uncertain-
ties, and propel their ventures toward sustained success and competitiveness in dynamic
market landscapes.
Further, we also conclude that entrepreneurial leadership (EL) has a statistically posi-
tive link with technology management practices, underscoring the critical role of effective
leadership in driving technological innovation and organizational success. Through vision-
ary guidance, strategic decision-making, and a proactive approach to technology adoption
and integration, entrepreneurial leaders empower their organizations to harness the full
potential of technology for competitive advantage and growth. Studies by researchers like
Cuixia et al. [
18
] and Souza et al. [
19
] have demonstrated that EL fosters a culture of inno-
vation, agility, and continuous improvement, facilitating the effective implementation of
technology management practices. By leveraging their leadership skills and entrepreneurial
mindset, leaders can inspire creativity, encourage collaboration between technical and non-
technical teams, and drive the development and adoption of cutting-edge technologies.
Ultimately, this symbiotic relationship between EL and technology management practices
enables organizations to stay ahead in rapidly evolving markets, enhance operational
efficiency, and achieve sustainable success in the digital age.
Similarly, the mediational role of technology management practices between en-
trepreneurial leadership (EL) and entrepreneurial success (ES) highlights the intercon-
nectedness of leadership, technology, and business outcomes. Studies such as Ferreira [
78
]
and those validated by Hussain & Li [
5
] and Kalko et al. [
75
] emphasize that effective
utilization of technology management practices mediates the relationship between EL and
ES. Entrepreneurial leaders prioritizing technology integration, innovation, and strategic IT
decision-making create an environment conducive to organizational success. By fostering a
culture of technological agility, creativity, and digital transformation, these leaders empower
their teams to leverage technology as a catalyst for growth, efficiency, and competitive
advantage. Moreover, technology management practices enable entrepreneurial leaders
to capitalize on emerging opportunities, mitigate risks, and swiftly adapt to dynamic
market conditions. This mediating role of technology management practices underscores
the importance of aligning leadership strategies with technological capabilities to drive
sustainable business performance. Ultimately, organizations that effectively leverage tech-
nology under visionary leadership are better positioned to achieve entrepreneurial success,
navigate disruptions, and thrive in the digital era.
6. Implications
This study contributes theoretically to the literature by establishing that entrepreneurial
leadership (EL) significantly impacts entrepreneurial success (ES), whereas technology
management processes (TMPs) increase the probability of success. The study substantiates
TMPs within the context of resource-based view (RBV) and experiential learning (EL)
theories, indicating that TMPs mediate the association between EL and entrepreneurial
success (ES). It provides novel insights, highlighting the emerging entrepreneurs’ need
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 14 of 17
to integrate EL abilities with TMPs to achieve effective results. The results have signifi-
cant consequences for professionals in the high-tech industry, small- and medium-sized
enterprises, incubation centers, and researchers in entrepreneurship.
This research enhances the comprehension of both governing and non-governing
entities, indicating that the implementation of TMP in entrepreneurial ventures (EVs)
may diminish the failure rate. It also advises SME proprietors to promote knowledge
transfer inside their firms to cultivate a robust atmosphere for attaining entrepreneurial
objectives. From a managerial perspective, mentors and trainers can aid entrepreneurs in
honing leadership abilities and optimizing operational efficiency under TMPs, augmenting
competitiveness and ES attainment. Furthermore, mentors can underscore the significance
of proficient leadership styles and specialized expertise in facilitating entrepreneurial
success. Success should be seen in both the financial and non-financial dimensions.
7. Limitations and Future Direction
The current study has several limitations that need to be addressed by future re-
searchers. First, in the current study, data were obtained once via an adopted construct,
which can lead to response biases. Hence, future researchers may collect the data before
and after applying TMP practices in SMEs. Secondly, in the current study, TMPs were
investigated through the core and universal variable; however, future researchers can
gather more detailed insights by examining the various facets of TMPs. Thirdly, future
researchers may use organizational culture and team diversity to understand the dynamic
relationship between EL and ES among prospective developing countries.
Author Contributions: K.R.: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis; K.B.L.: conceptual-
ization, validation; S.F.Y.: conceptualization, formal analysis; N.S.: conceptualization, methodology,
analysis; M.A.: validation, proofreading, conceptualization, formal analysis. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data used in this study are available from the corresponding author
upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Hidayah, S.; Sutopo, S. The Role of Spiritual-Based Leadership as Predictor in Improving Employee Performance. JDM (J. Din.
