\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Driving Competitive Advantage: The Role of Strategic Entrepreneurship in Textile Manufacturing Firms in Lagos State, Nigeria},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2020-12-15 (revised: 15 December 2020)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2020-12-15}
\title{Driving Competitive Advantage: The Role of Strategic Entrepreneurship in Textile Manufacturing Firms in Lagos State, Nigeria}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Tijani,  O.}

             \author[2]{Egwakhe, A.  J.}

             \author[3]{Akinlabi, H.  B.}

             \author[4]{Egwuonwu, T.  K.}

             \affil[1]{  Babbcock University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 12 November 2020 Accepted: 3 December 2020 Published: 15 December 2020}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


The paper argued that the challenges experienced in Nigerian textile manufacturing firms resulted from weak strategic entrepreneurship leading to alarming decline in the industry?s performance. Thus, investigated competitive advantage nexus with strategic entrepreneurship (strategic flexibility, adaptability, innovation, strategic leadership, risk taking and dynamic capabilities) as proxies in Lagos State, Nigeria. A cross-sectional survey research design was used and primary data collected. The adapted questionnaire validity was established through confirmatory factor analysis while the reliability was ascertained through internal consistency test.The population consists of 253 senior management staff and total enumeration was used. A total of 253 copies of the questionnaire were administered but 237 copies reverted. Descriptive statistics, exploratory analysis and structural equation model were utilized to analyse the data.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{competitive advantage, dynamic capabilities, strategic entrepreneurship}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
he effectuality of business tends to be a phenomenon that managers, decision makers and practitioners are seriously fretful with in all companies globally but predominantly in the textile sector. This concern has been fuelled by the need for firms to dominate their market based on attaining and sustaining competitive advantage. As such, \hyperref[b7]{Besanko (2010)} established that competitive advantage is imperative as it enhances the performances of the firm and ensures greater economic benefits for the nation. Similarly, \hyperref[b4]{Ardianus and Petrus (2016)} asserted that competitive advantage is prominent as it ensures organization's sustainability in the industry which is feasible through continuous improved performance. In line with this, past scholars have posited that for a firm to achieve and sustain its competitive advantage, strategic entrepreneurship is a fundamental practice (Idowu, Irefin, \& Akarakiri, 2018; Ogbari, Obigbemi, Atolagbe, \& Ojo, 2016). Correspondingly, Durotoye, Adeyemi, Omole, and Onakunle (2018); Makinde and Agu (2018); Ukenna, Makinde, Akinlabi, and Asikhia (2019) also emphasized that strategic entrepreneurship results in superior firm performance in a highly turbulent environment for the sole goal of ensuring their competitive advantage.\par
In the same vein, researchers (Dogan, 2015; Renato \& Naguib, 2016) speculated that strategic entrepreneurship is imperious for a firm as it encompasses the incorporation of entrepreneurial innovativeness, flexibility, adaptive and risk taking skills that create wealth and indicate sound performance. \hyperref[b84]{Takhtshahi and Maroofi (2017)} also affirmed that strategic entrepreneurship enhances firm's performance, increase profit or/and market share when aligned with entrepreneurial activities which results into competitive advantage.\par
However, the increasing competition in the business world has stimulated the debate on how strategic entrepreneurship can rouse competitive advantage of textile firms. Based on this, scholars such as Mazzei, David, and Christopher (2017); Paek and Lee (2017); \hyperref[b77]{Sandeep and Jaiswal (2016)} and \hyperref[b79]{Sarutaya (2015)} had studied strategic entrepreneurship and competitive advantage in diverse sectors across Africa, Europe, USA, Asia and Middle East countries. Nevertheless, some of these studies found a significant positive relationship between strategic entrepreneurship and competitive advantage  {\ref (}  \hyperref[b44]{Kagathi (2013)} showed a negative relationship. However, these studies did not examine strategic entrepreneurship dimensions and competitive advantage of textile manufacturing firms in Lagos State Nigeria.\par
Manufacturing Association of Nigeria [MAN] Report (2018), has showed that the Nigerian textile sector is no longer competitive anywhere in neighbouring African countries, Europe, the Far East and the United States of America. Moreover, Nigeria is no longer among the six African countries that contributed 91\% of exports by value to the U.S. under the African Growth and Opportunity Act  {\ref [AGOA]} in African Cotton and Textile Industries Federation [ACTIF] \hyperref[b3]{(Aminu, 2016;} {\ref MAN, 2018)}. Similarly, the stiff competition between the local and foreign textile manufacturers has generated much problems in the Nigerian textile sector, and this has led to the local firms being subjected to low product demand due to high price and low quality of their products when compared with foreign made fabrics (National Bureau of Statistics [NBS], 2015). This situation has hindered local manufacturers from being competitive not only in the country but also across the globe.\par
In the same vein, Murtala, Ramatu, Yusuf, and Gold (2018) attributed the problem to low inputs supply, demand, and price competitiveness of the Nigerian textile sector, high cost of production, trade liberalization and low packaging quality are among the challenges that have crippled its ability to achieve competitive advantage of textile firms in Nigeria. Paek and Lee (2017) posited that strategic entrepreneurship plays a critical role in competitive advantage of firms. \hyperref[b24]{Daryani and Tabrizinia (2015)} previously asserted that strategic entrepreneurship leads to competitive advantage. In addition, Ali and Mohammad (2012), Rezaian and Naeiji (2012) earlier discovered that strategic entrepreneurship has a significant and positive effect on competitive advantages and organisational performance. However, the study of \hyperref[b44]{Kagathi (2013)} on some dimensions of strategic entrepreneurship like strategic leadership and innovation found negative effect on competitive advantage. Based on the mixed results of strategic entrepreneurship on competitive advantage, this study seeks to ascertain how strategic entrepreneurship would affect the competitive advantage of textile manufacturing firms in Lagos State. The work is organized in sections of the introduction, literature review, methodology, the results presentation, conclusion, and recommendation. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Literature Review}]{Literature Review}\par
The aspect of literature review comprised of synthesis of concepts, empirical discourse and theoretical exploration in relation to the thesis of the work so as to scientifically deepen understanding on the constructs and interplay between constructs. Competitive advantage within context is firm's capability to produce products or offer services dissimilar to what rivals do, by exploiting unique assets that organisations warehouse in order to add value in a way that rivals find problematic to replicate and outstrip \hyperref[b78]{(Sarpong \& Tandoh, 2015)}. Wirda, Herri, Elfindri, and Rivai (2019) agreed with Sarprong and Tandoh (2015) and added that the benefit achieved by firms with competitive advantage was feasible as a result of executing a strategy that utilizes various resources owned by the company. According to Malkawi, Omari, and Halasa (2018), competitive advantage describes the features that enable an organisation to out-perform its competitors.\par
