The Impact of Strategic Entrepreneurship Behaviors on Business Performance in Turkish SMES: The Role of Business Model Innovation and Competitive Intensity

Abstract

Strategic entrepreneurship behaviors enhance business performance and sustainability in Turkish SMEs by fostering innovation and leveraging competitive intensity for sustained growth. Employing strategic leadership theory, this study examines the effect of strategic entrepreneurial behaviors on business performance through the mediation role of business model innovation (BMI) and the moderation effect of competitive intensity. A quantitative approach was used, and data from 313 managers and business owners in Turkish small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were collected using a structured questionnaire. The results have shown that strategic entrepreneurial behavior significantly and positively impacts business performance and business model innovation. Business model innovation, in turn, positively affects business performance. Competitive intensity moderates the relationship between strategic entrepreneurial behavior and business model innovation, strengthening it under higher competitive pressure levels. However, competitive intensity does not moderate the direct link between strategic entrepreneurial behavior and business performance. At higher levels of competitive intensity, the conditional indirect effect of strategic entrepreneurial behavior on business performance through business model innovation becomes more prominent. The findings of this study offer actionable insights for enhancing SME performance through strategic entrepreneurship, innovative business models, and competitive strategy adaptation.

1. Introduction

In Turkey, there has been a strong push for entrepreneurship, leading to the establishment of many new businesses in recent times [1]. SMEs play an important role in Turkey’s economic sectors, making significant contributions to both growth and employment. However, despite their importance, Turkish SMEs encounter various challenges during their development journey [2]. The positive influences of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) on the world economy have been increasing during recent years, especially in terms of their positive influence on labor markets and the creation of new products and services. In order to sustain their contributions to economies, they need to catch up regarding good performance, income, and profit levels. However, this goal is tough to achieve due to the many internal and external financial or non-financial obstacles. Within this context, this study pays regard to strategic entrepreneurship [3]. Strategic entrepreneurship is a formal and structured approach to entrepreneurship that combines strategic management and entrepreneurial perspectives [4]. The conception and implementation of strategic entrepreneurship are a synergistic fusion of behaviors that proactively explore opportunities while maintaining a high level of competitive advantage at the same instant [5,6]. Up until now, only a few studies have been accomplished in the strategic entrepreneurship field [7].

Entrepreneurship, due to its significant impact, has gathered attention across various enterprises.

Recent entrepreneurship research emphasizes the importance of having a strategic vision for achieving entrepreneurial success. When entrepreneurs lack a clear and forward-thinking vision, it can result in substantial intellectual and capital losses [8]. Thus, further research in the domain of strategic entrepreneurship is essential. Particularly, SMEs have emerged as dynamic economic sectors [7]. The aim of this study is to encourage entrepreneurial performance among employees, thereby enhancing business behavior and uncovering fresh opportunities in the competitive market [9]. Therefore, both entrepreneurial performance and the internal and external environment influence business performance [10]. Evaluating business performance serves as a measure for assessing the influence of a firm’s strategy. This strategy always aims to give results, whether through marketing performance or market value [11]. The entrepreneur’s planned actions to achieve preferred objectives further shape entrepreneurial performance. It encompasses tasks within the entrepreneur’s control, including board roles, organizational decisions, and strategic goals [10,11]. On the other hand, BMI holds immense potential for creating competitive advantage [12,13], enhancing value creation [14], and facilitating opportunity recognition [15] by exploiting a market niche that competitors have not addressed [16]. Given that performance improvement is crucial for any firm, the impact of BMI on performance has earned escalating entrepreneurship behaviors [17,18,19]. While research studies have significantly contributed to this perception of BMI and BP, this field of inquiry is still in its early stages [20].

The research investigates an under-researched topic in the strategic entrepreneurial behavior context by examining how inter-functional coordination impacts BP [21]. A thorough analysis of the questionnaire’s components provides insights into the reasons behind the questions. The specific aspects of SEB, BP, and BMI that came out of the responses support the hypothesis and help us learn more about how these variables interact with each other [22]. Providing actionable recommendations for entrepreneurs and business educators, these suggestions emphasize the development of specific competencies and traits to promote innovation within the SME sector. Using the strategic leadership theory, we look at how SEB affects the BP of Turkish SMEs, focusing on how BMI and CI work together to balance things out [23].

This research paper offers several notable contributions. Firstly, it expands the current understanding by analyzing the influence of SEB on the BP of Turkish SMEs, drawing from recent studies. Secondly, it examines how the impact of strategic leadership on BP could be formed by BMI as a mediator and competitive intensity as a moderator. Thirdly, Addressing the scarcity of empirical evidence, this research fills a gap by examining the effects through the mediation of BMI. It introduces a synthesized research model that distinguishes between the direct and indirect effects. Through rigorous statistical analysis, the study provides empirical evidence on the impact of competitive intensity, addressing previously overlooked issues in the literature. For academics, practitioners, and research communities, this research offers practical insights and explores the moderating variables. The research model, which includes these concepts, is visually represented in Figure 1. Consequently, the study aims to address the following three research questions (RQs):

• How the impact of strategic leadership on BP could be formed by BMI as a mediator and competitive intensity as a moderator?
• To what extent does BMI influence the competitive intensity in Turkish SMEs?
• How does strategic entrepreneurship behavior influence BP among Turkish SMEs?

Within the framework of the aforementioned research questions, the following sections of the study focus on how strategic entrepreneurship behavior influences business performance among Turkish SMEs.