Manaj.) 2017,8, 83–91. [CrossRef]
2.
Sharma, R.L.; Arora, A. Communication as the Mainstay of Entrepreneurial Leadership: A Conceptual Framework. Manag. Dyn.
2022,15, 20–28. [CrossRef]
3.
Tarabishy, A.E.; Solomon, G.T.; Fernald, L.W.; Sashkin, M. The Entrepreneurial Leader’s Impact on the Organization’s Performance
in Dynamic Markets. J. Priv. Equity 2005,8, 20–29. [CrossRef]
4.
Bagheri, A.; Pihie, Z.A.L. Entrepreneurial leadership: Towards a model for learning and development. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int.
2011,14, 447–463. [CrossRef]
5.
Hussain, N.; Li, B. Empirical Study to Understand the Social Entrepreneurial Intention Towards Technology Management in
Social Entrepreneurial Ventures. Int. J. Asian Bus. Inf. Manag. (IJABIM) 2022,13, 1–19. [CrossRef]
6. Timmons, J.A. Characteristics and Role Demands of Entrepreneurship. Am. J. Small Bus. 2023,3, 5–17. [CrossRef]
7.
Fisher, R.; Maritz, A.; Lobo, A. Evaluating entrepreneurs’ perception of success. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2014,20, 478–492.
[CrossRef]
8.
Staniewski, M.W.; Awruk, K. Entrepreneurial success and achievement motivation—A preliminary report on a validation study
of the questionnaire of entrepreneurial success. J. Bus. Res. 2019,101, 433–440. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 15 of 17
9.
Arham, A.F.; Sulaiman, N.; Kamarudin, F.H.; Muenjohn, N. Understanding the links between transformational leadership
and entrepreneurial orientation in Malaysian SMEs. In The Palgrave Handbook of Leadership in Transforming Asia; Muenjohn, N.,
McMurray, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 541–558.
10.
Bertoldi, B. The leadership style to lead the evolution of the entrepreneurial essence: A proposal. In Entrepreneurial Essence in
Family Businesses; Battista, G., Frey, M., Grönroos, C., Haenlein, M., Hofacker, C.F., Huff, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,
2021; pp. 115–154.
11.
Taleb, T.S.; Hashim, N.; Zakaria, N. Entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial success: The mediating role of entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition and innovation capability. Sustainability 2023,15, 5776. [CrossRef]
12.
Nguyen, P.V.; Huynh, H.T.; Lam, L.N.; Le, T.B.; Nguyen, N.H. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on SMEs’ performance:
The mediating effects of organizational factors. Heliyon 2021,7, e07326. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Newman, A.; Tse HH, M.; Schwarz, G.; Nielsen, I. The effects of employees’ creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: The role
of entrepreneurial leadership. J. Bus. Res. 2018,89, 1–9. [CrossRef]
14.
Cai, W.; Lysova, E.I.; Khapova, S.N.; Bossink, B.A.G. Does Entrepreneurial Leadership Foster Creativity Among Employees and
Teams? The Mediating Role of Creative Efficacy Beliefs. J. Bus. Psychol. 2019,34, 203–217. [CrossRef]
15.
Viswanathan, M.; Echambadi, R.; Venugopal, S.; Sridharan, S. Subsistence entrepreneurship, value creation, and community
exchange systems: A social capital explanation. J. Macromark. 2014,34, 213–226. [CrossRef]
16.
Renko, M.; El Tarabishy, A.; Carsrud, A.L.; Brännback, M. Understanding and measuring entrepreneurial leadership style. J.
Small Bus. Manag. 2015,53, 54–74. [CrossRef]
17.
Al Mamun, A.; Ibrahim, M.D.; Yusoff, M.N.H.B.; Fazal, S.A. Entrepreneurial leadership, performance, and sustainability of
microenterprises in Malaysia. Sustainability 2018,10, 1591. [CrossRef]
18.
Cuixia, Z.; Jiaxin, W.; Yuanxuan, L. Design of low-power wake-up circuits in underwater acoustic communication. Phys. Procedia
2012,33, 884–891. [CrossRef]
19.
Souza, M.L.; Melo Filho, L.D.; Bagno, R.B.; Souza, W.C.; Cheng, L.C. A process model integrated into innovation management
tools to support technology entrepreneurship. In Proceedings of the 2018 Portland International Conference on Management
of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Honolulu, HI, USA, 19–23 August 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–12.
