Risk-Taking, Innovativeness, and Proactiveness Practices

IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS: Risk-Taking, Innovativeness,
and Proactiveness Practices
Author(s): YOUNHEE KIM
Source: Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 1 (September 2010), pp.
104-129
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20779224
Accessed: 10-01-2019 06:17 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20779224?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Public Performance & Management Review
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN
U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS
Risk-Taking, Innovativeness, and Proactiveness Practices
ABSTRACT: Public sector entrepreneurship is an approach to reinventing
government that has been applied in public and nonprofit settings to stimulate
better performance. The mind-set of public entrepreneurship (i.e., risk-taking,
innovativeness, and proactiveness) is expected to cultivate more competitive
and productive environments in organizations. This study examines the effects of
public entrepreneurial characteristics on organizational performance in 296 U.S.
state agencies. The results indicate that taking risks, being innovative, and being
proactive contribute positively to organizational performance. Proactiveness is the
most influential factor of the three for achieving improved performance. The results
suggest that state governments can better leverage their strategies and resources,
become more action oriented and opportunity driven, and take advantage of
cutting-edge opportunities by adopting entrepreneurial characteristics.
KEYWORDS: innovativeness, performance, proactiveness, public entrepreneurship,
risk-taking
1 he public sector has continuously sought to improve organizational perfor
mance since the late 1970s. Responding to the trend of managing for results,
various reinventing government approaches, such as new public management and
results-based management, have been broadly implemented. Public organizations
actually searched for new ways of revitalizing their performance by absorbing
more systematic information. Entrepreneurial practices such as risk-taking, in
novativeness, and proactiveness have been considered stimulating factors for
effective responses to meeting complicated demands on internal and external
changes (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990), higher operational performance, and the
generation of extra resources to address increased demands (Bellone & Goerl,
1992; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992).
The new catchphrase of entrepreneurship was applied to several U.S. federal
YOUNHEE KIM
East Carolina University
104
Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, September 2010, pp. 104-129.
? 2010 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
1530-9576/2010 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/PMR1530-9576340106
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 105
government projects, such as the National Performance Review, the Franchise
Fund Pilot Program, the venture capital program in various agencies, and the
Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998. Along with promotion of these
efforts, public entrepreneurship has been expanded by incorporating various pub
lic management practices for improving performance as well as accountability.
Although the collaborative spirit of public entrepreneurial practices has made
progress in public organizations, their promise is still rhetorical and fragmented
due to a lack of evidence. If increased performance is not adequately measured,
an undercommitment of the applicability of the entrepreneurial arrangements in
the public sector may be the consequence.
Prior research has examined the critical organizational, environmental, and
personal factors on entrepreneurial characteristics, but no empirical evidence has
examined the contributions of their activities directly on government performance
because of the difficulty of measuring improved performance as a result of en
trepreneurial activities. For research on public entrepreneurial characteristics to
be properly applied to new settings, these characteristics should be defined suf
ficiently and the magnitude of their effects on organizational performance should
be measured properly. Responding to these tasks, this study examines the effects
of public entrepreneurial characteristics on organizational performance in U.S.
state governments in an attempt to bridge the gap between conceptual discussions
and empirical results of public entrepreneurship.
The Development of the Entrepreneurial Approaches
THE UNDERPINNINGS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The multidisciplinary research trend in entrepreneurship literature is far-reaching,
covering various social topics ranging from the psychological, social, and cultural
characteristics of entrepreneurs in organizational development to the functions
of organizational entrepreneurship in performance development. The term entre
preneurship was originally applied to improving economic activities, focusing
on individual characteristics. Attention to the concept of entrepreneurship dates
back to 1755, when Richard Cantillon described an entrepreneurial function as
facilitating an exchange of goods. In transferring the original concept to a modern
context, Joseph Schumpeter restimulated interest in entrepreneurship by highlight
ing its capability for carrying out innovation (Salazar, 1992).
When entrepreneurship research reemerged in the early 1980s, it centered on
psychology?mainly discussing individuals’ extraordinary traits and behaviors to
discover the vital components of entrepreneurship in the process of growth and
productivity (Covin & Slevin, 1988; Drucker, 1985; Mintzberg, 1973; Schneider,
Teske, & Mintrom, 1995). The entrepreneur is described as a rational decision
maker, a problem solver, a major agent and innovator of economic development, a
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
106 PPMR/ September 2010
manager and industrial leader, or an arbitrator for creating incremental-continuous
innovations (Kirzner, 1973; Marshall, 1920; Schumpeter, 1934). For example, eco
nomic entrepreneurs may contribute their talents or tacit knowledge to searching
for the possibility of success and risking the organization’s resources for potential
gains (North, 1990). Political and policy entrepreneurs recombine existing factors
of policy making (Schneider et al., 1995) as advocates for anticipated future gain
in policy settings (Kingdon, 1995).
Beginning in the mid-1980s, entrepreneurship research began to move be
yond the individual characteristics of entrepreneurs (Gr?goire, No?l, D?ry, &
B?chard, 2006). The field has addressed a wider array of conceptual perspectives
of entrepreneurial orientations and management at the organization level. Entre
preneurial orientations focus on an organization’s commitment to the intensity
of entrepreneurial actions that tend to take more risks and proactively search
for new business opportunities (Mintzberg, 1973). Entrepreneurial management
concerns the pursuit and development of opportunities and perceives the concept
as an organizational process that promotes innovation, risk-taking, and proactive
actions (Miller & Friesen, 1982; Morris & Jones, 1999; Ramamurti, 1986; Slevin
& Covin, 1990).
As the field of entrepreneurship research has been developed, the ideas of entre
preneurship have been applied to broaden organizational boundaries and capacities
for efficiency, restructure immediate results of an organization for improvement,
and reorient an organizational long-term commitment for continued development.
The domains of entrepreneurship include enterprise entrepreneurship for inde
pendent enterprises in the creation of new ventures, social entrepreneurship for
nonprofit organizations in search of alternative strategies to create social values
and lead social changes, corporate entrepreneurship for private sector companies
in encouragement of corporate activities to create profits and to gain competitive
advantages, intrapreneurship for corporations to focus on new business venturing
within a corporation (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003), and public entrepreneurship for
public organizations in search of innovations to improve performance.
The characteristics of entrepreneurship have been dimensioned by two, three,
or even four subconstructs (see Table 1). Although there is debate on whether en
trepreneurship can be conceptualized as a unidimensional or a multidimensional
construct, the common definition of entrepreneurship has been conceptualized by
three pragmatic dimensions: risk-taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness (Covin
& Slevin, 1988,1989; Miller, 1983; Morris & Jones, 1999).
AN EMERGENT CONSTRUCT OF PUBLIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The concept of public sector entrepreneurship has recently emerged in the main
stream of entrepreneurship literature, defined with several facets. Morris and Jones
described public entrepreneurship as “the process of creating value for citizens
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 107