We organize the study’s subsequent sections as follows: a literature review, which investigates the theoretical fundamentals and hypothesis development; research data and methodology, which presents the research data and describes the methodology; results, which outline the outcomes of this study; the discussion, which provides an in-depth analysis and interpretation of the findings; and finally, we present the conclusions and practical implications.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Underpinning Theory

Strategic Leadership Theory

Finkelstein and Hambrick proposed the concept of strategic leadership theory, which posits that the actions of a business’s top leaders shape its achievements and values [24]. The primary goal of strategic leadership theory and research is to examine strategic entrepreneurial behavior and the overall performance of firms [25]. Both empirical and conceptual research emphasize the substantial impact of strategic leadership actions on BP [26,27]. Additionally, ref. [28] outlined specific strategic leadership behaviors that enhance business efficiency. These include decision-making, core competency development, effective human resource management, and the development of a strong organizational culture. Therefore, strategic leadership theory emerges as the most fitting framework for this study.

Strategic leadership implementation has had a profound impact. Strategic leadership possesses the ability to establish a clear sense of purpose and direction, enabling effective engagement with both internal and external stakeholders. The pursuit of high performance is critical to an organization’s success. According to [29,30], the pursuit of high performance plays a crucial role in an organization’s success. People who want to change organizations think about strategic leadership in terms of the thinking and visionary skills of those leaders [31]. They say that strategic leadership is more than just being able to learn new things quickly; it also means that strategic leaders own the organization and know how to adapt to the complex and always-changing outside world, making constant and strategic changes even when things are uncertain [27,32].

2.2. Strategic Entrepreneurship Behaviors

Ref. [33] initially introduced the concept of entrepreneurship to describe market-driven activities that businesses should engage in [34]. Accordingly, entrepreneurship involves market-disruptive actions by enterprises, leading to “creative destruction”, which promotes innovation and competitive advantage. In other studies [35,36], entrepreneurship, often associated with innovation and market volatility, is a critical focus for leadership. Their goal is to foster and elevate strategic entrepreneurial activities within the organization [37,38].

As described, strategic entrepreneurship is the highest level a business can attain in maintaining its efforts and procedures, while simultaneously promoting innovation and adaptability. SEB plays a fundamental role in shaping a business strategic plan, identifying trends, implementing strategic practices, evaluating progress, and monitoring performance [39]. It not only enhances the comprehensive strategic performance of the business but also contributes to increased effectiveness, efficiency, wealth creation, and growth. Additionally, strategic entrepreneurship is instrumental in defining the company’s direction and predicting employee performance [9,40].

Entrepreneurial behavior is defined as the actions taken by an entrepreneur to achieve desired objectives. Entrepreneurs limit their entrepreneurial performance to tasks under their control, such as board responsibilities, organizational decisions, and strategic goal-setting [7]. By analyzing behaviors that entrepreneurs can directly influence, we gain a deeper understanding of entrepreneurial behavior. Only when we identify the factors driving entrepreneurial performance can we establish a connection between entrepreneurial behavior and BP [10]. Strategic entrepreneurship encompasses behaviors aimed at generating new or improved revenue streams and enhancing competitiveness [41]. Identifying promising opportunities is a fundamental aspect of the firm’s entrepreneurial strategy. However, innovation also depends on attracting the right resources to transform these opportunities into reality [5]. In essence, it is the cooperation between spotting opportunities and organizing resources that drives successful innovation [6,42].

2.3. Business Performance

BP hinges on the competence of an organization to accomplish strategic objectives and operational goals [43]. Researchers have emphasized that sustained success requires continuous adaptation and strategic restructuring to meet market demands effectively [27]. These indicators include productivity, market growth, expansion into new markets, revenue, and operational efficiencies [44]. Strategic leadership theory helps streamline processes, boost strategic productivity, and promote innovation. Under this leadership, employees can be productive and independent and push new ideas. They encourage employees and help them reach their strategic goals.

Various factors, such as customer satisfaction, brand acceptance, loyalty, and reputation, influence an organization’s market positioning. These elements play essential roles in establishing a favorable position in the minds of customers. The market’s acceptance of a new product or service determines its success. Additionally, a business’s economic performance, as measured by margins and realized profits, closely relates to profitability [45].

The strength of the bond between a strategic entrepreneur and BP becomes evident when the behavior lies completely within the entrepreneur’s volitional control. However, achieving BP involves various factors beyond the entrepreneur’s intentions. It necessitates resources, collaboration with others, and a range of skills. While an entrepreneur may aspire to perform in a specific manner, external circumstances can hinder their efforts. This variation explains why we can successfully predict growth motivation but actual BP remains unpredictable. An entrepreneur might excel personally, yet their business could face challenges due to unforeseen events or factors beyond their control. For example, despite an entrepreneur’s desire to expand, intense competition or political decisions may impede growth. In essence, entrepreneurs cannot fully control all the variables influencing business outcomes. Survival or growth often measures BP, serving as a direct indicator of entrepreneurial success [10].

2.4. Strategic Entrepreneurial Behaviors and Business Performance

According to [46], entrepreneurship attributes performance to seizing opportunities. Key characteristics include innovativeness and sustainability [35]. To compete successfully and prevent market marginalization, small businesses must adopt an entrepreneurial mindset [47,48]. Conversely, SMEs exhibit an entrepreneurial attitude characterized by the reduced adoption of strategic tools and a more entrepreneurial approach to implementing behavioral measures [49,50,51].