[CrossRef]
20.
Rojas, R.M.; Morales, V.J.G.; Bolívar–Ramos, M.T. Influence of technological support, skills and competencies, and learning on
corporate entrepreneurship in European technology firms. Technovation 2013,33, 417–430. [CrossRef]
21. Omar, Y.M.; Minoufekr, M.; Plapper, P. Business analytics in manufacturing: Current trends, challenges and pathway to market
leadership. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2019,6, 100127. [CrossRef]
22.
Dvir, D.; Sadeh, A.; Pines, A.M.; Shenhar, A.J. Key entrepreneurial traits and their relationship to venture uncertainty and venture
success. In Proceedings of the PICMET’09—2009 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology,
Portland, OR, USA, 2–6 August 2009; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 1812–1818.
23.
Arshad, M.Z.; Khan, W.; Arshad, M.; Ali, M.A.J.I.D.; Shahdan, A.; Ishak, W. Importance and challenges of SMEs: A case of
Pakistani SMEs. J. Res. Lepid. 2020,51, 701–707. [CrossRef]
24.
Ranjan, S. Entrepreneurial Leadership: A Review of Measures, Antecedents, Outcomes and Moderators. Asian Soc. Sci. 2018,
14, 104–114. [CrossRef]
25.
Sonmez Cakir, F.; Adiguzel, Z. Analysis of Leader Effectiveness in Organization and Knowledge Sharing Behavior on Employees
and Organization. Sage Open 2020,10, 1–14. [CrossRef]
26.
Shahid, M.; Aslam, S.; Shahzad, K. Entrepreneurial Leadership and Employees’ Proactive Behaviour: Fortifying Self Determination
Theory. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 176. [CrossRef]
27.
Peterson, J. Entrepreneurial Leadership: The Art of Launching New Ventures, Inspiring Others, and Running Stuff ; HarperCollins
Leadership: Nashville, TN, USA, 2020.
28.
Ireland, R.D.; Hitt, M.A.; Sirmon, D.G. A model of strategic enterpreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. J. Manag. 2003,
29, 963–989. [CrossRef]
29.
McCarthy, D.J.; Puffer, S.M.; Darda, S.V. Convergence in Entrepreneurial Leadership Style: Evidence from Russia. Calif. Manag.
Rev. 2010,52, 48–72. [CrossRef]
30.
Yang, Z.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, P. Centralization and innovation performance in an emerging economy: Testing the moderating effects.
Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2015,32, 415–442. [CrossRef]
31. Zaech, S.; Baldegger, U. Leadership in start-ups. Int. Small Bus. J. 2017,35, 157–177. [CrossRef]
32.
Dedahanov, A.T.; Lee, D.H.; Rhee, J.; Yoon, J. Entrepreneur’s paternalistic leadership style and creativity: The mediating role of
employee voice. Manag. Decis. 2016,5, 2310–2324. [CrossRef]
33.
Schoss, S.; Urbig, D.; Brettel, M.; Mauer, R. Deep-level diversity in entrepreneurial teams and the mediating role of conflicts on
team efficacy and satisfaction. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2022,18, 1173–1203. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 16 of 17
34.
Wang, J.; Cheng, G.; Chen, T.; Leung, K. Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav.
2019,40, 693–708. [CrossRef]
35.
Hewlett, S.; Marshall, M.; Sherbin, L. How Diversity Can Drive Innovation. Harvard Business Review. 2013. Available online:
https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation (accessed on 1 January 2024).
36.
Udhaty, K.D.; Dalimunthe, R.F.; Lumbanraja, P. Strategic Innovation and Technology Integration: A Study of Entrepreneurial
Success in the Digital Age: A Literature Review. Musytari 2024,5, 24–34. [CrossRef]
37.
Angel, P.; Jenkins, A.; Stephen, A. Understanding entrepreneurial success: A phenomenographic approach. Int. Small Bus. J. Res.
Entrep. 2018,36, 611–636. [CrossRef]
38.
Hu, W.; Xu, Y.; Zhao, F.; Chen, Y. Entrepreneurial Passionand Entrepreneurial Success—The Role of Psychological Capitaland
Entrepreneurial Policy Support. Front. Psychol. 2022,13, 792066.
39.