Table 1. Dimensions of Entrepreneurship
Source Characteristics of entrepreneurship
Covin and Slevin (1988)
Davis et al. (1991)
Edwards et al. (2002)
Harwood (1982)
Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
Miller and Friesen (1982)
Miller (1983)
Mintzberg (1973)
Morris and Jones (1999)
Slevin and Covin (1990)
Innovation, proactivity, risk-taking
Innovation, risk-taking, proactivity
Risk orientation in certain areas of public service, innova
tion in service delivery, leveraging of resources, the use
of partnerships to create added value, problem-solving for
finding and satisfying unmet needs
Taking initiatives, securing autonomy, taking risks, inter
nalizing uncertainty, conducting innovation
Autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, proactivity, com
petitive aggressiveness
Innovation, risk-taking
Innovation, risk-taking, proactivity
Risk-taking, proactivity, centralization, growth
Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactivity
Risk-taking, proactivity, innovation
by bringing together unique combinations of public and/or private resources to
exploit social opportunities” (1999, p. 74). Similarly, Bellone and Goerl (1992)
interpreted the public entrepreneurship concept as more compatible with the
values of democratic participation and institutional roles. By recognizing these
primary natures of public entrepreneurship, research has attempted to encompass
the critical values of public services.
Over the past decade, public entrepreneurship research has examined the ap
plicability of entrepreneurial behaviors and their potential impacts on performance
improvement in public organizations. Connecting with the concepts of innovation
and performance, public entrepreneurship studies have diversified the scope of
the field and the magnitude of its applicability to various government reforms.
Because the goals of public organizations are more complicated than the clear
economic goals of private organizations, public entrepreneurship activities should
connect not only with businesslike productivity but also with the core values of
public administration (e.g., equity, responsiveness, accountability, sustainability,
and citizen satisfaction). A proper interconnection between public entrepreneur
ship and the multifaceted values of the public sector may result in a consensus
in the ongoing debates on the suitability of public entrepreneurship in light of
the government’s need to maintain democratic responsibility and accountability
(Borins, 2000; Cohen & Eimicke, 2000; Goodsell, 1993; Terry, 1998).
The major research stream of public entrepreneurship has examined individual
entrepreneurial behaviors that create dramatic changes in existing management
and identify new missions for their organizations (Bellone & Goerl, 1992; Doig &
Hargrove, 1987; Lewis, 1980; Roberts, 1992; Teske & Schneider, 1994). Another
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
108 PPMR / September 2010
research trend, connected with the reinventing-government movement, has applied
the concept of entrepreneurial efforts for reengineering operational processes and
improving organizational performance through adopting forward-looking oppor
tunities of changes and innovation at the organizational level (Llewellyn & Jones,
2003; North, 1990; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). Recent research has attempted
to link public entrepreneurial concepts with contracting out and privatization
that reduce government involvement in service provision by outsourcing some
responsibilities to private organizations (Morris & Jones, 1999).
The nature of public entrepreneurship is less substantially defined (Llewellyn &
Jones, 2003; Morris & Jones, 1999) because of the broad roles of government. In
many cases, public entrepreneurship has been considered as identical to business
(i.e., government for the purpose of making profit) (Perlmutter & Cnaan, 1995),
but its approach is more than being market savvy (McDonald, 1993). Rather,
public entrepreneurial activities intend to provide better services to citizens and
to achieve public values more responsively and effectively by taking advantage of
entrepreneurial propensities (Borins, 1998; Boyett, 1996; Bozeman, 2007). With
the intention of responding to these demands, innovative and risk-taking cultures
are embodied in the development of the public entrepreneurship approach that
has been characterized as a multidimensional concept summarized in Table 2. The
three-dimensional definition of entrepreneurship (i.e., risk-taking, innovativeness,
and proactiveness) has influenced much recent research on individual, corporate,
social, and public entrepreneurship.
The typical characteristics of entrepreneurship have also been found in many
public organizations. In the public sector, risk-taking has not typically been a favor
able choice, but current performance management reforms offer an opportunity for
public managers to take risks (Berman & West, 1998). For example, a development
of nonroutine tasks and ideas may always involve some degree of risks because
there are no previous records for guaranteed success. As Vigoda-Gadot, Shoham,
Schwabsky, and Ruvio asserted, risk-taking could be one of the key characteristics
of public entrepreneurship for improving performance because “innovativeness
is inherently risky” (2005, p. 77), and there is no innovation without risk-taking
(Caruana, Ewing, & Ramaseshan, 2002). Public organizations have also been re
quired to adopt innovative strategies as a result of rapidly changing environments
(Berman, 1998; Boyne, Gould-Williams, Law, & Walker, 2005). Innovation in
public organizations has been identified as “new ways of managing, organizing
and delivering services” (Walker, 2008, p. 600). Through adopting innovative
practices, governments at all levels expect to renovate structural and managerial
approaches for improving performance. Proactiveness, the last characteristic of
public entrepreneurship, is necessary when a public organization has to respond
quickly to environmental changes (Boyne & Walker, 2004). Defensive reactions
may not respond promptly and properly to environmental changes and custom
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 109
Source
Table 2. Characteristics of Public Entrepreneurship_
_Characteristics of public entrepreneurship
Bellone and Goerl (1992)
Bernier and Halsi (2007)
Boyett (1996)
Forster et al. (1996)
Gore (1993)
Llewellyn and Jones (2003)
Moon (1999)
Morris and Jones (1999)
Ramamurti (1986)
Roberts and King (1991)
Schneider et al. (1995)
Stone (1992)
Zerbinati and Souitaris
(2005)
Autonomy, a personal vision of the future, secrecy, risk
taking
Autonomy, innovation, risk-taking, proactiveness, com
petitive aggression
Growth, innovation, flexibility
Leadership, creativity, innovation, opportunism, risk
taking, facilitating, synthesizing
Reduction of red tape, promotion of customer satisfaction,
empowerment of employees, promotion of cost-efficient
performance
Service innovation, new venture creation, innovation in
service delivery
Product-based, process-based, behavior-based
Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactivity
Innovation, risk-taking, proactivity
Risk-taking, proactivity, innovation
The sense of opportunity, willingness of risk-taking, mana
gerial commitment, and capacity
Innovation, risk, proactivity
Proactivity, innovation, risk-taking, leadership, and
creativity
ized citizens’ demands. Proactive behaviors and cultures, however, can facilitate
innovative and risk-taking activities more effectively (Damanpour & Schneider,
2006).
Public Entrepreneurship and Performance
The emphasis on high-performing organizations allows governments to adopt
innovative and risk-taking practices actively. From the result-based management
standpoint, measuring outcomes of new policies and management activities helps
government implement policies more efficiently and effectively, although the
problems of measuring organizational performance in the public sector has resulted
in long-standing debates. A theoretical link between public entrepreneurship and
organizational performance has existed in performance management literature,
but, unlike corporate entrepreneurship research, empirical research for supporting
a strong positive relation between them has not been sufficiently demonstrated
(e.g., Miller & Friesen, 1982; Zahra & Covin, 1995). A direct linkage between
public entrepreneurship and organizational performance is difficult to measure,
but most public organizations at all levels of government have recognized numer
ous performance benefits from adopting entrepreneurial activities (Caruana et al.,
2002; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Moon, 1999).
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
110 PPMR / September 2010
The effects of entrepreneurial practices on organizational performance can be
gauged by multiple performance measures, such as financial, operational (nonfi
nancial), and multiple hierarchical indicators (Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986).
Major performance measures used in private entrepreneurship research are effi
ciency, growth, profit, size, liquidity, success/failure, market share, and leverage