BP is a multifaceted concept, and achieving unanimity in its conceptualization has proven challenging [52]. Over the years, researchers studying BP have engaged in planning and discussion regarding the terminology, levels of analysis, and conceptual foundations for assessing performance. Certain researchers [53,54,55] have made significant contributions to this field. Strategic entrepreneurship is a dynamic construct that bridges the areas of strategic entrepreneurship and strategic management. It includes organizationally imperative innovations within available firms, integrating opportunity and advantage behaviors. This fusion of entrepreneurial spirit and strategy drives transformation and competitive advantage [7].

You can measure BP either by the ability to survive or by growth. Growth directly reflects entrepreneurial activity. While endurance alone is not a sufficient entrepreneurship indicator, it does signify durability in the market [56]. When there is a deliberate choice to act with a certain level of intensity, entrepreneurial performance emerges. Motivation plays a crucial role in determining performance. Without a minimum level of talent, achieving performance is impossible. Thus, there exists a complex relationship between strategic entrepreneurial behaviors and BP [57]. The choice of effort level does not directly influence it. We can best understand the factors shaping entrepreneurial behavior by focusing on actions within the entrepreneur’s control, according to the fundamental argument. In simpler terms, the model suggests that entrepreneurial behavior positively affects BP [10].

H1. 

Strategic entrepreneurial behaviors positively affect BP.

2.5. Strategic Entrepreneurial Behaviors and Business Model Innovation

Strategic entrepreneurship connects strategic and entrepreneurial behavior within a business organization. It increases the competitive advantage of SMEs [58,59]. They maintain that strategic entrepreneurship is an approach that combines various models, allowing owners to manage market share, control operations, and leverage hypothetical property and financing from the parent company in only a business manner [60]. It is acknowledged that strategic entrepreneurship significantly contributes to business success [9]. In the given context, BMI plays a pivotal role for organizations aiming to create and extract value for their stakeholders. Scholars assert that BMI has surpassed the significance of product or process innovation in achieving success. Despite this, practitioners lack clear guidance on designing innovative business models (BMs) [61].

SMEs, which perform a crucial role in innovation processes and environmental growth at local, regional, and national levels [62], are the BMs influencing both internal and external resources. As a result, business models (BMs) are inherently dynamic, and their practices may evolve iteratively [63]. The concept of a BM allows entrepreneurs and decision-makers to analyze the underlying judgment of their firm [64]. Essentially, a BM defines how a company creates value, for whom, and how it generates revenue through value creation and delivery [65]. Researchers have actively debated the significance of BMI in enhancing value creation and increasing entrepreneurs’ likelihood of success. While some studies have explored factors related to BMI [66], others have focused on aspects such as managers’ analogical reasoning, entrepreneurial innovation, and thinking processes. This implies that strategic entrepreneurial behaviors have a positive effect on the BMI.

H2. 

Strategic entrepreneurial behaviors positively affect BMI.

2.6. BMI and Business Performance

Enterprises that adopt BMI have successfully gained a competitive advantage and achieved sustainable growth. The BM enhances customer value intention through the use of data, statistics, and reasoning [14]. For enterprises with substantial client value, it establishes a framework for managing stocks and value [66]. Researchers are involved in directing measures and undertakings based on control considerations. The structure of the system reveals the connections among various activities, recognized as the Business Process (BP). As a result, the fundamental elements of BMI include creatively linking activities, overseeing transactions, and establishing additional behavior through innovative methods [67].

BMI is a strategic transformation at the organizational level that restructures a company’s existing BMI and market dynamics by challenging recognized models and redefining the competitive landscape. It signifies a fundamental shift in the company’s approach and operational framework. BMI serves as an act of innovation, with its origin fixed in new ideas [68]. The concept of a BMI gained importance as firms increasingly sought to comprehend and implement fresh business concepts that facilitate innovative revenue streams. Fundamentally, SMEs’ perspectives on the development of their competencies strongly influence the impact of entrepreneurial behavior on BP. The body of knowledge known as entrepreneurial behavior, which aims to improve a specific venture’s overall business performance, gained significant importance in the current era. We anticipate that the skills of entrepreneurs will play a pivotal role in company performance and contribute to economic growth [69]. Identifying additional capabilities that predict business success is essential, and BMI stands out as a relevant factor. It integrates, constructs, and adapts both external and internal competencies to effectively navigate the rapidly changing business landscape [70].

Entrepreneurial behavior plays a pivotal role in determining business growth and performance. It enables SMEs to chart a vision for enhancing their business outcomes. Entrepreneurial behavior links the gap between BMI and firm performance by exploring innovative capabilities. Additionally, it contributes to optimizing efficiency and strengthening business flexibility against disruption. This approach moderates the shock experienced by stakeholders. The global trend of concentrating industrial capacity and economic activities into smaller, more efficient sectors has resulted in highly profitable yet fragile supply chains. Unforeseen disruptions within these chains can ripple across diverse domains, leading to unexpected consequences [71]. Importantly, this characteristic has consistently demonstrated a positive influence on overall performance.

H3. 

BMI positively affects BP.

2.7. BMI as a Mediator

This study tests the mediating role of BMI in the affiliation between strategic entrepreneurial behaviors and BP. Before examining the mediating effect of BMI, let us establish the direct relationship between strategic entrepreneurial behaviors and BP. We have identified strategic entrepreneurial behaviors as a significant driver of BP, with a positive impact. This study tests the mediating role of BMI in strategic entrepreneurial behaviors and BP. Before exploring the potential mediating effect of BMI, it is essential to establish a direct link between strategic entrepreneurial behaviors and BP. Performance refers to the level of success an organization achieves. Previous studies have employed both objective and subjective measures to assess BP, taking into account factors like environmental uncertainty, firm type, and market conditions. Objective performance metrics offer insights into financial indicators and profitability, while subjective metrics capture non-financial aspects related to market performance, reflecting interactions with customers, competitors, and suppliers.