Similarly, Hosseini, Soltani, and Mehdizadeh (2018) see competitive advantage from the financial perspective especially when a firm's profit rate is more advanced than the average rate of the related industry due to its inimitable capabilities. Competitive advantage has been measured by studies along market share, efficiency, product or services cost \hyperref[b50]{(Kortelainen \& Karkkainen, 2011)}, gross margin, returns on assets, net income, unit cost ratio (Farole, Reis, \& Wagle, 2010), and total factor productivity by \hyperref[b86]{Toit, Ortmann, and Ramroop (2010)}. This paper sees competitive advantage as organization's superiority over its competitors in producing goods and services that are distinctive due to its peerless resources. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Strategic Entrepreneurship}]{Strategic Entrepreneurship}\par
Strategic entrepreneurship denotes the association between entrepreneurship and strategic management \hyperref[b52]{(Kuratko \& Audretsch, 2009)} Innovation can be defined as all activities involved in the refinement/invention of a product/service. According to \hyperref[b8]{Bor (2018)}, innovation is the firm's predisposition to engross in and sustain a new idea, novelty investigation and creative processes. The route of deciphering an idea or invention into a good or service that generates value or for which consumers will pay is also referred to as innovation \hyperref[b8]{(Bor, 2018)}. In business, innovation habitually results when ideas are transformed by the company in order to further satisfy the needs and expectations of the customers \hyperref[b27]{(Duan, Cao, \& Edwards, 2020)}.In line with this, Schumpeter opines that an entrepreneur is a leader, who strategically controls the means of production into new straits \hyperref[b80]{(Schumpeter, 1911)}. Entrepreneurs set profit estimates as a prerequisite for innovation choices.\par
Alberto (2016) described strategic leadership as the leadership ability that incorporates a core of significant managerial practice such as long term goal fortitude, exploring and exploiting a firm's core competences. In the same vein, Yilmaz and Flouris (2017) identified the main aim of strategic leadership as strategic productivity while inventiveness, perception, and planning to assist an individual in realizing his/her objectives and goals. Moreover, Golensky and Hager (2020) added that strategic leadership enables both leaders and managers to be smart, responsible and effective in fulfilling their obligation to the organisation which enable a firm to have an edge in the industry. \hyperref[b49]{Kitigin (2017)} defines risk-taking as a firm's propensity to be involved in risky projects and managerial preferences for bold versus cautious actions in order to achieve firm's aims. Llanos-Contreras, Arias, and Maquieira (2020) maintained Kitigin (2017) definition but added that risk-taking is an opportunity that enhances business long-term position in financial and socioemotional wealth creation. The inability of firms to take valiant risk has not only affected the progress of the firm but also hindered them from taking advantage of opportunities in the environment. \hyperref[b89]{Wahl and Kirchler (2020)} positioned that firms should adopt optimistic attitudes towards risk-taking as it yields positive returns for the firm.\par
Dynamic capability is a firm's outline of combined activity through which a firm systematically spawns and revises its functional routines in quest of upgraded effectiveness \hyperref[b73]{(Piening, 2013)}. Similarly, Singh and Rao (2016) postulated dynamic capability as firm's competency to manage alliances, acquire, incorporate and reconfigure resources base to address the varying business situations. Moreover, firm's ability to refurbish competences so as to achieve corresponding business environment is referred to as dynamic capability \hyperref[b51]{(Kumar \& Kumar, 2020)}. As such, Supeno, Sudharma, Aisjah, and Laksmana (2015) defined strategic flexibility as a way of amassed control in an extremely stormy environment. A firm's capacity to retort meritoriously to alterations can offer a strong base for strategic flexibility. In addition, Brinckmann, Villanueva, Grichnik, and Singh (2019) postulated that firms need strategic flexibility in order to proactively or reactively adjust to the market and internal demands as they aim to establish themselves. Adaptability is defined by \hyperref[b17]{Buch (2009)} as an organization's aptitude to clasp change or be changed to fit a reformed environment. In addition, Choi (2020) argued that adaptability illustrates the capability to learn from experience, and improve the aptness of the learner as a competitor. From the numerous views on strategic entrepreneurship proxies the paper define strategic entrepreneurship as the process through which employees with entrepreneurial personalities having risky, innovative ideas are able to find opportunities, seek advantage in a dynamic manner and get it implemented for the benefit of the organization. Moreover, Sarutaya (2015) indicated that dynamic capability as a dimension of strategic entrepreneurship has a significant positive impact on competitive advantage. Similary, Breznik and Lahovni (2016) position supported \hyperref[b79]{Sarutaya (2015)} that firms which has and deploy relevant competences as dynamic capabilities hold the prospective for a sustained competitive advantage. In the same vein, Kaur and Mehta (2017) affirm past findings through a comparative analysis and indicated that dynamic capability have significant effect on competitive advantage in both foreign and local firms. In line with the empirical conclusions by preceding scholars, the survival-based theory otherwise called "survival of the fittest theory" initially created by Herbert Spencer \hyperref[b65]{(Miesing \& Preble, 1985)} was considered best-fit for theoretical underpinning. The theory's philosophy assert that the best and the fittest of contenders will win at last which would prompt the improvement of the social community overall. The survival-based theory examines the tactics a company uses to avert being eradicated by contenders \hyperref[b65]{(Miesing \& Preble, 1985)} and achieve a major edge in the industry.  {\ref Brain (1996)} supported the theory that a firm needs to ceaselessly adjust to aggressive competition in the environment in order to endure.\par
The survival-based view accentuated with respect to the suppositions that in order to endure, firms needs to convey techniques that ought to be centred around running exceptionally proficient tasks and can react quickly to the changing of aggressive competitive environment \hyperref[b48]{(Khairuddin, 2005)}. However, \hyperref[b58]{Lynch (2000)} critiqued the theory and posited that choosing a specific arrangement of technique would not be ideal. \hyperref[b58]{Lynch (2000)} and \hyperref[b0]{Abdullah (2010)} further explained that it is smarter to explore different avenues regarding a few procedures without a moment's delay and let the procedure of the most suitable method be picked based on the best system that adjusts better to the environment. This theory is essential in understanding entrepreneurial techniques that can possibility help a company to reinforce its position. This is with the expectation that it would improve business performance and accomplish a definitive objective of ensuring their competitive advantage is achieved. 