(Murphy, Trailer, & Hill, 1996). Unlike private sector organizations, many pub
lic-sector innovative actions do not directly yield measurable financial outcomes.
Instead, feasible nonfinancial outcomes (e.g., organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, stakeholders’ satisfaction) have been used as surrogates for measuring
government performance at both individual and organizational levels.
The measurement of organizational performance has been broadly discussed
in the contexts of external and internal measures or the contexts of objective and
subjective measures. External measures of performance are developed by exter
nal stakeholders’ decisions, whereas internal measures are grounded by internal
stakeholders’judgments (Walker & Boyne, 2006). Although external and internal
measures should not be often interchangeable, using both measures may assess
more accurate organizational performance due to significant correlations between
them. Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, and Mackenzie (1995) discuss two types
of performance measures: objective measures as directly countable outcomes and
subjective measures as perceptual ratings. Bommer et al. also report that, although
both objective and subjective measures cannot be equally treated as substitutes of
each measure, applying an integrative approach may evaluate more adequately
the performance dimensions under specific circumstances.
In testing a relation between public entrepreneurship and organizational perfor
mance, previous studies found that innovation leads to a high level of performance
(Zahra, 1995), and proactive organizations also tend to have a high level of organi
zational performance (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001 ; Miller & Friesen, 1983). Although
the effect of the risk-taking propensity on performance was not much more clearly
determined than those of the other two characteristics, risk-taking has been shown
to improve actual performance (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998) in service provision
and sound financial adjustment. This study hypothesizes positive effects of three
public entrepreneurial characteristics on performance (see Figure 1).
While this study proposes a positive linear relation between innovativeness
and performance, there are also different aspects of the relation to consider. For
example, innovation and performance may be related negatively or occur simul
taneously under specific circumstances. In considering simultaneity between
innovation and performance, underperforming organizations may tend to search
for more innovative opportunities because those organizations have more room
for improvement (e.g., Manns & March, 1978). L??f and Heshmati report that the
ignorance of a simultaneity problem is “less appropriate for analyzing the relation
ship between innovation and productivity” based on sensitivity analysis (2006, p.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 111
Risk-taking
Innovativeness Performance
Proactiveness Control
variables
Figure 1. Public Entrepreneurship and Performance Framework
333) and may result in under- or overestimations of the relations under different
situations. Although this study has recognized the possibility of simultaneity bias
between innovativeness and performance, results may not be sensitive in the public
entrepreneurship model above due to insignificant selectivity bias.
LINKAGE WITH RISK-TAKING
Risk refers not only to a lack of predictability about potential outcomes during
decision-making processes but also to a high possibility of both significant gains
and significant losses (Cornwall & Perlman, 1990). Risk-taking is characterized
as “a tendency to take bold actions such as venturing into unknown new markets,
committing a large portion of resources to ventures with uncertain outcomes,
and/or borrowing heavily” (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001, p. 431).
Entrepreneurial risk-taking may be the hardest action orientation for public
organizations to adopt because the possibilities of high failures have limited such
actions in light of legal, political, and citizen constraints. The commitment to
excellence in services, however, offers considerable opportunities for risk-taking
actions rather than tolerating performance on the safe side (Kee & Black, 1985).
To improve government services and performance, recent management reforms
require a propensity for risk-taking and experimentation (Berman & West, 1998)
because government policy environments are hardly predictable and stable (Moon,
1999). The government needs to promote prudent risk-taking and experimenting
by providing room for failure to encourage proactive actions to solve complicated
problems (Dilulio, Garvey, & Kettl, 1993).
In the private sector, a relation between risk-taking and performance has been
often hypothesized as being curvilinear. Begley and Boyd (1987) argue that risk
taking has a positive effect on a firm’s performance up to a point, but beyond that
point firms begin to harm their performance. Unlike private-sector practices, public
organizations are limited in taking extremely risky opportunities, so this study only
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
112 PPMR / September 2010
applies a positive spectrum of the relation between risk-taking and performance
in state governments. Within the moderate range toward risks (Morris & Jones,
1999), risk-laden behaviors will improve organizational performance in the public
sector. This study hypothesizes:
HI: As the level of risk-taking increases, the more positive the
performance becomes.
LINKAGE WITH INNOVATIVENESS
Innovativeness reflects an organization’s propensity to engage in the development
of new ideas through experimentation and creative processes that invent new ser
vices and develop new processes for fulfilling organizational functions (Lumpkin
& Dess, 1996, 2001; Salazar, 1992; Walker, 2008). The types of innovation are
categorized as discontinuous breakthrough innovation, dynamically continuous
innovation, continuous incremental innovation, and imitation of prior innovation
(Morris & Kuratko, 2002). Adopted innovative activities in public organizations
are less radical due to the stable, continuous nature of the required public works,
so innovation does not always require creation of new services in the public sector.
Rather, innovative efforts in the public sector may lead to a reconceptualization of
existing resources and an application of new ideas for better performance. From
a macro perspective of innovations, Walker (2008) recomposed the innovation
concept in the public sector as service, organization, marketization, and ancillary
innovations. Service and organization innovations refer to any changes to services,
new user groups, structures, and management. Marketization innovation means
any attempts to render services to users, lower costs, find extra revenues, contract
out, and outsource. Ancillary innovation represents any network activities to work
beyond own organizational boundaries. These types of innovations could be selec
tively conducted in public organizations to achieve their performance targets.
Innovation has been identified as a primary value of entrepreneurial orientations
(Gardner, 1994). Drucker defined innovativeness in terms of an entrepreneurial
context as “the specific tool of entrepreneurs, the means by which they exploit
change as an opportunity for a different business or a different service” (1985, p.
19). Innovation may be influenced by a continuum of adoption rates. As Rogers
(1995) suggests, if an innovation has greater relative advantages, compatibility,
trialability, and observability and less complexity, adoption of entrepreneurial
innovations will increase in public organizations. Innovative organizations have
continuously searched for advantageous opportunities and monitored any changes
for positive reputations, so sustained innovation may lead them to produce high
performance (Zahra & Covin, 1995). The core of innovative activities is the
transformation of innovations into ongoing performance improvement. These
arguments support the following hypothesis:
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS
Table 3. Survey Response Rate_
113
Total responses Valid responses
Regions States Samples % %
Southern
Northeast
13 296
12 211
12 210
11 240
48 957
110
71
70
83
334
31.2
33.7
33.3
34.6
34.9
96
58
68
77
299
32.4
27.5
32.4
32.1
31.3
North Central
Western
Total
H2: As the level of innovativeness increases, the more positive the
performance becomes.
LINKAGE WITH PROACTIVENESS
Proactiveness, which refers to forward-looking strategy-making in anticipation
of future demands (Miller, 1987), has been emphasized by most entrepreneurship
studies to achieve performance improvement in the public sector. The concept is
critical to pursuing sensed opportunities because, without agenda settings and
initiations for policy implementation, risk-taking and innovative searches are
not realized. Borins (2000) argues that innovation is usually accompanied by
proactiveness for tangible outcomes. As embodied by typical characteristics of
proactiveness, it is defined as the “initiation of action or engagement in action,