BMI is the dynamic process of redefining, adapting, or shaping a BM’s fundamental structure and components [72]. Its purpose is to create new value propositions, capture unexploited market opportunities, and establish a competitive advantage. This involves developing novel approaches for revenue generation, product or service delivery, and customer value creation and capture. By questioning established assumptions, norms, and industry conventions, BMI unlocks uncharted paths for growth and profitability [68]. The significance of executive networks in shaping a company’s innovation capabilities is equally vital as their impact on overall BP. This research study seeks to address a gap by examining how BMI mediates the relationship between SEB and BP. The proposed mediating effect of BMI highlights how BMI influences behavior to enhance their overall performance. Consequently, BMI emerges as a mediator between SEB and BP.

H4. 

BMI mediates the relationship between strategic entrepreneurial behaviors and BP.

2.8. Competitive Intensity as a Moderator

The number of enterprises, firm size, and strategic approaches to market share acquisition in CI influence the competitive landscape. This intensity, in turn, propels business development and benefits both customers and rival companies in the long term [73]. To navigate heightened competition, firms engaged in exporting to competitive markets should adopt a positive stance and prioritize efficient export procedures. Research has highlighted that managers recognize competition as a pivotal external factor impacting export success. Given that global markets host competitors of varying sizes and shapes, companies operating in such contexts must remain agile and attuned to consumer needs [74]. CI’s invigorating impact can increase customer satisfaction and strengthen the SEB and overall BP. Through the acclimation process, enterprises can effectively leverage their skills to enhance export performance in the face of intense competition. This improvement emphasizes how enterprises adapt and utilize their capabilities to succeed in competitive markets [75].

In a specific context, the study argues that CI impacts BMI and BP. While employability is considered a strategic asset for firms navigating competitive environments [76], It helps mitigate the risks of skill obsolescence and, in context, strengthens both employer and employee adaptability to handle immediate environmental changes. However, alternative mechanisms may also influence the relationship between CI and BMI, employability-focused training, and employee attitudes and behaviors toward their employer [77]. Moreover, CI moderates the positive relationship between strategic entrepreneurial behaviors and BMI.

H5. 

CI plays a moderation effect on the relationship between strategic entrepreneurial behaviors and BMI.

H6. 

CI plays a moderation effect on the relationship between strategic entrepreneurial behaviors and BP.

H7. 

CI plays a moderation effect on the relationship between BMI and BP.

This study employs the strategic leadership theory to analyze the impact of SEB on BP in Turkish SMEs. It also explores the role of BMI and CI. The conceptual framework, as described in Figure 1, highlights strategic entrepreneurship, which involves identifying and exploiting opportunities while simultaneously establishing and retaining a competitive advantage. Furthermore, this study offers valuable recommendations for SME managers and founders to effectively innovate their existing or innovative BM. Entrepreneurs can achieve their objectives in SMEs by focusing on BMI’s features. Sustainable organizations maintain their performance over time, and business success relies on continuously adapting strategies to market demands. CI impacts firm growth, with low-intensity firms having more opportunities to secure favorable terms in this BP.

3. Method

This research involved conducting a quantitative research method to gather data from business owners and managers of SMEs in Istanbul, Izmir, and Ankara in Turkey. Through a questionnaire survey, the authors adopted well-established scales used to measure theoretical variables associated with different aspects of the internal and external business environment, as well as the entrepreneurial posture of managers and business owners. We used a multiple-step process in selecting this sample. First, we randomly chose firms listed on the Turkish Trade Gazette (TOBB, 2023 [78]). Second, we ensured that only firms meeting the criteria for SMEs were included in the survey. Specifically, micro enterprises (those with less than three employees), big firms (those with over 500 employees), and governmental corporations were excluded; a total of 2954 firms that met the criteria for the study remained. A portion of the sample was chosen randomly, contacted through phone calls, and extended an invitation to partake in our study. We reached out to approximately 1050 firms in total and extended an invitation to join the survey. While many firms agreed to partake in the survey, others declined the invitations. For those who accepted our invitations, seven research team members administered the questionnaire survey to them through an online tool (Google Forms) and, in some cases, through on-site visits (physically) to obtain more responses and ensure that the sample collected was representative.

A total of 401 completed the survey, and 649 firms declined our invitation. Out of the 401 that completed the survey, we removed 88 non-business owner and non-manager responses. Based on this, a final sample of 313 valid responses was retained, leading to a response rate of 29.81%.

The respondents’ information demonstrated in

Table 1. Respondents’ information.

(n = 313)	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	272	86.90
Female	41	13.10
Business Type
Textile and apparel	67	21.41
Machinery and engineering	25	7.99
Food and beverages	54	17.25
Transport equipment	21	6.71
Rubber and plastics	18	5.75
Medical and pharmaceutical	20	6.38
Electrical machinery and equipment	39	12.46
Service	33	10.54
Building materials	29	9.27
Others	7	2.24
Firm size (employee number)
5–19	52	16.61
20–50	127	40.58
51–80	79	25.24
81–110	43	13.74
Above 110	12	3.83

reveals that 272 (86.90%) were male and 41 (13.10%) were female. In terms of business type, textile and apparel account for 67 (21.41%), machinery and engineering for 25 (7.99%), food and beverages for 54 (17.25%), transport equipment for 21 (6.71%), rubber and plastic for 18 (5.75%), medical and pharmaceutical for 20 (6.38%), electrical machinery and equipment for 39 (12.46%), service for 33 (10.54%), building materials for 29 (9.27%) and other for 7 (2.24%). In terms of firm size (number of employees), 5–9 account for 52 (6.61%), 20–50 for 127 (40.58%), 51–80 for 79 (25.24%), 81–110 for 43 (13.74%), and above 110 for 12 (3.83).