\section[{b) Methodology}]{b) Methodology}\par
This study is basically quantitative in nature. A cross-sectional survey research design was adopted in this study. The adoption of cross-sectional survey research design is in line with the study of \hyperref[b24]{Daryani and Tabrizinia (2015)} and Paek and Lee (2017). The respondent organisations were three surviving textile manufacturing firms in Lagos State out of the 15 textile firms in existence. The three textile manufacturing companies consist of Wollen and Synthetic Textile Ltd, Nichemtex Textile Ltd and Sunflag Textile Ltd with a target population of two hundred and fifty-three (253) senior management staff of the selected textilemanufacturing firms. The sample technique adopted was census. Primary data were collected through an adapted questionnaire on strategic entrepreneurship and competitive advantage over a period of three months.\par
The questionnaire was a Likert-scale type. It was pretested for validity and reliability. The content and construct validity were conducted by administering twenty-five (25) copies of the questionnaire to senior management of Gbemi Aladire Clothes and Fabric manufacturer in Ita-bada, Itoku, Abeokuta South, and Baba Show Kampala at Ake, Abeokuta South, Abeokuta Ogun State. The content validity informed the decision to refine some question items and others were removed. The construct validity was done with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin indicating good-fit. The reliability results revealed that the instrument was above the minimum threshold of 70\% according to \hyperref[b35]{(Hair, Black, Babin, \& Anderson, 2010)}.\par
Two hundred and fifty-three (253) copies of the questionnaire were administered with the help of trained research assistants to the senior management staff of the three textile-manufacturing firms. The senior management staff were considered capable of answering the questions intelligently and accurately due to their accumulated experiences and insight about their firms and the industry. 237 of the administered copies were retrieved and considered usable giving a response rate of 93.7\%. Sixteen copies of questionnaire were dropped due to missing information needed for the analysis. The data were treated (Construct and Convergent validity, Discriminate validity, and Normality test) before the analysis. Data were analysed in two phases: descriptive was used and for covariance Smart PLS a technique of structural equation modelling (SEM) application was used for confirmatory analysis. 
\section[{c) Analysis and findings}]{c) Analysis and findings}\par
Majority (73.8\%) of the respondentswere male while 24.9\% were female and 38.0\% were of the age bracket 31-35 years, 24.5\% were in the age bracket 36-40 years, 18.1\% of the respondents were of the age bracket 25-30 years, 10.5\% were of the age bracket 41-45 years, 3.8\% were of the age bracket 46-50 and 51-55 years and 1.3\% were of the age bracket 56-60 years. 68.4\% of the respondents are married, 25.3\% single, 4.6\% divorced/separated and 0.8\% are widowed. In terms of work experience, 39.2\% had worked for a period between 5 to 10 years, 36.3\% between 0 to 4 years, 13.9\% for the period 11-15years, 5.5\% for a period 16 to 20 years, and 4.2\% between 21 to 25 years.The respondents are educated with 30.0\% holders ofa bachelor's degree, 17.3\% hadSSCE certificate, 19.8\% held higher national diploma, 25.3\% had Masters (MBA/MSc) degree, 5.5\% holders of DBA and 0.4\% haddoctorate degree. 
\section[{d) Measurement Model}]{d) Measurement Model}\par
The outer or measurement model assessed the relationship between the observable variables and the theoretical constructs they represent. A reliability test was conducted to determine the internal consistency of the measures used. The Cronbach alpha (?) for adaptability, dynamic capability, innovation, risk taking, strategic flexibility, and strategic leadership were 0.70, 0.735, 0.750, 0.773, 0.741, and 0.838 respectively while competitive advantage had a value 0.714 which are higher than the recommended threshold of 0.70 demonstrating adequate reliability \hyperref[b35]{(Hair et al., 2010)}. The constructs were initially purified using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). EFA was performed on the items composing the constructs to identify the variables that cluster together into the most effective number of factors  {\ref (Bordens \& Abbot, 2014)} and identify the structure of the measurement model \hyperref[b35]{(Hair et al., 2010)}. Prior to performing EFA, the suitability of the data was assessed through two tests, that is, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) is a measure to quantify the degree of correlations among the variables which indicates the proportion of variance in the studied variables that might be caused by the underlying factors. The KMO index ranges from 0 to 1, the closer the value to 1, the more significant the correlation among the variables \hyperref[b46]{(Kaiser, 1974)}. On the other hand, Bartlett's test of Sphericity provides the statistical probability that the correlation matrix has significant correlations among at least some of the variables with small values (p<0.5) indicating that the data is useful in factor analysis. The results of KMO and Bartlett's test of Sphericity are presented in Table \hyperref[tab_2]{1}. Table \hyperref[tab_2]{1} indicated that all variables had achieved KMO index values of 0.600 above the threshold of 0.500 and p-values of Bartlett's Test of Sphericity below 0.05 which indicated that the data were useful for factor analysis \hyperref[b46]{(Kaiser, 1974)}. The variability of each observed variable that could be explained by the extracted factors. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was estimated using Smart PLS version 3.2.8 software in order to establish the extent to which the observed data validate and fit the pre-specified theoretically based model \hyperref[b18]{(Chao \& Spillan, 2010)}. CFA was estimated on multiple criteria such as construct reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. Construct validity for the variables was assessed by computing composite reliability and internal consistency of the items. Composite reliability was evaluated using Smart PLS which generated values above 0.6 which was found to be accepted. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach's alpha (?) and the values were 0.600 above which is higher than the recommended threshold of 0.700 demonstrating adequate reliability \hyperref[b35]{(Hair et al., 2010)}. In this paper, convergent validity was assessed using Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The Average Variance extracted (AVE) for adaptability was 0.568, dynamic capability was 0.585, innovation was 0.599, risk taking was 0.526, strategic flexibility was 0.695, and strategic leadership was 0.605and competitive advantagewas 0.648 which exceeded the cut-off value of 0.5, thus confirming convergent validity . To satisfy the requirement of discriminant validity of the measurement model, the criterion suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) was followed. The discriminant validity was confirmed as the square root of a construct's AVE was greater than the correlation between the construct and other constructs in the model \hyperref[b60]{(Madhoushi, Sadati, \& Delavari, 2011)}.  The normality of data was assessed by examining its skewness and kurtosis. The result showed that skewness was within the range of -0.748 and +2.433 and kurtosis was within the range of -0.406 and + 0.868 which complied with the normality threshold of -3 to +3 \hyperref[b23]{(Cooper \&Schindler, 2011)}. Multicollinearity was tested using Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor. The variance inflation factor (VIF) obtained is between 1 to 10 while the tolerance value is greater than 0.10 showing that there was no multicollinearity associated with strategic entrepreneurship and competitive advantage variables. 