rather than activity as a reaction to an event or occurrence” (Salazar, 1992, p. 29).
Proactiveness can be either an aggressive behavior or an organizational pursuit of
favorable business opportunities (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Stevenson & Jarillo
Mossi, 1990). Both attributes are required in order to be anticipating and acting
on future needs by seeking new opportunities, introducing new services ahead of
competition, and eliminating operations in the declining stages of their life cycles
(Venkataraman & Van de Ven, 1998).
Prior research has concluded that proactive organizations quickly respond to
changes and emerging opportunities, and then translate them into high performance
(Lumpkin & Dess, 2001 ; Miller, 1983). An organization that tends to be proactive
may hold high levels of performance and commitment (Caruana et al., 2002). To
be proactive organizations, the action-oriented strategies, which involve “creative
interpretation of rules, skills at networking and leveraging of resources, and a
high level of persistence and patience in affecting change,” should be necessary
(Morris & Jones, 1999, p. 76) as baseline support for the proactive characteristics.
This study proposes that:
H3: As the level of proactiveness increases, the more positive the
performance becomes.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
114 PPMR/September 2010
Methods
DATA
Data were collected by a public entrepreneurship survey conducted in 2007. The
survey questionnaire package was mailed twice to 957 heads of state government
departments in the 48 contiguous U.S. states. The sampling frame evenly repre
sented four geographic regions: the South, the Northeast, North Central, and the
West. To increase the response rate, a second survey mailing package including a
copy of the questionnaire with a follow-up request letter was sent to nonrespon
dents about four weeks after the initial mailing. The total response rate was about
35 percent (n = 334), which includes 35 invalid responses, with well-represented
regional and departmental responses. To minimize nonresponse bias, this study
carefully assessed the distribution of the responses in the survey and the potential
differences of responses from respondents in two pretests. Table 3 presents the
detailed survey response.
Two hundred ninety-seven state government departments (except 2 unknown
agencies) were grouped into 14 categories by similar functions for analyzing the
patterns of entrepreneurial practice. With the exception of veterans and military
agencies, all categories included a large number of departments. Table 4 details
the demographic description of state agencies by their functional categories.
MEASURES
Most measures used in this survey were derived from other studies for improving
content validity. To control measurement errors, survey questions were carefully
designed in terms of the specific wording, logical formatting, and constructing
items in one variable suggested by other studies (Casley & Kumar, 1988; Fowler,
1993; Weisberg & Bowen, 1977). Brief definitions of public entrepreneurship
were explained in the survey questionnaire and the survey instruction to clarify
the concepts of public entrepreneurial characteristics to the respondents. At a
minimum, three items per variable were developed for the operational validity of
survey measures (O’Sullivan, Rassel, & Berner, 2003). Each question was rated
by a seven-point Likert scale that captures more variation than a five-point scale
(Ahire & Golhar, 1996). Cronbach’s alpha was used for estimating the homogene
ity and reliability of the survey-driven items.
Dependent Variable
Performance is measured by perceptual judgments resulting from entrepreneurial
activities, rather than archival data, due to the difficulty in developing objective
measures of organizational entrepreneurial performance. Murphy et al. (1996)
found that 75 percent of the entrepreneurial studies conducted from 1987 to 1993
used only perceptual data sources of organizational performance, and 6 percent of
the studies used both primary and archival data sources of performance. Thus, the
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 115
Table 4. Functional Categories of State Government Departments
Functional category_Number
Administration 22
Agriculture 16
Bank and insurance 12
Commerce and economy development 32
Corrections 25
Motor vehicles and transportation 19
Education and family 32
Emergency and safety 32
Environment and natural resources 25
Health 24
Labor 16
Parks, recreation, and Revenue and financ Veterans and military reliance on primary In addition, much p performance based Pandey, 2004).
Respondents were a sulting from entrepr very low, 2 = low, 3 very high) measured performance (see Ap West (1998), Morris Cronbach’s alpha coef consistency among t computed by a facto rotation. Factor analy and yielded an acce However, the fourth 0.91 (see Appendix 3), pendent variable. Th Independent Variab Risk-taking is measu low, 7 = very high). T propensity and tolera Kingsley (1998), Mo The Cronbach’s alph of internal reliabilityThis content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
116 PPMR/September 2010
able computed by a factor score using a principal component technique had one
factor structure with an eigenvalue greater than 1 and KMO value around 0.67 (see
Appendix 3). The values of the risk-taking variable ranged from -2.75 to 2.42.
Innovativeness measured by the four items (1 = very low; 7 = very high) gauged
the degrees of innovative propensity in terms of the search for new entrepreneurial
opportunities and fee-for-service operations (see Appendix 1 ). The four items were
derived from Moon and deLeon’s (2001) and Morris and Jones’s (1999) indexes.
The Cronbach’s values of innovativeness was 0.53, which was below the cutoff
of 0.60 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Among the four items of innovativeness,
the fourth item (the degree of fee-for-service) had a low item rest correlation of
0.14, suggesting that it needs to be eliminated from the measurement group. After
eliminating the fourth item, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.68. The innova
tion variable, computed by a factor score using a principal component technique,
had one factor structure with an eigenvalue over 1 and KMO value over 0.67 (see
Appendix 4). The innovativeness variable ranged from -3.59 to 2.06.
Proactiveness was estimated by three items (1 = very low; 1 = very high) in
terms of degrees of implementing new changes derived from Borins’s (2000) and
Morris and Jones’s (1999) indexes. The Cronbach’s alpha value of proactiveness
was 0.72. The proactiveness variable, which was computed by a factor score us
ing a principal component technique, had one factor structure with an eigenvalue
over 1 and KMO value around 0.64 (see Appendix 3). The proactiveness variable
ranged from -4.20 to 1.47.
Control Variables
Organizational performance across state agencies has been affected differently by
various institutional factors. This study controls for four variables in structural (i.e.,
organizational size, hierarchy, and formalization) and environmental (i.e., politi
cal influence) conditions, which may affect public organizations’ entrepreneurial
capacity differently than it contributes to performance. The effect of organizational
size on performance management practices has been argued in different directions,
and each entrepreneurial dimension could be influenced differently by organiza
tional size. As Caruana et al. (2002) argued, entrepreneurial activities have existed
in all public organizations no matter the size and type. Size was measured by the
number of full-time employees in the 2006-7 fiscal year.
The remaining control variables were measured by the public entrepreneurship
survey using a seven-point scale (1 = very low; 1 – very high). Hierarchy was
measured by the degrees of hierarchical complexity using the four items derived
from Moon (1999) and Rainey and Bozeman (2000) in terms of multiple layers
of authority, structured channels of communication, hierarchical processes for
project approvals, and required red tape. Formalization is measured by the de
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 117
grees of written forms using three items modified from the indexes of Bozeman
and Kingsley (1998) and Rainey and Bozeman (2000) in terms of existing orga
nizational regulations, internal strictness by rules and procedures, and emphasis
on written rules and procedures. Political influence is measured by the degrees
of political involvement and changes using the four items modified from the in
dexes of Borins (1998) and Sadler (1999) in terms of political authorization for
actions, political intervention in organizational decisions, external authorities for
changing organizational behaviors, and public sector reform impacts on changing
organizational behaviors.
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
This study uses three statistical methods: exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory
factor analysis, and ordinary least squared analysis. Exploratory factor analysis
with principal component technique was primarily used for constructing statisti
cal variables through confirming one underlying construct in each entrepreneurial