3.1. Measures

Strategic entrepreneurial behaviors were assessed with 6 items from [79]. BMI was assessed with 6 items from [80,81]. Competitive pressure was measured with 4 items adopted from [82], and BP was measured with 6 items from [83].

3.2. Common Method Bias (CMB)

We adopted the procedural precautions of [64] to minimize CMB. First, to make the survey straightforward for the respondents, we conducted preliminary testing during the questionnaire preparation phase. In addition, the independent and outcome (dependent) constructs were deliberately separated in the questionnaire; the items were arranged randomly to discourage any preferred answers. Hence, any phrasing or arrangement of variables that could have resulted in a priming effect was deliberately prevented. Second, Harman’s test for a single factor was performed. The test yielded no apparent concern as a distinct factor only accounts for 24.62% of the variation in the sample, which was below the 50% cut-off [64]. Third, we employed the pointer variable technique [84], where a theoretically unrelated variable was included at the end of the survey. The results showed that the unrelated variable has a correlation coefficient of less than 0.06 with the main variables under observation. Based on these procedural precautions and statistical test results, CMB is not a serious concern in this study.

Fourth, to ensure that multi-collinearity did not cloud our results, we conducted a full collinearity test using the variance inflation factor (VIF), the results of which exposed that the VIF values of all dependent constructs were less than 5. This further implies that CMB is not a serious concern in this study [85,86]. Furthermore, non-responses were examined and respondents were placed into two groups: early and late. Then, any differences in their demographics and the main constructs of the study were examined [87]. The test results showed no significant differences in the early and late responders. Thus, the possibility of a non-response bias was also not an issue in this research.

3.3. Measurement Model

Before hypotheses testing, the dependability and validity of the measures were examined. We adopted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 26 to examine convergent and discriminant validity. The CFA results are demonstrated in

Table 2. CFA results.

Strategic Entrepreneurship Behavior (α = 0.929, CR = 0.930, AVE = 0.691)	Item Codes	Standardized Factor Loading
	SEB1: The top managers of my firm prefer to lead our industry in new product introductions	0.782
	SEB2: The top managers of my firm have a bias toward leading our industry in new product introductions	0.899
	SEB3: My firm is often the first to introduce new products in our industry	0.864
	SEB4: The top managers of my firm respond to competitors by introducing new product innovations	0.799
	SEB5: The top managers of my firm prefer to be ahead of the competition when introducing new products	0.838
	SEB6: The top managers of my firm have a bias toward being ahead of the competition when introducing new products	0.800
Business model innovation (α = 0.891, CR = 0.891, AVE = 0.578)
	BMI1: Our organization regularly changes the way in which we provide value to our customers	0.694
	BMI2: We regularly look for new sales strategies to generate revenues	0.721
	BMI3: We experiment with new business models in our markets	0.656
	BMI4: We regularly use new distribution and sales channels	0.832
	BMI5: We often change the cost structure (fixed and variable costs) within our organization	0.791
	BMI6: Our organization changes aspects of our business model on a regular basis	0.849
Competitive intensity (α = 0.887, CR = 0.888, AVE = 0.665)
	CI1: Competition in our market is cut-throat	0.789
	CI2: There are many “promotion wars” in our market	0.796
	CI3: Anything that one competitor can offer in our market, others can match readily	0.824
	CI4: Price competition is a hallmark of our market	0.851
Business performance (α = 0.925, CR = 0.926, AVE = 0.678)
	BP1: Sales growth	0.846
	BP2: Profit growth	0.826
	BP3: Return on investment	0.717
	BP4: Market share growth	0.792
	BP5: Overall efficiency of operations	0.909
	BP6: Return on sales	0.838
CMIN/DF = 447.716/202 = 2.223, IFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.941, CFI = 0.948, NFI = 0.910, GFI = 0.875, RMSEA, = 0.063

Note: SEB = Strategic entrepreneurial behaviors, BMI = Business model innovation, CI = competitive pressure, BP = Business performance.

and Figure 2. The CFA results indicate that the proposed 4-factor model (i.e., SEB, BMI, CI, and BP) provides an appropriate fit parameter. Specifically, (CMIN/DF = 447.716/202 = 2.223, IFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.941, CFI = 0.948, NFI = 0.910, GFI = 0.875, RMSEA = 0.063). Ref. [88] suggested that (CMIN/DF < 3 IFI ≥ 0.9, TLI ≥ 0.9, CFI ≥ 0.9, NFI ≥ 0.9, GFI ≥ 0.8, RMSEA < 0.08. The model fit parameters were above the suggested thresholds, showing that the proposed model provides a satisfactory fit with the data.

Table 2 shows that all items had factor loadings higher than 0.6 (0.656 to 0.909), the composite reliability was between (0.888 to 0.930), and the Cronbach’s alpha was between (0.887 to 0.929), all of which points to convergent validity and acceptable reliability. The average variance extracted for all variables was above the 0.50 limit [89], with a value over 0.578, further meeting the criteria for convergent validity. As illustrated in

Table 3. Descriptive statistics, correlation matrix, and discriminant validity.

