MANAGERIAL CAPABILITY SELF EFFICACY

Siti Nur Azizah

sitinuraziz@yahoo.com
STIE Putra Bangsa

Abstract

This article combines two popular concepts: dynamic capabilities and self-
efficacy. Both are concerned with ability/capability and offer potentially valuable
synergies. As proposed, our concept sinthesized ‘what role(s) may owner-
manager perceived self-efficacy play as a micro-foundation of dynamic
capabilities in micro-enterprises.Our hypotheties are that perceived self-efficacy
can influence dynamic capability enactment in multifaceted ways and even
suggest that in some cases, perceived self-efficacy is a crucial component of
dynamic capabilities, without which there may be no such capability. These
insights help open up the black box of dynamic capabilities by contributing
important knowledge to the growing body of research into the micro-foundations
of such capabilities.

Keywords: SMEs, performance, dynamic managerial capability self efficacy

 
A. BACKGROUND
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have a very important role for the
Indonesian economy because employment is considered capable of reducing
unemployment and persistent nature d the storm crisis of 1998. Some of the
advantages possessed by the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) than
large businesses (Partomo and Rachman, 2002), among others: novation in
technology that easily happen in product development, an association of
humanity that is familiar in a small company, f leksibilitas and ability to adapt
to changing market conditions quickly than with large companies which are
generally bureaucratic, there is dynamism managerial and entrepreneurial role.
Research conducted Dwiwinarno (2008 in Haryadi, 2010), there are
several factors inhibiting the development of SMEs, among others, lack of
capital and low managerial capacity. Jim and Sri (2006) from the Lembaga
Management Univercity of Indonesia states weaknesses of SMEs, are book
keeping system is not up to date. This made it difficult to assess the
performance of micro enterprises, operating margin is likely to thin given the
very tight competition  and limited managerial experience
Theoretically dynamic managerial capabilities have made studies by
Penrose in 1959. Penrose defines the Vendorasi collection of resources and
capabilities. Penrose identified two special abilities that are important for the
growth of the company, namely the ability of entrepreneurial and managerial
skills. Run to the entrepreneurial ability coup qualities such as ambition and
imagination that helps the management of a company envisioned the
opportunity to set the underutilized resources into more productive use.
Dynamic managerial capabilities including the ability to plan and carry out the
reorganization of the company's resources, and control the activities of
existing companies efficiently.
Researchers have sought to draw a clear distinction between dynamic
capabilities and exceptional ability. Helfat (2011) found the usual dynamic
capabilities and the ability to have different goals and results. Ordinary
abilities allow the company to perform activities continually using more or
less the same technique on the same scale, supporting existing products and
services to the same customer population. Ability is "normal" in the sense of
maintaining the status quo (Helfat and Winter, 2011). Helfat (1997) defines
dynamic capabilities as the capacity of an organization to actively create the
resource base and do the next ex tension and modifications. organizational
processes that can change an existing position, resulting in a change
performance and competitive advantage, consisting of dynamic capability.
According to Zahra and George (2002), the ability to change the dynamic
basically oriented that the company helped move and reconfigure their
resource base to meet the growing demands of customers and competitor
strategies. AndWinter Zollo (2002) defines dynamic capabilities as a stable
pattern of learning and collective systematic activities through the
organization, generate and modify rut initas operation in pursuit of
effectiveness. Winter (2003) identifies the dynamic capabilities such as that
operated to extend, modify, or create unusual ability to be better
For SMEs, dynamic managerial capabilities are needed to face the rapid
environmental change. But also the ability to be accompanied by faith,
perseverance and hope that karakteriktik strategy of dynamic managerial
capabilities "persistent" and hardiness required to SMEs. That's why at this
research researchers will synthesize the two concepts are dynamic managerial
capabilities and self efficacy which researchers believe could be the solution
for SMEs in order to improve its performance. So this strategy could spread
throughout the members and employees into a dynamic strategy that has the
character of a "persistent" and are confident that the business will be able to
continue to grow big.
 