characteristic. Principal component technique provides a better understanding
of the interrelations among the variables by simplifying the description of those
variables (Afifi, Clark, & May, 2004). To compute a statistic variable, survey items
measuring one variable should be constructed on a same factor loading with an
eigenvalue over 1 and KMO value over 0.60 as typical cutoff values (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2005).
Confirmatory factor analysis verifies a feasible multidimensionality of public
entrepreneurship through testing model fits of the hypothesized constructions
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). This study tested one-factor model fit and three
factor model fit using several fit indices: chi-square, root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), goodness of fit index (GFI), parsimony goodness of
fit index (PGFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and incre
mental fit index (IFI). For the three-factor model, the values of most fit indices
were taken as acceptable fits, except RMSEA. The chi-square measure of model
fit was statistically significant at the 0.01 level, and each value of GFI, NFI, CFI,
and IFI was greater than the typical cutoff value of 0.90 (Kreiser, Marino, &
Weaver, 2002). The PGFI measure was also greater than the cutoff value of 0.50.
The unconstrained loadings were all statistically significant at the 0.05 level,
and most standardized loadings ranged from 0.64 to 0.86, except the rt2 (0.44)
and rt4 (0.40) items. On the other hand, most fit indices in the one-factor model
were not acceptable as good model fits. Therefore, the results confirm the three
dimensionality of public entrepreneurship. Appendix 4 presents the results of fit
statistics for the three-factor and one-factor models.
Ordinary least square analysis evaluated relations between public entrepre
neurial characteristics and organizational performance. This study tests several
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
118 PPMR/September 2010
regression diagnostic procedures to detect outliers, multicollinearity, homogeneity,
and normality. The results show that the analysis model did not detect any of those
problems, except three outlier cases (case codes: 93, 227,161) that exceed +3 or
-3 based on its value of studentized residuals. The three outliers were eliminated
from the final data set. The analysis model with 296 observations was confirmed
for testing the hypotheses after detecting reliability of measures and regression
diagnostics.
The regression model tests multicollinearity using the variance inflation fac
tor. Each of the variables has variance inflation factor less than 2.5 (risk-taking
= 1.69, innovativeness = 2.16, proactiveness = 1.53) as a cutoff of less than 10,
so the performance model has no multicollinearity issue. In terms of detecting
heteroscedasticity, the Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test rejected the null hy
pothesis of homoscedasticity, but the White’s general test did not reject the null
hypothesis. Although the White’s general test proved homoscedasticity in the
performance model, robust regression analysis is needed to ensure a heterosce
dasticity problem.
Results
PUBLIC ENTREPRENEURIAL TENDENCIES
The brief descriptive analysis of three entrepreneurial characteristics offers the
overall public entrepreneurial tendencies in state governments. A degree of en
trepreneurial activities has been shown to be highly influenced by environment
conditions (Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994), even though impacts of public entrepreneur
ship will be positive on productivity. Depending on the challenges being faced
in the environment state agencies practiced different degrees of entrepreneurial
characteristics. For example, state agencies facing stable environments may need
a lower level of entrepreneurship than others facing unpredictable environments
(Caruana et al., 2002). Therefore, varied entrepreneurial intensities could be ap
propriate in different public organizations (Morris & Jones, 1999).
The average risk-taking score of 3.9 across state government departments in
dicates a somewhat low degree compared to other entrepreneurial characteristics.
This result notes that state agencies are restricted in taking risks more than innova
tions and pro-activities. The innovativeness tendency designates a fairly modest
level (the average of 4.5). Only administration and parks agencies tend to show
somewhat high levels of innovativeness. On the other hand, most state agencies
except veterans and military departments tend to have a somewhat high level (the
average score of 5.3) of proactiveness. Table 5 illustrates public entrepreneurial
tendencies in state agencies.
While the average scores of risk-taking and innovativeness are slightly different
across state government departments, most state agencies indicated the similar
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 119
Table 5. Public Entrepreneurial Tendencies in State Agencies_
Departments_
Administration
Agriculture
Bank and insurance
Commerce and economy development
Corrections
Motor vehicles and transportation
Education and family
Emergency and safety
Environment and natural resources
Health
Labor
Parks, recreation, and tourism
Revenue and finance
Veterans and military
Average
Risk-taking Innovativeness Proactiveness
4.1 5.0 5.6
4.0 4.9 5.1
3.4 4.9 5.5
3.7 4.5 5.3
3.5 4.4 5.6
4.2 4.4 5.1
4.2 4.4 5.3
4.6 4.5 5.6
4.1 4.9 5.1
4.1 4.3 5.3
3.8 4.5 5.5
4.3 5.0 5.2
3.7 4.0 5.0
3.4 3.5 4.7
3.9 4.5 5.3
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics Mean s.d.
1. Perfor- 0.0232 0.057
mance
2. Risk- -0.0115 0.058 0.463**
taking
3. Innova- -0.0042 0.058 0.588** 0.638**
tiveness
4. Proac- -0.0022 0.058 0.572** 0.402** 0.580**
tivity
5. Size 2,246 368 -0.122* -0.014 -0.059 0.066*
6. Hierarchy 0.0003 0.058-0.028 -0.142* -0.090 0.062 0.176**
7. Formal- -0.0088 0.058-0.037 -0.159**-0.072 -0.076 0.070 0.454**
ization
8. Political 0.0044 0.057 0.177** 0.123* 0.187** 0.187** 0.134 0.232** 0.038
influence
Note: = 296; Correlation significant at * <.05; ** <.01.
tendencies in both public entrepreneurial characteristics. This result confirms
that innovative opportunities could be frequently considered as risky activities or
vice versa. For example, motor vehicles and transportation, education and family,
emergency and safety, and health present similar scores in both risk-taking and
innovativeness at a modest level. As a result, state governments inactively practiced
risk-taking and innovative but were actively involved in proactiveness. Table 6
presents descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. The factor scores were used
to construct statistical variables, and none of the variables has a multicollinearity
problem in a typical cutoff value of 0.80.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
120 PPMR/ September 2010
Table 7. Robust Regression Analysis
Coeff. t Beta
Risk-taking
Innovativeness
Proactiveness
0.139
0.270
0.348
2.27**
4.02***
6.29***
0.142
0.277
0.358
Control variables
Size
Hierarchy
Formalization
Political influence
-0.000
-0.011
0.045
.042
296
?2.74***
-0.22
0.92
0.91
-0.135
-0.011
0.046
0.042
No. of obs.
F-value
R2
34.29
0.4553
*p < 0.10; ** < 0.05; *** < 0.001.
PUBLIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE
As presented in Table 7, the regression model successfully explains the impacts
of individual variables on organizational performance with an R2 of 0.455. In
addition, three public entrepreneurial variables were statistically significant at a
5 percent level for improving organizational performance. The positive effect of
risk-taking on organizational performance implies that state agencies with a risk
taking propensity will perform better than those with less risk-taking tendency.
The results also suggest that more innovative state agencies will exhibit better
performance than those with less innovative tendency. In other words, searching
for innovative opportunities will eventually offer the agency a better position from
which to achieve higher performance than maintaining the status quo. As such, the
high proactive characteristics may provide state governments new opportunities
to improve their performance.
In comparing the effects of the three entrepreneurial variables on performance,
proactiveness has the strongest impact (? = 0.358), which is almost 2.5 times
higher than risk-taking and 1.3 times higher than innovativeness. This finding sug
gests that action-oriented organizations may more effectively link entrepreneurial
opportunities to organizational performance than risk accepting and innovative
oriented organizations.
Among control variables, only the size variable (p < 0.001) had a significant
influence on performance in a negative manner. This result implies that small
state agencies may achieve a better performance than large state agencies with
entrepreneurial propensities (Jennings, 1994; Morris & Jones, 1999). Although
hierarchy was not a significant impact on performance, its negative direction
was expected (Moon, 1999). Both formalization and political influence indicate
positive directions on performance, so formal structural applications and politi