\section[{e) Structural Model and Assumption Testing}]{e) Structural Model and Assumption Testing}\par
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to analyse the model and testing the assumption. PLS-SEM was used sinceit provides more flexibility in modelling second order constructs and formative constructs \hyperref[b19]{(Chin, 1998)}. The structural model evaluated by examining the R 2 value and the size of the structural path coefficient. The R 2 values range between 1 and 0 where 1 means a perfect prediction of the structural model \hyperref[b35]{(Hair et al. 2010}). According to \hyperref[b35]{Hair et al. (2010)}, in development and testing of structural model, bootstrap method was used in order to find t-statistics and standard deviation estimations in path-coefficient. The path-coefficient estimates were used to determine the significance of the relationship. The resultant T-tests statistics from the bootstrapping procedure provided the basis for determining the statistical significance of the pathcoefficient estimates  {\ref (Hensler,}  As indicated in Table \hyperref[tab_5]{4} and Figure \hyperref[fig_1]{1}, the path coefficient between adaptability and competitive advantage was positive but insignificant with a path coefficient of 0.213 and a significance level of 0.105 (?=0.213, p>0.05). Results show positive and insignificant relationship between adaptability and competitive advantage. The path coefficient implied that for every 1 unit increase in adaptability, competitive advantage was increased by 0.213 units. Thus, results show positive and insignificant relationship of adaptability with competitive advantage. The path coefficient between dynamic capability and competitive advantage was positive and significant with a path coefficient of 0.304 and a significance level of 0.003 (?=0.003, p<0.05). The path coefficient implied that for every1 unit increase in dynamic capability, competitive advantage was increased by 0.304 units. Thus, results confirm positive and significant relationship of dynamic capability with competitive advantage.\par
The path coefficient between innovation and competitive advantage was positive and significant with a path coefficient of 0.161 and a significance level of 0.041 (?=0.161, p<0.05). The path coefficient implied that for every 1 unit increase in innovation, competitive advantage was increased by 0.161 units. The result confirms positive and significant association between the two variables. With regards to risk taking, the path coefficient between risk taking and competitive advantage was negative and insignificant with a path coefficient of -0.099 and a significance level of 0.347 (?=-0.099, p>0.05). The path coefficient implied that for every 1 unit increase in risk taking, competitive negative and insignificant association between risk taking and competitive advantage.\par
The path coefficient between strategic flexibility and competitive advantage was also negative and insignificant with a path coefficient of -0.002 and a significance level of 0.983 (?=-0.002, p>0.05). The path coefficient implied that for every 1 unit increase in strategic flexibility, competitive advantage was reduce by 0.002 units. The result reveals a negative and insignificant relationship between strategic flexibility and competitive advantage. Finally, the path coefficient between strategic leadership and competitive advantage was positive and significant with a path coefficient of 0.184 and a significance level of 0.043 (?=0.184, p<0.05). The path coefficient implied that for every 1 unit increase in strategic leadership, competitive advantage was increased by 0.184 units. The result reveals positive and significant relationship between strategic leadership and competitive advantage.\par
The quality of the structural model was assessed using the determination of coefficients R 2 . From the analysis, the value of R 2 coefficient was 0.382 which indicated that 38.2\% of the variation in competitive advantage can be accounted for by strategic entrepreneurship dimensions (adaptability, dynamic capability, innovation, risk taking, strategic flexibility, and strategic leadership) with F 2 (0.007). Based on the assessment criterion suggested by \hyperref[b21]{Cohen (1988)} and \hyperref[b19]{Chin (1998)}, the outer model that contain strategic entrepreneurship dimensions was found to reflect a moderate predictive relevance. It implied that strategic entrepreneurship dimensions have moderate effect on competitive advantage. On the other hand, the individual coefficient results revealed that risk taking and strategic flexibility have negative and insignificant effect on competitive advantage could infer adverse consequences on competitive advantage. Consistent with these findings, Kitigin (2017) argued that the low inclination of firms to undertake risky ventures has not only led to negative outcome but has also hindered their performance. Moreover, this could lead to poor creativity and low competency of employees in the organization. Additionally, Brinckmann, Villanueva, Grichnik, and Singh (2019) opined that the static strategies and tactics utilized by firms could result in their inability to adjust to the market and internal demands which they aim to establish themselves.\par
In addition, the individual coefficient results also indicated that dynamic capabilities have a positive and significant effect on competitive advantage. Szymanski, Fitzsimmons, and Danis (2019) supported this finding that successful organizations have dynamic capabilities that are aligned with their competitive environments and they continuously improve on it. As the competition intensifies globally across sectors, managers are charged with the responsibility to improve their dynamic capabilities as this enables them to record an unremitting competitive advantage. Further corroborating the individual regression results of dynamic capabilities, Fainshmidt, Wenger, Pezeshkan, and Mallon (2019) posited that dynamic capabilities positively affects the competitive advantage of an organization.\par
Moreover, the adoption of flexible and effective strategies facilitate firms to identify and exploit opportunities in the changing trend of the external business environment so as to achieve competitive advantage  {\ref (Dogan,}   disparate to competitors by exploiting organisational assets would ensure their survival and achieve competitive advantage \hyperref[b78]{(Sarpong \& Tandoh, 2015)}. The survival based theory is more concerned about short term advantage that can be used to build longer term competitive advantage by simply being the best and the fittest of contenders. It is a response to the question of how and why some firms espouse strategies to avert being eradicated by contenders and in order to create and sustain competitive advantage compared with others in the dynamic markets \hyperref[b81]{(Singh \& Rao, 2016)}. It could be said that a firm with exceptional proficient tasks can react quickly to the changes in the aggressive competitive environment \hyperref[b48]{(Khairuddin, 2005}). An organization that is very mindful of its survival in the midst of the turbulent business environment will have an advantage over its competitors because such a firm would ensure that it adapts to the environment, flexible in its resources and adjust existing competencies or developing new ones in order to achieve overall firm performance. 