Construct	Mean	STD	SEB	BMI	CI	BP	Business Type	Firm Size
SEB	3.453	1.050	0.831
BMI	3.815	0.815	0.419 **	0.760
CI	3.683	1.037	0.258 **	0.242 **	0.815
BP	3.921	0.784	0.404 **	0.361 **	0.296 **	0.823
Business Type	3.067	1.382	−0.029	−0.049	0.027	0.067	-
Firm size	3.211	1.335	−0.019	−0.050	−0.049	0.011	0.072	-

Note: ** p ≤ 0.01 two-tailed. The bold values along the diagonal represent the square root of the AVE for each construct, demonstrating discriminant validity by ensuring that each construct’s AVE is greater than its correlations with other constructs.

, discriminant validity was also fulfilled, as the square of all AVEs is higher than each item’s nearby correlation coefficient [89].

4. Results

4.1. Hypotheses Testing: Direct and Indirect Effects

After ensuring the reliability and validity of the measures, we investigated the direct and indirect effects (H1–H4) using Hayes’ PROCESS plug-in Model 4. While we initially [90] followed a step-by-step approach to assess these effects, recent research recommends incorporating bootstrapping as an effective method to validate the significance of indirect effects [91]. Therefore, in addition to the traditional approach [90], we employed bootstrapping with 5000 samples to confirm the impact of the indirect effects. This combined approach provides a robust assessment of mediation effects in our study.

Table 4. Regression results: direct and indirect effects.

Direct Effects	Coeff.	SE	t	LL	UL
H1: Strategic entrepreneurship behavior on business performance	0.208	0.044	5.281 ***	0.099	0.237
H2: Strategic entrepreneurship behavior on BMI	0.356	0.039	9.118 ***	0.279	0.433
H3: BMI on business performance	0.249	0.042	5.281 ***	0.104	0.269
Indirect effect
H4: The effect of strategic entrepreneurship behavior on business performance through BMI	Boot Coeff.	Boot SE		Boot LL	Boot UL
	0.443	0.036		0.428	0.749

Note: SE = standard error, LL = lower level, UL = upper level, *** p < 0.001.

demonstrates the outcome of the direct and mediation analysis. The results show that strategic entrepreneurial behavior has a positive effect on BP (Coeff. = 0.208, t = 5.281, p < 0.001). Strategic entrepreneurial behavior has a positive effect on BMI (Coeff. = 0.356, t = 9.118, p < 0.001). BMI has a positive effect on BP (Coeff. = 0.249, t = 5.281, p < 0.001). These results offer support for H1, H2, and H3.

The bootstrapping results for indirect effect with 5000 samples show that when BMI was included as a mediator, the direct effect between strategic entrepreneurial behavior and BP remained significant. Thus, a partial mediation effect was observed. In addition, the indirect of BMI on the relationship between strategic entrepreneurial behavior and BP was also significant (Boot Coeff. = 0.443, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.428, 0.749]). Based on this result, BMI partially mediates the relationship between strategic entrepreneurial behavior and BP.

4.2. Hypotheses Testing: Moderated Mediation

To examine hypotheses H5, H6, and H7, we employed Model 59 of Hayes’ PROCESS plug-in. Before the moderation analysis, the constructs were mean-centered to prevent multicollinearity issues. Also, in the moderation analysis, business type and firm were included as covariates. The results of the moderated mediation are displayed in

Table 5. Regression results: moderation analysis.

Model 1: Mediator Model (Business Model Innovation)	β	SE	t	LL	UL
Intercept	0.039	0.132	0.296	−0.220	0.298
Co: Business type	−0.022	0.029	−0.751	−0.078	0.035
Co: Firm size	0.001	0.029	0.014	−0.058	0.035
Strategic entrepreneurial behavior	0.348	0.038	9.084 ***	0.273	0.424
Competitive intensity	0.120	0.039	3.069 *	0.043	0.196
Strategic entrepreneurship behavior × competitive intensity (interaction)	0.150	0.040	3.802 **	0.073	0.228
R2	0.276 ***
Model 2: Outcome variable model (business performance)
Intercept	21.019	0.925	22.715 ***	19.198	22.840
Co: Business type	0.314	0.202	1.553	−0.084	0.712
Co: Firm size	0.106	0.209	0.014	−0.058	0.035
Strategic entrepreneurship behavior	0.182	0.045	4.813 ***	0.054	0.198
Business model innovation	0.206	0.043	2.980 **	0.062	0.204
Competitive intensity	0.186	0.037	3.962 ***	0.094	0.218
Strategic entrepreneurship behavior × competitive intensity (interaction)	0.086	0.290	0.296	−0.485	0.657
Business model innovation × competitive intensity (interaction)	0.183	0.044	4.922 ***	0.078	0.210
R2	0.299 ***

Note: LL = lower level, UL = upper level, * p ≤ 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.

. In Model 1, strategic entrepreneurial behavior significantly influenced BMI (β = 0.348, CI [0.273, 0.424], p < 0.001). In addition, the interaction between strategic entrepreneurial behavior and CI was also significant (β = 0.150, CI [0.073, 0.228], p < 0.01). This implies that CI moderates the relationship between strategic entrepreneurial behavior and BMI. We employed the slope test recommended by [92] to observe the conditional direct effect levels. Recent studies have used this approach [93,94]. The results of the conditional effect are presented in Table 5 and Figure 3. The slope test revealed that strategic entrepreneurial behavior has a stronger impact on BMI as the levels of CI increase (i.e., mean and high levels +1SD). In line with the expectation of our study, strategic entrepreneurial behavior has a stronger impact on BMI at a high level of CI (Coeff. simple slope = 0.504, t = 8.562, p < 0.001). In contrast, the slope is relatively weaker at a low level of CI (Coeff. simple slope = 0.193, t = 3.621, p < 0.001). Thus, H5 was validated.