cal requirements may be considered as safety devices for state governments to
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 121
enhance performance by preventing unexpected changes from entrepreneurial
practices (Ingram & Clay, 2000).
Discussion and Conclusion
Public organizations have been required to undertake opportunities for stimulating
performance rather than for maintaining the status quo. While public entrepreneur
ship may not be an ideal approach to replacing a variety of public management
models, it may offer manageable advantages for state governments to absorb
cutting-edge opportunities linked to increased performance. By recognizing the
advantages and importance of entrepreneurial characteristics, the field of public
entrepreneurship research has been focused on identifying the entrepreneurial
characteristics and determining the critical factors in order to populate these ef
forts. Along this line, although previous research has discussed the positive effects
of entrepreneurial orientations on performance improvement, empirical data are
insufficient to confirm these arguments. This research attempts to provide a piece
of empirical evidence with the intent to fill gaps between the conceptual arguments
and the reality of entrepreneurial practices for performance improvement.
Public entrepreneurship in this research has been characterized in terms of the
opportunity-based context. This view mirrors recent studies on public and corpo
rative entrepreneurship. The results support the hypotheses in which risk-taking,
innovative, and proactive attributes may improve organizational performance
substantially in state agencies. The findings suggest that allowing risk-taking is
important to state governments because it offers competitive opportunities for
improving performance. Without risk-taking, there are no proceeding actions for
innovation and proactiveness (Caruana et al., 2002). Thus, the value of taking risks
should be reevaluated as a possible option for public organizations, especially
because the level of risk-taking tendency is low. State governments should pay
attention to defining a tolerable range of risk-taking to encourage entrepreneurial
trials and to cultivate organizational environments for taking risks, such as by
encouraging more flexibility (Jennings, 1994), less formalization, more autonomy
(Forster, Graham, & Wanna, 1996), and higher accountability (Bellone & Goerl,
1992). The findings also indicate that innovative attributes help state govern
ments to increase performance. To be innovative organizations, state agencies
need to facilitate the development of innovative strategies, such as more focus
on performance (Ramamurti, 1986), participation (Miller & Friesen, 1982), and
performance-based rewards (Kanter, 1983). This study also finds that the proac
tive characteristic is the most influential factor for achieving better performance.
Because state agencies have a somewhat active reaction to implementing innova
tive approaches in general, public organizations need to exercise action-oriented
strategies and systems for advancing proactive characteristics.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
122 PPMR / September 2010
Although this study carefully examines the effects of public entrepreneurial
attempts on organizational performance, there are still some limitations to this
research. The challenges largely stem from single, perceptual survey data. Due
to the lack of empirical data on specified entrepreneurial tendencies and their
direct impacts on performance in state government, it was difficult to use proxy
measures other than perceptual survey measures. Single survey data could threaten
the validity of measurement and the accuracy of responses as common method
biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Lee, 2003). Although the respondents evaluated
the survey questions in a neutral manner, it is possible that their choice on each
question may have been heavily influenced by their preconceptualized perceptions
of each variable and organizational desirability, rather than actual outcomes or
conditions. In the case of evaluating the impacts of the entrepreneurial activities
on organizational performance, reliance on perceptual measures for organizational
performance could result in a weak explanation between its measures and perfor
mance itself (Ganster, Hennessey, & Luthans, 1983; Van Thiel & Leeuw, 2002).
Appropriate performance measurement of entrepreneurial tendencies has
been a critical issue in public entrepreneurship research because it is not simple
to extract the uncontaminated nature of any impact of entrepreneurial influence
on performance with limited data sources. On the other hand, prior empirical
studies argue that survey data from individual perceptions were not much biased
in assessing actual work performance and other conditions (Rainey & Bozeman,
2000). To ensure the relevance of items for creating one variable, this study uses
measures already tested by other empirical research. In addition, this study rigor
ously tests measurement reliability in terms of stability, equivalence, and internal
consistency using the Cronbach’s alpha test and exploratory factor analysis with
principal component technique to minimize possible measurement errors from
the single survey data source. Whereas the results confirm the validity and reli
ability of organizational performance, the performance measures in this study
are subjective, relying on internal measures. Using both archival and perceptual
measures of organizational performance may result in more accurate assessment
(Walker & Boyne, 2006).
Recent research has debated whether the dimensionality of the entrepreneur
ship measures is a unidimensional (e.g., Covin & Slevin, 1989) or a multidimen
sional construction (e.g., Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, 2001; Zahra, 1993). As this
study proposes, the potential for each subdimension of public entrepreneurship
may have a different pattern and impact on organizational performance in state
governments. In this case, the use of aggregated measures of public entrepre
neurship may be problematic (Kreiser et al., 2002). This study confirms that the
three-dimensional model is validated using confirmatory factor analysis. Several
fit indices and the values of standardized loadings are acceptable for supporting
the multidimensionality of public entrepreneurship (see Appendix 4). The three
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 123
dimensions, however, exhibit high correlations between risk-taking and innova
tiveness (the correlation coefficient is 0.87) as well as between innovativeness
and proactiveness (the correlation coefficient is 0.76), which may be caused by
the respondents not accurately perceiving the concepts of public entrepreneurship.
While the model fit indices supported the independency of each dimension, future
research should include more accurate, reliable measures of the multidimensional
public entrepreneurship.
Despite these limitations, this study contributes to the mainstream public
entrepreneurship literature by examining the effects of entrepreneurial attributes
on organizational performance empirically. As Zerbinati and Souitaris (2005)
described in their study, this empirical study has just opened the door in the field
of public sector entrepreneurship. Future research needs to develop multiple
measurements of entrepreneurial tendencies and organizational performance
and, taking simultaneity between entrepreneurial orientations and performance
into account, apply sophisticated analysis. In conclusion, public entrepreneurial
characteristics can streamline government behaviors, making them more efficient,
flexible, and accountable in responding to turbulent and competitive environments.
While ranges of challenges and tensions to adopting entrepreneurial orientations
still exist in the public sector, entrepreneurial activities do not necessarily devalue
the core values of the public sector (Berman & West, 1998). Governments have
to leverage their strategies and resources to overcome bureaucratic barriers for
risk-taking, innovative, and proactive propensities that have positive impacts on
performance. The public entrepreneurial endeavors will offer opportunities for
citizens and governments to improve managerial qualities and produce high- qual
ity public services.
References
Afifi, A., Clark, V.A., & May, S. (2004). Computer-aided multivariate analysis. 4th ed.
New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
Ahire, S.L., & Golhar, D.Y. (1996). Quality management in large vs. small firms. Journal
of Small Business Management, 34(2), 1-13.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 7-24.
Begley, T.M., & Boyd, D.P. (1987). Psychological characteristics associated with perfor
mance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller business. Journal of Business Venturing,
2(1), 79-93.
Bellone, C.J., & Goerl, G.F. (1992). Reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy.
Public Administration Review, 52(2), 130-134.
Berman, E.M. (1998). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57(2),
105-112.
Berman, E.M., & West, J.P. (1998). Responsible risk-taking. Public Administration Review,