\section[{IV. Conclusion and Recommendations}]{IV. Conclusion and Recommendations}\par
Based on the findings, it can be concluded that, dynamic capabilities, innovation, and strategic leadership are the major predictors of competitive advantage of textile manufacturing firms in Lagos State, Nigeria. Specifically, dynamic capabilities had the most significant relative positive effect on competitive advantage, followed by strategic leadership, and innovation. The study affirmed that strategic entrepreneurship has a significant effect on competitive advantage and the assumption that survival-based theory has universal applicability is sustained. However, the individual coefficient results revealed that dynamic capabilities, innovativeness, and strategic leadership had positive and significant effect on competitive advantage while risk taking and strategic flexibility had positive and insignificant effect on competitive advantage. Based on finding, this paper concludes that strategic entrepreneurship enhances competitive advantage. Thus, recommended that firms should focus on dynamic capabilities and refinement of bundle of self-reconfiguration to drive competitive advantage. In addition, strategic adaptability to remain fit and alignment to turbulent business environment is imperative for longevity. As such, researchers could consider incorporating factors such as government policies and knowledge management, as moderating variables between strategic entrepreneurship components and competitive advantage so as to gain further insight.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
   \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3253086419753086\textwidth}P{0.09969135802469135\textwidth}P{0.425\textwidth}}
Variables\tabcellsep KMO\tabcellsep Bartlett (Chi Square)\\
Innovation\tabcellsep 0.709\tabcellsep 0.000; (158.624)\\
Strategic Leadership\tabcellsep 0.679\tabcellsep 0.000; (156.234)\\
Risk Taking\tabcellsep 0.633\tabcellsep 0.000; (174.872)\\
Dynamic Capabilities\tabcellsep 0.615\tabcellsep 0.000; (151.811)\\
Strategic Flexibility\tabcellsep 0.801\tabcellsep 0.000; (94.512)\\
Adaptability\tabcellsep 0.663\tabcellsep 0.000; (132.586)\\
Competitive Advantage\tabcellsep 0.683\tabcellsep 0.000; (97.086)\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Source: SPSS Output Result 2020\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.34111842105263157\textwidth}P{0.15378289473684212\textwidth}P{0.24325657894736838\textwidth}P{0.11184210526315788\textwidth}}
Variables\tabcellsep rho\textunderscore A\tabcellsep Composite Reliability\tabcellsep (AVE)\\
Adaptability\tabcellsep 0.774\tabcellsep 0.804\tabcellsep 0.568\\
Competitive Advantage\tabcellsep 0.809\tabcellsep 0.811\tabcellsep 0.684\\
Dynamic Capability\tabcellsep 0.754\tabcellsep 0.823\tabcellsep 0.585\\
Innovation\tabcellsep 0.778\tabcellsep 0.831\tabcellsep 0.599\\
Risk Taking\tabcellsep 0.807\tabcellsep 0.844\tabcellsep 0.526\\
Strategic Flexibility\tabcellsep 0.769\tabcellsep 0.827\tabcellsep 0.695\\
Strategic Leadership\tabcellsep 0.864\tabcellsep 0.884\tabcellsep 0.605\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Source: SPSS Output Result 2020}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4671171171171171\textwidth}P{0.15315315315315314\textwidth}P{0.11486486486486487\textwidth}P{0.07657657657657657\textwidth}P{0.038288288288288286\textwidth}}
Adaptability\tabcellsep 0.781\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Competitive Advantage\tabcellsep 0.444\tabcellsep 0.796\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Dynamic Capability\tabcellsep 0.475\tabcellsep 0.522\tabcellsep 0.794\tabcellsep \\
Innovation\tabcellsep 0.434\tabcellsep 0.465\tabcellsep 0.535\tabcellsep 0.796\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.425\textwidth}P{0.05873983739837398\textwidth}P{0.05528455284552846\textwidth}P{0.08638211382113821\textwidth}P{0.09847560975609757\textwidth}P{0.1261178861788618\textwidth}}
Path\tabcellsep ??\tabcellsep SER\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{T Statistics P Values}\tabcellsep Results\\
Adaptability -> Competitive Advantage\tabcellsep 0.213\tabcellsep 0.131\tabcellsep 1.624\tabcellsep 0.105\tabcellsep Not Supported\\
Dynamic Capability -> Competitive Advantage\tabcellsep 0.304\tabcellsep 0.103\tabcellsep 2.957\tabcellsep 0.003\tabcellsep Supported\\
Innovation -> Competitive Advantage\tabcellsep 0.161\tabcellsep 0.079\tabcellsep 2.05\tabcellsep 0.041\tabcellsep Supported\\
Risk Taking -> Competitive Advantage\tabcellsep -0.099\tabcellsep 0.106\tabcellsep 0.941\tabcellsep 0.347\tabcellsep Not Supported\\
Strategic Flexibility -> Competitive Advantage\tabcellsep -0.002\tabcellsep 0.102\tabcellsep 0.021\tabcellsep 0.983\tabcellsep Not Supported\\
Strategic Leadership -> Competitive Advantage\tabcellsep 0.184\tabcellsep 0.09\tabcellsep 2.031\tabcellsep 0.043\tabcellsep Supported\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Source: PLS-SEM Output 2020}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2020 Global Journals} 			\footnote{Driving Competitive Advantage: The Role of Strategic Entrepreneurship in Textile Manufacturing Firms in} 		 		\backmatter   			 
\subsection[{Acknowledgement}]{Acknowledgement}\par
The author's first appreciation is to God Almighty for life, health, renewed mercies, wisdom and providence. 			  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[
			Ed
		]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Ed 		.  		New York: Oxford University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Bryman ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		\textit{},  		 			A Bryman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Social Research Methods}  		2012.  	 
\bibitem[Teece ()]{b85}\label{b85} 	 		‘A capability theory of the firm: an economics and (Strategic) management perspective’.  		 			D J Teece 		.  	 	 		\textit{New Zealand Economic Papers}  		2019. 53 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Miesing and Preble ()]{b65}\label{b65} 	 		‘A comparison of five business philosophies’.  		 			P Miesing 		,  		 			J Preble 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Business Ethics}  		1985. 14  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Comrey ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{A First Course in Factor Analysis},  		 			A L Comrey 		.  		1973. New York, NY: Academic Press.  	 
\bibitem[Ireland et al. ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		‘A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions’.  		 			R D Ireland 		,  		 			M A Hitt 		,  		 			D G Sirmon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Management}  		2003. 29 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Buch ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{Adaptability: A crucial organizational and personal skill},  		 			K Buch 		.  		 \url{http://www.thepublicmanager.org/pdf/2009\%20Ada}  		2009.  	 
\bibitem[Kaiser ()]{b46}\label{b46} 	 		‘An index of factorial simplicity’.  		 			H E Kaiser 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychometrika}  		1974. 39 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Farole et al. (2010)]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		\textit{Analyzing trade competitiveness: A diagnostic approach},  		 			T Farole 		,  		 			J G Reis 		,  		 			S Wagle 		.  		 \url{http://econ.worldbank.org}  		2010. September 12. 2015.  	 
\bibitem[Besanko ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		 			D Besanko 		.  		\textit{The economics of strategy (5 th Ed.)},  				 (Oxford)  		2010. John Wiley \& Sons, Inc.  	 