Seo, Y.W.; Lee, Y.H. Effects of internal and external factors on business performance of start-ups in South Korea: The engine of
new market dynamics. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2019,11, 1–12. [CrossRef]
40. Alstete, J.W. Aspects of Entrepreneurial Success. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2008,15, 584–594. [CrossRef]
41. McKenzie, B.; Sud, M. A Hermeneutical Approach to Understanding Entrepreneurial Failure. Acad. Entrep. J. 2008,14, 123–148.
42.
Baron, R.A.; Henry, R.A. Entrepreneurship: The genesis of organizations. In APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 1. Building and Developing the Organization; Zedeck, S., Ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC,
USA, 2011; pp. 241–273. [CrossRef]
43.
Jenkins, A.; McKelvie, A. What is entrepreneurial failure? Implications for future research. Int. Small Bus. J. 2016,34, 176–188.
[CrossRef]
44.
Shepherd, D.; Wiklund, J. Are we comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges? Appropriateness of knowledge
accumulation across growth studies. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009,33, 105–123. [CrossRef]
45.
Lumpkin, G.; Moss, T.; Gras, D.; Kato, S.; Amezcua, A.S. Entrepreneurial processes in social contexts: How are they different, if at
all? Small Bus. Econ. 2013,40, 761–783. [CrossRef]
46. Kirkwood, J. How women and men business owners perceive success. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2016,22, 594–615. [CrossRef]
47.
Wach, D.; Stephan, U.; Gorgievski, M. More than money: Developing an integrative multi-factorial measure of entrepreneurial
success. Int. Small Bus. J. 2016,34, 1098–1121. [CrossRef]
48.
Jack, W. Technopreneur Development and Entrepreneurial Mindset: Integrating Experiential Learning Theory in Graduate
Training. 2024. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383183286_Technopreneur_Development_and_
Entrepreneurial_Mindset_Integrating_Experiential_Learning_Theory_in_Graduate_Training (accessed on 1 January 2024).
49.
Phaal, R.; Farrukh, C.J.P.; Probert, D.R. Technology management process assessment: A case study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2001,
21, 1116–1132. [CrossRef]
50.
Koskinen, K.; Ruokonen, M. Love letters or hate mail? Translators’ technology acceptance in the light of their emotional narratives.
In Human Issues in Translation Technology; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 26–42.
51.
Swiercz, P.M.; Lydon, S.R. Entrepreneurial leadership in high-tech firms: A field study. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2002,23, 380–389.
[CrossRef]
52. Bessant, J.R.; Tidd, J. Entrepreneurship; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018.
53.
˙
Zur, A. Entrepreneurial Identity and Social-Business Tensions—The Experience of Social Entrepreneurs. J. Soc. Entrep. 2020,
12, 438–461. [CrossRef]
54.
Elia, G.; Margherita, A.; Passiante, G. Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence
are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020,150, 119791. [CrossRef]
55.
Javed, A.; Yasir, M.; Ali, M.; Majid, A. ICT-Enabled Innovation, Enterprise Value Creation and the Rise of Electronic Social Enterprise;
Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020.
56.
Nambisan, S. Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2017,
41, 1029–1055. [CrossRef]
57.
Jan, I. Experiential Learning Theory in Academic Technology Entrepreneurship: Preparing Students for Technopreneur De-
velopment. 2024. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383183559_Experiential_Learning_Theory_in_
Academic_Technology_Entrepreneurship_Preparing_Students_for_Technopreneur_Development (accessed on 1 January 2024).
58. Surendran, P. Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Res. 2012,2, 175–178.
59.
Maranguni´c, N.; Grani´c, A. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2015,
14, 81–95. [CrossRef]
60. Gomez, L.E.; Bernet, P. Diversity improves performance and outcomes. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2019,111, 383–392. [CrossRef]
61. Barney, J.B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991,17, 99–120. [CrossRef]
62.
Mishrif, A.; Khan, A. Technology adoption as survival strategy for small and medium enterprises during COVID-19. J. Innov.
Entrep. 2023,12, 53. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2025,17, 882 17 of 17
63.
Jin, B.; Cho, H.J. Examining the role of international entrepreneurial orientation, domestic market competition, and technological
and marketing capabilities on SME’s export performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2018,33, 585–598. [CrossRef]
64.
Adam, N.A.; Alarifi, G. Innovation practices for the survival of small and medium enterprises(SMEs) in the COVID-19 times: The
role of external support. J. Innov. Andentrepreneurship 2021,10, 15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65.
Gupta, V.; MacMillan, I.C.; Surie, G. Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. J. Bus.