58(4), 346-352.
Bemier, L., & Hafsi, T. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public
Administration Review, 67(3), 488-503.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
124 PPMR / September 2010
Bommer, W.H., Johnson, J.L., Rich, G.A., Podsakoff, P.M., & Mackenzie, S.B. (1995). On
the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 587-605.
Bonns, S. (1998). Lessons from the new public management in commonwealth nations.
International Public Management Journal, 1(1), 37-58.
Borins, S. (2000). What border? Public management innovation in the United States and
Canada. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(1), 46-74.
Boyne, G.A., & Walker, R.M. (2004). Strategy content and public service organizations.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 231-252.
Boyne, G.A., Gould-Williams, J.S., Law, J., & Walker, R.M. (2005). Explaining the adop
tion of innovation: An empirical analysis of public management reform. Environment
and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23(3), 419-435.
Boyett, I. (1996). The public sector entrepreneur: A definition. International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 9(2), 36-51.
Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic
individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations.
Public Administration Review, 58(2), 109-117.
Caruana, A., Ewing, M.T., & Ramaseshan, B. (2002). Effects of some environmental chal
lenges and centralization on the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of public
sector entities. Service Industries Journal, 22(2), 43-58.
Casley, D.J., & Kumar, K. (1988). The collection, analysis, and use of monitoring and
evaluation data. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Cohen, S., & Eimicke, W.B. (2000). Trends in 20th century United States government eth
ics. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 3(3&4), 571-597.
Cornwall, J., & Perlman, B. (1990). Organizational entrepreneurship. Homewood, IL:
Irwin.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an
entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217-234.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and
benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-78.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm be
havior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-25.
Damanpour, E, & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in orga
nizations: Effects of environment, organization, and top managers. British Journal of
Management, 17(3), 215-236.
Davis, D., Morris, M., & Allen, J. (1991). Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect
on selected entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial
firms. Journal of the Academic Marketing Science, 19(1), 43-51.
Dilulio, J.J., Garvey, G., & Kettl, D. (1993). Improving government performance: An
owner’s manual. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Doig, J.W., & Hargrove, E.C. (1987). Leadership and innovation. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
Edwards, C, Jones, G., Lawton, A., & Llewellyn, N. (2002). Public entrepreneurship:
Rhetoric, reality, and context. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(12),
1539-1554.
Forster, J., Graham, P., & Wanna, J. (1996). The new public entrepreneurialism. In J. Wanna,
J. Forster, & P. Graham (Eds.), Entrepreneurial management in the public sector (pp.
1-12). Brisbane: Centre for Australian Public Sector Management.
Fowler, F.J. (1993). Survey research methods. 2d ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 125
Ganster, D.C., Hennessey, H.W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability response effects:
Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 321-331.
Gardner, W.B. (1994). Where’s entrepreneurship? Finding the definitive definition. In G.E.
Hills (Ed.), Marketing and entrepreneurship: Research ideas and opportunities (pp.
25-33). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Gnyawali, D.R., & Fogel, D.S. (1994). Environments for entrepreneurship development:
Key dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
18(4), 43-62.
Goodsell, C.T. (1993). Reinvent government or rediscover it. Public Administration Re
view, 53(1), 85-86.
Gore, A. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better and
costs less. Washington, DC: Report of the National Performance Review.
Gr?goire, D.A., No?l, M.X., D?ry, R., & B?chard, J.-P. (2006). Is there conceptual conver
gence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of frontiers of entrepreneur
ship research, 1981-2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 333-373.
Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2005). Multivariate data analysis. 6th
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harwood, E. (1982). The sociology of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ingram, P., & Clay, K. (2000). The choice-within-constraints new institutionalism and
implications for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 525-546.
Jennings, D.F. (1994). Multiple perspectives of entrepreneurship. Mason, OH: South
Western.
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation for productivity in the American
corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kee, J., & Black, J. (1985). Is excellence in the public sector possible? Public Productivity
Review, 9(1), 25-34.
Kingdon, J.W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policy. 2d ed. New York: Long
man.
Kirzner, I.M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chic Press.
Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D., & Weaver, K.M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric proper
ties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 27(1), 71-94.
Lewis, E. (1980). Public entrepreneurship: Toward a theory of bureaucratic political power.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Llewellyn, N., & Jones, G. (2003). Controversies and conceptual development: Examining
public entrepreneurship. Public Management Review, 16(3), 183-197.
L??f, H., & Heshmati, A. (2006). On the relationship between innovation and perfor
mance: A sensitivity analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 75(4-5),
317-344.
Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct
and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orienta
tion to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle.
Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429-451.
Manns, C.L., & March, J.G. (1978). Financial adversity, internal competition, and cur
riculum change in a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 541-552.
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. 8th ed. London: Macmillan.
McDonald, K.R. (1993). Why privatization is not enough. Harvard Business Review,
71(3), 49-59.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
126 PPMR / September 2010
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management
Science, 29(1), 770-791.
Miller, D. (1987). Strategy making and structure: Analysis and implication for performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 30( 1), 7-32.
Miller, D., & Friesen, RH. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms:
Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 544-569.
Miller, D., & Friesen, RH. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The third link.
Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221-235.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row.
Moon, MJ. (1999). The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: Does organization matter?
Public Administration Review, 59(1), 31-43.
Moon, M.J., & Bretschneider, S. (2002). Does the perception of red tape constrain IT
innovativeness in organizations? Unexpected results from a simultaneous equation
model and implications. Journal Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2),
273-291.
Moon, M.J., & deLeon, R (2001). Municipal reinvention: Managerial values and diffu
sion among municipalities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
11(3), 327-351.
Morris, M.H., & Jones, F.F. (1999). Entrepreneurship in established organizations: The
case of the public sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), 71-91.
Morris, M.H., & Kuratko, D.F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneurship. Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt College.
Moynihan, D.R, & Pandey, S.K. (2004). Testing how management matters in an era of
government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 15(3), 421-439.
Murphy, G.B., Trailer, J.W., & Hill, R.C. (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurial
research. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 15-23.
North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, LH. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Osbome, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial
spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: William Patrick.
O’Sullivan, E., Rassel, G.R., & Bemer, M. (2003). Research methods for public adminis
trators. 4th ed. New York: Longman.
Perlmutter, F.D., & Cnaan, R.A. (1995). Entrepreneurship in the public sector: The homs