\bibitem[Hosseini et al. ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		‘Competitive advantage and its impact on new product development strategy (Case study: Toos Nirro Technical Firm)’.  		 			A S Hosseini 		,  		 			S Soltani 		,  		 			M Mehdizadeh 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Open Innovative Technology}  		2018. 4 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wirda et al. ()]{b90}\label{b90} 	 		‘Competitive advantage: Mediation effect between entrepreneurial competency and business performance creative industries in West Sumatera-Indonesia’.  		 			F Wirda 		,  		 			K Herri 		,  		 			A Elfindri 		,  		 			H Rivai 		.  	 	 		\textit{Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal}  		2019. 25  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kumar and Kumar ()]{b51}\label{b51} 	 		‘Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship capability and its linkages towards firm performance’.  		 			R Kumar 		,  		 			A Kumar 		.  	 	 		\textit{Sustainable Business: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications},  				2020. IGI Global. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cooper and Schindler ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		 			D R Cooper 		,  		 			P S Schindler 		.  		\textit{Qualitative research. Business research methods},  				2011. 4 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lackéus ()]{b54}\label{b54} 	 		\textit{Developing entrepreneurial competencies -An action-based approach and classification in education},  		 			M Lackéus 		.  		2016.  		 			Chalmers University of Technology 		 	 	 (M.Sc. Thesis) 
\bibitem[Breznik and Lahovnik ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage: Findings from case studies’.  		 			L Breznik 		,  		 			M Lahovnik 		.  	 	 		\textit{Management}  		2016. 21 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kaur and Mehta ()]{b47}\label{b47} 	 		‘Dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: A comparative study of IT multinationals in India’.  		 			V Kaur 		,  		 			V Mehta 		.  	 	 		\textit{Paradigm}  		2017. 21  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Piening ()]{b73}\label{b73} 	 		‘Dynamic capabilities in public organizations: A literature review and research agenda’.  		 			E P Piening 		.  	 	 		\textit{Public Management Review}  		2013. 15  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sarutaya ()]{b79}\label{b79} 	 		‘Dynamic marketing capability and marketing survival: Evidence from auto parts businesses in Thailand’.  		 			S Sarutaya 		.  	 	 		\textit{Business and Management Review}  		2015. 7  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kortelainen and Karkkainen ()]{b50}\label{b50} 	 		‘Dynamic model in understanding dynamics of competitiveness: System dynamics approach in mobile handset vendor business’.  		 			S Kortelainen 		,  		 			H Karkkainen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceeding of Strategic Management Society SMS Annual International Conference},  				 (eeding of Strategic Management Society SMS Annual International Conference)  		2011. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Singh and Rao ()]{b81}\label{b81} 	 		‘Effect of intellectual capital on dynamic capabilities’.  		 			B Singh 		,  		 			M Rao 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Organizational Change Management}  		2016. 29  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Choi ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{Effects of Office Workers' Sports Participation on Self-Efficacy, Self-Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation},  		 			Y S Choi 		.  		2020. Northridge.  		 			California State University 		 	 
\bibitem[Barchue and Aikaeli ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Efficiency of small and medium sized enterprises in Liberia: the case of Monrovia},  		 			J Barchue 		,  		 			J Aikaeli 		.  		2013. 8 p. .  		 			University of Dar er Salam Business Journal 		 	 
\bibitem[Yilmaz and Flouris ()]{b91}\label{b91} 	 		‘Enterprise risk management in terms of organizational culture and its leadership and strategic management’.  		 			A K Yilmaz 		,  		 			T Flouris 		.  	 	 		\textit{Corporate risk management for international business},  				 (Singapore)  		2017. Springer. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Madhoushi et al. ()]{b60}\label{b60} 	 		‘Entrepreneurial orientation \& innovation performance: The mediating role of knowledge management’.  		 			M Madhoushi 		,  		 			A Sadati 		,  		 			H Delavari 		.  	 	 		\textit{Asian Journal of Business Management}  		2011. 3  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Youssef et al. ()]{b92}\label{b92} 	 		‘Entrepreneurship and sustainability goals: The need for innovative and institutional solutions’.  		 			A B Youssef 		,  		 			S Boubaker 		,  		 			A Omri 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.Techfore.2017.11.003.Halshs-01653946}{10.1016/J.Techfore.2017.11.003.Halshs-01653946}.  	 	 		\textit{Technological Forecasting and Social Change}  		2017. Elsevier.  	 
\bibitem[Bosire and Nzaramba ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Entrepreneurship skills development and growth of small and medium enterprises in Rwanda’.  		 			K Bosire 		,  		 			K Nzaramba 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Information Technology Business Management}  		2013. 1  (17)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fornell and Larcker ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables \& measurement error’.  		 			C Fornell 		,  		 			D F Larcker 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Market Research}  		1981. 18  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Liu et al. ()]{b55}\label{b55} 	 		‘Expanding the two wings of social capital for value creation: Strategic entrepreneurship of HTC’.  		 			T H Liu 		,  		 			S H Lo 		,  		 			C Y Dai 		.  	 	 		\textit{Technology Analysis \& Strategic Management}  		2018. 1997-2008. 30  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Tur-Porcar et al. ()]{b87}\label{b87} 	 		‘Factors affecting entrepreneurship and business sustainability’.  		 			A Tur-Porcar 		,  		 			N Roig-Tierno 		,  		 			A L Mestre 		.  	 	 		\textit{Sustainability}  		2018. 10  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Toit et al. ()]{b86}\label{b86} 	 		‘Factors influencing the long-term competitiveness of commercial milk producers: Evidence from panel data in East Griqualand’.  		 			J D Toit 		,  		 			G Ortmann 		,  		 			S Ramroop 		.  	 	 		\textit{South Africa. Agrekon}  		2010. 49  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Foreign trade statistics, fourth quarter ()]{b67}\label{b67} 	 		\textit{Foreign trade statistics, fourth quarter},  		 \url{NBS.Retrievedfromwww.nigerianstats.gov.ng}  		2015. 2014. Abuja, Nigeria.  		 			National Bureau of Statistics [NBS 		 	 
\bibitem[Harlow and England]{b59}\label{b59} 	 		 			, Harlow 		,  		 			England 		.  		\textit{Financial Times},  				Prentice Hall.  	 
\bibitem[Durotoye et al. ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		‘Impact assessment of wastewater discharge from a textile sector in Lagos’.  		 			T O Durotoye 		,  		 			A A Adeyemi 		,  		 			D O Omole 		,  		 			O Onakunle 		.  	 	 		\textit{Nigeria. Cogent Engineering}  		2018. 5  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Yusuf ()]{b93}\label{b93} 	 		‘Influence of entrepreneurship education, technology and globalization on performance of SMEs in Nigeria’.  		 			E Yusuf 		.  	 	 		\textit{African Journal of business management}  		2017. 15  (11)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Qosja ()]{b74}\label{b74} 	 		‘Innovation, SMEs, and the entrepreneurship education related to them’.  		 			E Qosja 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Educational and Social Research}  		2014. 6  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Malkawi et al. ()]{b62}\label{b62} 	 		‘Intellectual capital as a core competency for competitive advantage: A case study’.  		 			N M M Malkawi 		,  		 			K A Omari 		,  		 			A Halasa 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Digital Information Management}  		2018. 16  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kaiser and Rice ()]{b45}\label{b45} 	 		\textit{Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and psychological measurement},  		 			H F Kaiser 		,  		 			J Rice 		.  		1974. 34 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lynch ()]{b58}\label{b58} 	 		 			R Lynch 		.  		\textit{Corporate Strategy},  				2000.  	 	 (nd Ed) 
\bibitem[Manufacturers Association of Nigeria Situation Report Manufacturers Association of Nigeria ()]{b63}\label{b63} 	 		‘Manufacturers Association of Nigeria Situation Report’.  	 	 		\textit{Manufacturers Association of Nigeria}  		2018.  	 