Similar to the above analysis and Model 2, strategic entrepreneurial behavior significantly influences business performance (β = 0.182, CI [0.054, 0.198], p < 0.001). However, this significant effect is not moderated by the interaction between strategic entrepreneurial behavior and CI (β = 0.086, CI [−0.485, 0.657], p > 0.05). In contrast to the study’s expectation, CI did not moderate the link between strategic entrepreneurial behavior and BP. Therefore, H6 is not supported.

Furthermore, to establish the moderated mediation, the conditional indirect effect of strategic entrepreneurial behavior on BP through BMI, we plotted the conditional indirect effect at different levels of CI (i.e., −1SD, mean and =1SD). As displayed in

Table 6. Results of simple slope test.

Dependent Variable	Level of the Moderator	β	t	95% CI
Business model innovation
Strategic entrepreneurial behavior	Low (−1SD)	0.193	3.621 ***	[0.088, 0.297]
	Mean (0)	0.348	6.084 ***	[0.273, 0.424]
	High (+1SD)	0.504	8.562 ***	[0.388, 0.620]
The conditional indirect effect of strategic entrepreneurship behavior on business performance through business model innovation
	Low (−1SD)	0.224		[0.044, 0.576]
	Middle (0)	0.443		[0.122, 0.806]
	High (+1SD)	0.694		[0.053, 0.997]

Note: CI = confidence interval, *** p ≤ 0.001.

and Figure 4, the indirect conditional was the strongest as the level of CI increased. In line with our expectation, the higher the CI (i.e., mean and high), the stronger the conditional indirect effect; mean, (Coeff. simple slope = 0.443, CI [0.122, 0.806]) and high, +1SD (Coeff. simple slope = 0.694, CI [0.053, 0.997]). Therefore, H7 is supported.

5. Discussion

The study examined how entrepreneurial behaviors (SEBs) affect the performance of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in Turkey. It focuses on how business model innovation (BMI) and competitive intensity (CI) affect these effects and how they are mediated and moderated. Combining these findings with existing research provides a comprehensive understanding of the implications for both theory and practice.

A market’s level of competition influences the interconnection of sustainable entrepreneurial behaviors, business performance, and BMI. The research reveals that higher competitive intensity amplifies the impact of SEBs on both BMI and BP, indicating that businesses operating in landscapes are more likely to benefit from entrepreneurial actions and innovative business practices [95]. This discovery aligns with the theory, which suggests that companies need to align their strategies with external competitive conditions to achieve outstanding results. Ref. [96] offered proof by showing that entrepreneurial improvisation positively affects advantage in small enterprises with resource management capabilities acting as an intermediary.

The positive correlation between SEBs and BP observed in this study aligns with the existing literature. Key components of SEBs such as innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking are essential for companies to capitalize on opportunities and gain an edge. Recent research by [97] supports this idea by showing that strategic entrepreneurship practices significantly improve the performance of SMEs in Nigeria’s hospitality sector by fostering creativity within organizations and effective resource management strategies. Similarly, ref. [97] discovered that SEBs help in recognizing opportunities, which then leads to business growth among IoT-based companies.

Moreover, the results resonate with the strategic leadership theory, indicating that a company’s distinctive resources and abilities are crucial for attaining an edge and superior performance [98]. SEBs enable companies to effectively use their resources for innovation and successful competition. This is particularly evident in how BMI acts as a mediator between SEBs and BP, underscoring the role of business model innovation. Additionally, ref. [99] study highlights the importance of behavior in mediating the link between quality management and innovation performance in the banking industry, which is influenced by external factors like competitive pressure.

The empirical findings from this study also align with investigations on how entrepreneurial mindset and innovation contribute to enhancing company performance. An orientation improves a company’s capacity for organizational innovation, according to a study [100]. This underscores the significance of nurturing an environment that encourages innovation and flexibility. Furthermore, the research outcomes align with studies on how competitive intensity influences actions and performance. Ref. [101] research suggests that behaviors linked to entrepreneurship, such as taking risks, innovating, and being proactive, play a role in boosting innovation performance and navigating challenges like those posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study offers evidence supporting the role of strategic entrepreneurial behaviors (SEBs) in enhancing business performance (BP) through business model innovation (BMI), especially in competitive settings. Combining these findings with existing literature emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurship and ongoing innovation in business models to achieve and maintain business results.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Theoretical Contribution

This research study makes a contribution to the field of strategic leadership theory by examining how strategic entrepreneurship behaviors (SEB) impact business performance (BP) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Turkey. It considers business model innovation (BMI) and competitive intensity (CI) as mediating and moderating factors, respectively. Integrating these elements offers an understanding of how strategic entrepreneurial actions influence business results, addressing gaps in the current literature.

The fusion of management and entrepreneurship via SEB emphasizes the combined effects of seeking opportunities and advantages. This study affirms that strategic entrepreneurship, which involves traits like innovation, proactivity, and risk-taking, is essential for SMEs to achieve performance levels [5]. The findings support the idea that aligning activities with objectives enhances organizational efficiency, enriching our theoretical comprehension of how these dual behaviors collaborate to propel business success [28].

A key theoretical contribution lies in validating BMI as a mediator between SEB and BP. The results show that SEB has a positive impact on BP through BMI mediation, indicating that innovative business models play a role in translating behaviors into better performance outcomes.

This study aligns with research that highlights the significance of innovating business models to generate and capture value. By clarifying the role of business model innovation, this research enhances our understanding of how strategic entrepreneurship contributes to improved business performance.