of a dilemma. Public Administration Review, 55(1), 29-36.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Lee, J. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Ap
plied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Ramamurti, R. (1986). Public entrepreneurs: Who they are and how they operate. California
Management Review, 28(3), 142-158.
Rainey, H.G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empiri
cal research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 10(2), 447-469.
Roberts, N.C. (1992). Public entrepreneurship and innovation. Policy Studies Review,
11(1), 55-74.
Roberts, N.C, & King, P.J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and
function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
1(2), 147-175.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.
Sadler, R.J. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and government business enterprises: The
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 127
pre-paradigmatic dance of the chameleon. Ph.D. dissertation, South Cross University,
Lismore, Australia.
Salazar, G.M. (1992). The public entrepreneur: An empirical study. Ph.D. dissertation,
Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Mintrom, M. (1995). Public entrepreneurs: Agents for change
in American government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Slevin, D.P., & Covin, J.G. (1990). Juggling entrepreneurial style and organizational struc
ture: How to get your act together. Sloan Management Review, 31(2), 43-53.
Stevenson, H.H., & Jarillo-Mossi, J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepre
neurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 17-27.
Stone, J.B. (1992). Public entrepreneurship in Florida local government administration.
Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Terry, L.D. (1998). Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public manage
ment movement. Public Administration Review, 58(3), 194-200.
Teske, P., & Schneider, M. (1994). The bureaucratic entrepreneur: The case of city manag
ers. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 331-340.
Van Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F.L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public
Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 267-281.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in
strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review,
11(4), 801-814.
Venkataraman, S., & Van de Ven, A.H. (1998). Hostile environmental jolts, transaction sets
and new business development. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(3), 231-255.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Shoham, A., Schwabsky, N., & Ruvio, A. (2005). Public sector innova
tion for the managerial and the post-managerial era: Promises and realities in a global
izing public administration. International Public Management Journal, 8(1), 57-81.
Walker, R.M. (2008). An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and
environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration approach. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 591-615.
Walker, R.M., & Boyne, G.A. (2006). Public management reform and organizational
performance: An empirical assessment of the U.K. labour government’s public service
improvement strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 371-393.
Weisberg, H.F., & Bowen, B.D. (1977). An introduction to survey research and data
analysis. San Francisco: Freeman.
Zahra, S.A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance:
A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319-340.
Zahra, S.A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The case of
management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3), 225-247.
Zahra, S.A., & Covin, J.G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneur
ship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing,
10(1), 43-58.
Zerbinati, S., & Souitaris, V. (2005). Entrepreneurship in the public sector: A framework
of analysis in European local governments. Entrepreneurship & Regional Develop
ment, 77(1), 43-64.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
128 PPMR / September 2010
_Appendix 1. Measures of Variables_
Dependent variable
Organizational performance
To what extent has your organization reduced procedural and service costs after
implementing any entrepreneurial actions?
To what extent do entrepreneurial activities improve your organization’s perfor
mance?
To what extent has employee productivity in your organization improved after imple
menting entrepreneurial behaviors in the past three years?
To what extent are your customers satisfied with your organization’s performance?
Independent variables
Risk-taking
To what extent does your organization have a propensity for risk-taking?
To what extent does your organization tolerate failures?
To what extent does your organization tend to take on high-risk projects?
To what extent are most employees not afraid to take risks?
Innovativeness
How innovative is your organization?
To what extent is your organization searching for entrepreneurial opportunities?
To what extent has your organization placed emphasis on new programs/services/
administrative techniques, and procedural changes?
To what extent does your organization have fee-for-service operations?
Proactiveness
To what extent did your organization implement new programs and services in the
past three years?
To what extent did your organization implement new administrative techniques and
procedural changes within the past three years?
To what extent does your organization take entrepreneurial opportunities to initiate
new programs/services/techniques and procedural changes?
Appendix 2. Reliability Test
Risk-taking Innovativeness Proactiveness Performance
Item Alpha_Item Alpha_Item Alpha_Item Alpha
rtl 0.500
rt2 0.659
rt3 0.561
rt4 0.708
Test scale 0.683
inni 0.597
inn2 0.646
inn3 0.544
Test scale 0.684
prol 0.588
pro2 0.546
pro3 0.784
Test scale 0.719
perl 0.708
per2 0.629
per3 0.613
per4 0.888
Test scale 0.789
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kim / IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS 129
Appendix 3. Principal Component Factor Analysis
Variable_Eigenvalue_Factor 1_Uniqueness
Performance 2.50794
perl 0.8607 0.2591
per2 0.9286 0.1377
per3 0.9223 0.1494
Risk-taking 2.06947
rtl 0.8492 0.2789
rt2 0.6501 0.5777
rt3 0.8006 0.3591
rt4 0.5337 0.6152
Innovativeness 1.88907
inni 0.7880 0.3791
inn2 0.7733 0.4019
inn3 0.8186 0.3299
Proactiveness 1.99155
prol 0.8506 0.2765
pro2 0.8673 0.2477
pro3_ _ 0.7182 0.4842
Appendix 4. Fit Statistics for the Three-Factor and One-Factor Models
_ 2 of GFI PGFI NFI CFI IFI RMSEA
Three-factor model
10 items 166.48 32 0.90 0.52 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.12
One-factor model
10 items, no cross-load 264.70 35 0.84 0.54 0.85 0.87 0.8 Notes: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. GFI = goodness of fit inde = parsimony goodness of fit index. NFI = normed fit index. CFI = comparative fit inde incremental fit index.
Younhee Kim is an assistant professor of political science at East Carolin sity. Her research interests focus on public and performance management entrepreneur ship, and information technology and e-governance.
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.159 on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms


Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Buy Custom Essay

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Risk-Taking, Innovativeness, and Proactiveness Practices
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

  • Plagiarism free papers
  • Timely delivery
  • Any deadline
  • Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
  • Subject-relevant academic writer
  • Adherence to paper instructions
  • Ability to tackle bulk assignments
  • Reasonable prices
  • 24/7 Customer Support
  • Get superb grades consistently

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects

Literature

Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.

Finance

Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!

Psychology

While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.

Engineering

Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.

Nursing

In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.

Sociology

Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.

Business

We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!

Statistics

We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.

Law

Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

  • When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
  • We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

  • The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
  • We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
  • Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment Help Service Works

1. Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2. Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3. Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4. Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

smile and order essay GET A PERFECT SCORE!!! smile and order essay Buy Custom Essay