\bibitem[Szymanski et al. ()]{b83}\label{b83} 	 		‘Multicultural managers and competitive advantage: Evidence from elite football teams’.  		 			M Szymanski 		,  		 			S R Fitzsimmons 		,  		 			W M Danis 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Business Review}  		2019. 28  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hair et al. ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		\textit{Multivariate Data Analysis. A Global Perspective},  		 			J F Hair 		,  		 			W C Black 		,  		 			B J Babin 		,  		 			R E Anderson 		.  		2010. Boston: Pearson Education lnc.  	 	 (th Ed.) Upper Saddle River) 
\bibitem[Murtala et al. ()]{b66}\label{b66} 	 		‘Nigerian textile sector: Evidence of policy neglect’.  		 			M Murtala 		,  		 			B Ramatu 		,  		 			H A Yusuf 		,  		 			K L Gold 		.  	 	 		\textit{Sarjana}  		2018. 33  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Abdullah ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Profit maximization theory, survival-based theory and contingency theory: A review on several underlying research theories of corporate turnaround’.  		 			T M Abdullah 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Economics}  		2010. 13  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Nunnally ()]{b70}\label{b70} 	 		\textit{Psychometric theory (2 nd Ed)},  		 			J C Nunnally 		.  		1978. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.  	 
\bibitem[Daryani and Tabrizinia ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Relation between strategic entrepreneurship with going competitive advantages and wealth-creation’.  		 			S M Daryani 		,  		 			S Tabrizinia 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Science}  		2015. 5  (10)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kitigin ()]{b49}\label{b49} 	 		‘Relationship between risk-taking and business performance among small and medium enterprises in Eldoret town’.  		 			B Kitigin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Kenya. International Journal of Business and Management Review}  		2017. 5  (7)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bordens and Abbott ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{Research design and methods: A process approach},  		 			K S Bordens 		,  		 			B B Abbott 		.  		2014. San Francisco: McGraw Hill.  	 
\bibitem[Wahl and Kirchler ()]{b89}\label{b89} 	 		‘Risk Screening on the Financial Market (RISC-FM): A Tool to Assess Investors' Financial Risk Tolerance’.  		 			I Wahl 		,  		 			E Kirchler 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cogent Psychology}  		2020. p. 1714108.  	 	 (just-accepted) 
\bibitem[Llanos-Contreras et al. ()]{b57}\label{b57} 	 		‘Risk taking behavior in Chilean listed family firms: a socioemotional wealth approach’.  		 			O Llanos-Contreras 		,  		 			J Arias 		,  		 			C Maquieira 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal}  		2020. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bryman ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Sampling in qualitative research’.  		 			A Bryman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Social research methods}  		2012. 4 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Brinckmann et al. ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Sources of strategic flexibility in new ventures: An analysis of the role of resource leveraging practices’.  		 			J Brinckmann 		,  		 			J Villanueva 		,  		 			D Grichnik 		,  		 			L Singh 		.  	 	 		\textit{Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal}  		2019.  	 
\bibitem[Cohen ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2 nd Ed},  		 			J Cohen 		.  		1988. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence.  	 
\bibitem[Kagathi ()]{b44}\label{b44} 	 		‘Strategic decisions making at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology’.  		 			K Kagathi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Kenya. Unpublished MBA Project}  		2013.  		 			University of Nairobi 		 	 
\bibitem[Paek and Lee ()]{b72}\label{b72} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship and competitive advantage of established firms: evidence from the digital TV industry’.  		 			B Paek 		,  		 			H Lee 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Entrepreneurial Management Journal}  		2017. 1 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Renato and Naguib ()]{b75}\label{b75} 	 		‘Strategic Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Flexibility: Towards an integrative framework’.  		 			P Renato 		,  		 			O M Naguib 		.  	 	 		\textit{Change International Journal of Organizational Leadership}  		2016. 5 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hanne et al. ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		\textit{Strategic entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intensity. Problems and Perspectives in Management},  		 			S Hanne 		,  		 			J A Daniel 		,  		 			J Jon-Arild 		.  		2016. 14 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ali and Mohammad ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship and intellectual capital as determinants of organizational performance: Empirical evidence from Iran steel industry’.  		 			R Ali 		,  		 			J N Mohammad 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research}  		2012. 2  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rezaian and Naeiji ()]{b76}\label{b76} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship and intellectual capital as determinants of organizational performance: Empirical evidence from Iran steel industry’.  		 			A Rezaian 		,  		 			M J Naeiji 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research}  		2012. 2  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ukenna et al. ()]{b88}\label{b88} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship and organizational performance of selected agricultural SMEs in Lagos, Ogun and Oyo States Nigeria’.  		 			B I Ukenna 		,  		 			G O Makinde 		,  		 			B H Akinlabi 		,  		 			O U Asikhia 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Development Strategies in Humanities}  		2019. 9  (3)  p. .  	 	 (Management and Social Sciences) 
\bibitem[Makinde and Agu ()]{b61}\label{b61} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship and performance of small and medium scale enterprises in Aba Metropolis’.  		 			O G Makinde 		,  		 			C U Agu 		.  	 	 		\textit{Archives of Business Research}  		2018. 6  (9)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gelard and Ghazi ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship element from theory to practice’.  		 			P Gelard 		,  		 			E Ghazi 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Business and Technopreneurship}  		2014. 4  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ibrahim et al. ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship in family business’.  		 			N Ibrahim 		,  		 			A M Rizal 		,  		 			B Mahadi 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Innovation and Business Strategy}  		2016. 6  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Takhtshahi and Maroofi ()]{b84}\label{b84} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship increase innovation, competition, employment, and economic development’.  		 			A Takhtshahi 		,  		 			F Maroofi 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Scientific Research and Management}  		2017. 5  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kuratko and Audretsch ()]{b52}\label{b52} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship: Exploring different perspectives of an emerging concept’.  		 			D F Kuratko 		,  		 			D B Audretsch 		.  	 	 		\textit{Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice}  		2009. 33  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Djordjevic ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship: Issues and challenges’.  		 			B Djordjevic 		.  	 	 		\textit{Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences}  		2013. 4  (7)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kyrgidou and Hughes ()]{b53}\label{b53} 	 		‘Strategic entrepreneurship: Origins, core elements and research directions’.  		 			L P Kyrgidou 		,  		 			M Hughes 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Business Review}  		2010. 22  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ogbari et al. ()]{b71}\label{b71} 	 		‘Strategic human resource development and entrepreneurial sustainability in Nigeria’.  		 			M E Ogbari 		,  		 			I F Obigbemi 		,  		 			T Atolagbe 		,  		 			I S Ojo 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Research in National Development}  		2016. 14  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Golensky and Hager ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		\textit{Strategic leadership and management in nonprofit organizations: Theory and practice},  		 			M Golensky 		,  		 			M Hager 		.  		2020. USA: Oxford University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Khairuddin ()]{b48}\label{b48} 	 		\textit{Strategic management},  		 			H M Khairuddin 		.  		2005. Singapore: Thomson Learning.  	 