Furthermore, this study delves into how competitive intensity moderates the relationship between entrepreneurship and both business performance and business model innovation. The results indicate that in strategic environments, entrepreneurship has a more pronounced positive impact on both business model innovation and business performance. This underscores the need for businesses to adopt innovative approaches to thrive in competitive markets. Such insights shed light on how external market conditions can influence the effectiveness of strategies.

By focusing on medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), this research fills a crucial gap in the literature, offering valuable insights into the specific challenges and opportunities faced by these businesses in an emerging market setting. Prior studies have often neglected SMEs in developing nations, preferring to concentrate on corporations or advanced economies. This study addresses this oversight, enhancing our comprehension of the effective application of practices in diverse economic and cultural contexts.

The application of strategic leadership theory, which frames the investigation of SEBs’ impact on BP through BMI and CI, enhances the depth of the contribution. This approach highlights the significance of management in shaping entrepreneurial activities and their outcomes [26,102]. By connecting leadership with behaviors and business model innovation, the research offers a comprehensive perspective on the factors influencing SME performance presenting a nuanced view that combines leadership and entrepreneurship theories.

Furthermore, the study enhances our comprehension of the capabilities of SMEs. The results demonstrate how SEB acts as a capability, enabling companies to adjust to evolving environments through business models and strategic responses to competitive pressures. This aligns with the dynamic capabilities framework, which suggests that the capacity to integrate, develop, and reconfigure external competencies is crucial for achieving competitive advantage [103]. The empirical findings presented in this study contribute to the existing literature by showcasing the implementation of capabilities for boosting SME performance.

6.2. Managerial and Practical Implications

The study’s results on strategic entrepreneurship behaviors (SEBs) and how they affect business performance (BP) through business model innovation (BMI) and competitive intensity (CI) can help small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in Turkey and other places. A key takeaway for managers is the importance of fostering a culture of entrepreneurship within their organizations. This includes promoting behaviors like creativity, proactivity, and willingness to take risks among employees. Creating an environment that encourages experimentation and views failures as opportunities for learning is crucial. By nurturing entrepreneurship, managers can position their companies well to capitalize on market opportunities and maintain competitive advantages.

This research emphasizes the role of BMI as a link between SEB and BP. Managers should focus on evaluating and innovating their business models to adapt to evolving market landscapes. Reimagining the generation, delivery, and capture of value within the organization is necessary. Allocating resources to innovation efforts and fostering collaboration across functions can spur the generation of business model concepts. Regularly updating and testing these models can help companies remain relevant and competitive in their markets.

The moderating effect of CI indicates that companies operating in these settings must strategically approach their entrepreneurial endeavors.

Managers must thoroughly analyze the market to grasp the landscape and spot opportunities that competitors have not tapped into yet. Managers can make informed decisions regarding strategic moves and innovations using intelligence to set their firms apart from the competition.

The incorporation of strategic leadership theory in this research highlights the significance of leadership in propelling entrepreneurship and business success. Medium enterprise (SME) leaders should demonstrate leadership by defining a clear vision, making strategic choices, and fostering a culture of innovation. It is crucial for leaders to enhance their thinking abilities and keep abreast of industry trends and technological advancements. Furthermore, leadership development initiatives can help to nurture these skills among future leaders within the organization.

Investing in training and development initiatives is critical for boosting employees’ entrepreneurial abilities. Managers should introduce training programs that concentrate on enhancing skills related to innovation, strategic thinking, and market analysis. Through workshops, seminars, and continuous learning opportunities, employees can stay informed about cutting-edge practices and emerging trends in entrepreneurship and business model innovation.

The study’s conclusions also hold implications for policymakers. To bolster the growth and performance of SMEs, policymakers ought to establish an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and innovation. To support businesses, options like securing funding access, providing tax breaks for endeavors, and creating business infrastructure are vital. It is crucial for policymakers to promote entrepreneurship through programs that equip individuals with the skills needed to launch and expand ventures.

Collaboration plays a role in fostering innovation and strategic entrepreneurship. Managers should encourage partnerships with companies, research bodies, and industry groups to tap into knowledge and resources. Collaborating can result in the creation of solutions, providing access to new markets and technologies. Building networks and engaging in industry clusters can also boost a company’s innovation capabilities and competitive edge. In the business landscape, it is essential for managers to continuously monitor and adapt their strategies. They should establish systems to evaluate the effectiveness of their initiatives and business model innovations. This involves setting performance benchmarks, conducting market assessments, and being willing to adjust strategies as needed. By staying flexible and responsive to changes, companies can uphold their advantage and achieve long-term success.

6.3. Limitations and Future Direction

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this research. The focus on medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) may limit the generalizability of the findings to other sectors. The distinct economic, cultural, and regulatory landscape in Turkey might impact behaviors and performance outcomes in ways that may not be relevant elsewhere. Future studies should replicate this research in countries to assess how strategic entrepreneurship behaviors (SEBs) and business model innovation (BMI) influence business performance (BP) in different contexts.

The study’s cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw conclusions. We suggest longitudinal investigations to track the development of these relationships over time and uncover causal links. Moreover, using self-reported data may introduce biases. Subsequent studies should integrate performance metrics, third-party evaluations, and mixed research methods to gain a nuanced understanding of the factors influencing the observed connections.

This study examines business model innovation (BMI) and competitive intensity (CI) as mediating and moderating variables, but it does not explore other factors. For a more comprehensive view, future research should investigate mediators and moderators like culture and external funding. The study did not consider industry dynamics, which could impact generalizability. Subsequent studies should conduct industry analyses to identify differences across sectors.