Ventur. 2004,19, 241–260. [CrossRef]
66.
Dodgson, M.; Gann, D.M.; Salter, A. The Management of Technological Innovation: Strategy and Practice; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2008.
67. Schilling, M.A. Strategic Management of Technological Innovation; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
68.
Addy, W.A.; Ajayi-Nifise, A.O.; Bello, B.G.; Tula, S.T.; Odeyemi, O.; Falaiye, T. Entrepreneurial leadership in high-tech industries:
A review of key traits and success strategies. GSC Adv. Res. Rev. 2024,18, 286–296. [CrossRef]
69.
Ishak, S.; Che Omar, A.R.; Abd Manaf, A. Entrepreneurial leadership in the micro and small enterprises (MSES) research context:
A literature review. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2021,11, 397–404. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70.
Ardelean, B.O. Role of Technological Knowledge and Entrepreneurial Orientation on Entrepreneurial Success: A Mediating Role
of Psychological Capital. Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 814733. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71.
Urbano, D.; Audretsch, D.; Aparicio, S.; Noguera, M. Does entrepreneurial activity matter for economic growth in developing
countries? The role of the institutional environment. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2020,16, 1065–1099. [CrossRef]
72.
Wach, D.; Stephan, U.; Marjan, J.G.; Wegge, J. Entrepreneurs’ achieved success: Developing a multi-faceted measure. Int. Entrep.
Manag. J. 2020,16, 1123–1151. [CrossRef]
73.
Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å.; Andersson, M.; Carlsson, B. Entrepreneurial experimentation: A key function in systems of innovation.
Small Bus. Econ. 2019,53, 591–610. [CrossRef]
74.
von Briel, F.; Davidsson, P.; Recker, J. Digital technologies as external enablers of new venture creation in the IT hardware sector.
Entrep. Theory Pract. 2018,42, 47–69. [CrossRef]
75.
Kalko, M.M.; Erena, O.T.; Debele, S.A. Technology management practices and innovation: Empirical evidence from medium-and
large-scale manufacturing firms in Ethiopia. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2023,15, 107–123. [CrossRef]
76.
Xu, Z.; Ge, Z.; Wang, X.; Skare, M. Bibliometric analysis of technology adoption literature published from 1997 to 2020. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 2021,170, 120896. [CrossRef]
77.
Marei, A.; Abou-Moghli, A.; Shehadeh, M.; Salhab, H.; Othman, M. Entrepreneurial competence and information technology
capability as indicators of business success. Uncertain Supply Chain. Manag. 2023,11, 339–350. [CrossRef]
78.
Ferreira, C.C. Experiential learning theory and hybrid entrepreneurship: Factors influencing the transition to full-time en-
trepreneurship. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2020,26, 1845–1863. [CrossRef]
79.
Muchiri, M.; McMurray, A. Entrepreneurial orientation within small firms: A critical review of why leadership and contextual
factors matter. Small Enterp. Res. 2015,22, 17–31. [CrossRef]
80.
Zahra, S.A.; Sapienza, H.J.; Davidsson, P. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. J.
Manag. Stud. 2006,43, 917–955. [CrossRef]
81.
Casanovas-Massana, A.; Gómez-Doñate, M.; Sánchez, D.; Belanche-Muñoz, L.A.; Muniesa, M.; Blanch, A.R. Predicting fecal
sources in waters with diverse pollution loads using general and molecular host-specific indicators and applying machine
learning methods. J. Environ. Manag. 2015,151, 317–325. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Bougie, R.; Sekaran, U. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019.
83.
Zikmund-Fisher, B.J.; Couper, M.P.; Singer, E.; Levin, C.A.; Fowler, F.J., Jr.; Ziniel, S.; Ubel, P.A.; Fagerlin, A. The DECISIONS
study: A nationwide survey of United States adults regarding 9 common medical decisions. Med. Decis. Mak. 2010,30
(Suppl. S5), 20–34. [CrossRef]
84. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011,19, 139–152. [CrossRef]
85.
Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use.
Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017,1, 107–123. [CrossRef]
86.
Hair, J.F., Jr.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis.
J. Bus. Res. 2020,109, 101–110. [CrossRef]
87.
Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981,18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Content uploaded by Khalid Rehman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Khalid Rehman on Feb 11, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Khalid Rehman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Khalid Rehman on Feb 11, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Muhammad Ameeq
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Muhammad Ameeq on Jan 30, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