\bibitem[Hitt et al. ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		\textit{Strategic management cases: competitiveness and globalization},  		 			M A Hitt 		,  		 			R D Ireland 		,  		 			R E Hoskisson 		.  		2012. USA: Cengage Learning.  	 
\bibitem[Hoogendoorn et al. ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		‘Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The role of perceived barriers and risk’.  		 			B Hoogendoorn 		,  		 			P V D Zwan 		,  		 			R Thurik 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Business Ethics}  		2017. 157  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Idowu et al. ()]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		‘Technology choices in Nigerian textile sector’.  		 			D J Idowu 		,  		 			I A Irefin 		,  		 			J B Akarakiri 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Home Economics}  		2018. 11  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Njoroge and Gathungu ()]{b69}\label{b69} 	 		‘The effect of entrepreneurial education and training on development of small and medium size enterprises in Githunguri district-Kenya’.  		 			C Njoroge 		,  		 			M Gathungu 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Education and Research}  		2013. 8  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Liyanage and Weerasinghe ()]{b56}\label{b56} 	 		‘The effect of strategic flexibility on strategy-performance nexus: A conceptual model’.  		 			A S Liyanage 		,  		 			T D Weerasinghe 		.  	 	 		\textit{Kelaniya Journal of Management}  		2018.  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Azar and Shafighi ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{The effect of work motivation on employee's job performance (Case study: Employees of Ishafan Islamic revolution housing foundation). International journal of academic research in business and social sciences},  		 			M Azar 		,  		 			A A Shafighi 		.  		2013. 9 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Supeno et al. ()]{b82}\label{b82} 	 		‘The effects of intellectual capital, strategic flexibility, and corporate culture on company performance: A study on small and micro-scaled enterprises (SMEs) in Gerbangkertosusila Region’.  		 			H Supeno 		,  		 			M Sudharma 		,  		 			S Aisjah 		,  		 			A Laksmana 		.  	 	 		\textit{East Java. International Business and Management}  		2015. 11  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Haddawee ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		‘The impact of strategic foresight on strategic entrepreneurship’.  		 			A H Haddawee 		.  	 	 		\textit{The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention}  		2018. 5  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bor ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘The influence of entrepreneurial innovativeness on firm performance among small and medium-sized enterprises in Kenya’.  		 			G K Bor 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Research}  		2018. 6  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dogan ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management: Strategic entrepreneurship’.  		 			L Dogan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Social and Behavioral Sciences}  		2015. 195 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chao and Spillan ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘The journey from market orientation to firm performance. A comparative study of US and Taiwanese SMEs’.  		 			M C Chao 		,  		 			J E Spillan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Management Research Review}  		2010. 33  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chin ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling’.  		 			W W Chin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Modern methods for business research},  				1998. 295 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Njenga and Theuri ()]{b68}\label{b68} 	 		‘The role of entrepreneurship training and education in enhancing growth of small and medium enterprises in Kenya: A case study of Mombasa country’.  		 			G Njenga 		,  		 			F Theuri 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Humanities and Social Science}  		2016. 21 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sarpong and Tandoh ()]{b78}\label{b78} 	 		‘The role of strategy in a competitive business environment: A case study of Eco bank Ghana Limited’.  		 			L Sarpong 		,  		 			I Tandoh 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Journal of Business and Management}  		2015. 7  (11)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Schumpeter ()]{b80}\label{b80} 	 		\textit{The Theory of Economic Development},  		 			J A Schumpeter 		.  		1911. New York: Oxford University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Hensler et al. ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing’.  		 			J Hensler 		,  		 			C Ringle 		,  		 			R Sinkovics 		.  	 	 		\textit{Adv. Int. Mark}  		2009. 20  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ardianus and Petrus ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘The utilization of resource-based view on minimarket retail: Its implication toward strategy and competitive advantage’.  		 			L P Ardianus 		,  		 			S M Petrus 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Economics, Education, Business, and Accounting},  				 (the 1st International Conference on Economics, Education, Business, and Accounting)  		2016.  	 
\bibitem[Brian ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Training and development techniques for improving organizational performance for SMEs’.  		 			W R Brian 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Innovation Management and Technology}  		1996. 2  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mazzei et al. ()]{b64}\label{b64} 	 		‘Understanding strategic entrepreneurship: A "theoretical toolbox’.  		 			M J Mazzei 		,  		 			J K David 		,  		 			L S Christopher 		.  	 	 		\textit{approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal}  		2017. 13  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sandeep and Jaiswal ()]{b77}\label{b77} 	 		‘Understanding the challenges and strategic actions of social entrepreneurship at base of the pyramid’.  		 			G Sandeep 		,  		 			S Jaiswal 		.  	 	 		\textit{Management Decision}  		2016. 54  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Duan et al. ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘Understanding the impact of business analytics on innovation’.  		 			Y Duan 		,  		 			G Cao 		,  		 			J S Edwards 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Journal of Operational Research}  		2020. 281  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[
			Alberto
		 ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘What is leadership?’.  		 			Alberto 		,  		 			S 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Business Studies Quarterly}  		2016. 8  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fainshmidt et al. ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘When do dynamic capabilities lead to competitive advantage? The importance of strategic fit’.  		 			S Fainshmidt 		,  		 			L Wenger 		,  		 			A Pezeshkan 		,  		 			M R Mallon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Management Studies}  		2019. 56  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Aminu ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Why Nigerian textiles are not competitive in African market?’.  		 			S A Aminu 		.  	 	 		\textit{Unilorin Journal of Marketing}  		2016. 3  (1)  p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