B. DYNAMIC MANAGERIAL CAPABILITY

Furthermore, as the study strategic, the concept of dynamic managerial
abilities more developed in large companies (Adner and Helfat 2003; Harris
and Helfat 2014) states that managers can use their dynamic ability to shape
the development and dynamic capabilities at the organizational level and to
change the organization's resources and capabilities.
Dynamic concept of managerial capability is derived from the theory of
resources based view. Jay Barney (1991) developed the concept of resource-
based view which has a role important for strategic management. The concept
states that the organization will achieve sustainable competitive advantage if it
has a valuable resource, unique, rare and difficult to imitate. Resource-based
view emphasizes on internal factors organization and criticized the approach
of industrial organization that emphasizes the factors external to the
organization. Based on the resource-based view, organizations can determine
strategies to be done according to the capability of the organization. However,
resource based view also have several weaknesses with regard to the issue of
metod e conceptual and research issues.
Priem and Butler (2001) stated that the concept of resource based view
difficult to apply for the practitioners. The critical issue is resource based
view do not explain how the manager manipulate resources possessed to
implement the strategy. The concept of the characteristics of the resource
described Barney (1991) is still too abstract, making it difficult to apply in real
world. According to Priem and Butler case this is still a black box, because
resource-based view can not afford answer the question of when, where, and
how. Particularly with respect to the question of how, a few questions appear,
how resources are obtained, how and in what context power resources can
create competitive advantage, and how resources and comparated and interacts
with other resources.
The main substance of the resource-based view is a resource capable
generate competitive advantage of sustainable resource valuable, rare or
unique, difficult to imitate, and there is no substitute. Resource otherwise the
company is worth when The resources used to implementation of the strategy
to be produce effectiveness and efficiency. Resource is said to be rare if the
resource is not owned by other companies, especially companies competitors.
The weakness of the theory of RBV then led to new approaches called
dynamic concept. His characters include Teece, Pisano, and Shuen's (1997:
516) which defines dynamic capability as "the firm's ability to integrate,
build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidl y
changing environments ". Generally, the term 'dynamic capabilities' can be
deconstructed into two main elements: the ability (capability) and dynamic
(dynamic). The term 'ability' activity is routinely in the company that
developed from timer to time through problem solving and collective learning
(Winter: 2003), while the concept of a dynamic show changes in the business
environment.
The concept of dynamic capabilities on its development conceptually
investigated by guessing that the dynamic capability will usher in a good
performance in SMEs. Some experts propose positif conjunctionf, for example
Dmevich and Kriaučiūnas, 2011) and some experts claim is not related or
even negative) related to company performance (eg, Wilden, Gudergan,
Nielsen, and Lings, 2013; Winter 2003; Schilke, 2013).
The development of the concept and research about dynamic capabilities
until now focused on organizational factors that allow companies to adapt to
the changes.
The realm of dynamic development of the concept and then developed and
researched based on the capabilities required to maintain a competitive
advantage, one is managerial capabilities (dynamic managerial capability)
 Managerial skills is one of the assets that are important in the study of
human resources. The ability is very meaningful for improving corporate
performance, because it is a collection of knowledge, technical abilities,
behaviors, experience, leadership, problem solving skills, orientation change
and innovation (Camison, 2004)
While the dynamic capability is the capacity of enterprises to create,
expand and modify resources owned companies both tangible and intangible.
According Eisenhart and Martin (2000), the concept of dynamic capabilities
are processes and mechanisms
Adner and Helfat (2003: 1012) defines the dynamic managerial
capabilities as "the capacity of managers to create, extend or modify the way
in which the organization can continue to live ". Adner and Helfat dividing the
dynamic managerial capabilities came from three underlying factors:
managerial human capital (Castanias and Helfat 1991 2001), social managerial
capital (Burt 1992; Gelatkanyc z et al, 2001), and managerial cognition
(Hambrick and Mason 1984; Huff 1990; Johnson and Hoopes 2003). The
three approaches examined in each approach, only a few studies to use it a n
three approaches simultaneously. The concept of dynamic capabilities are able
to explain the difference between a manager's decisions and corporate
strategy, so that research can be done on an individual level and the
organizational level. Rosenbloom (2000) states in his article that leadership by
an individual is a central element in the dynamic capability.
Managerial approach to human capital refers to the learning skills that
require some investment in education, training, or learning more generally
(Becker, 1964). Helfat (1991) distinguishes between generic skills (or
general), skills, industry-specific and company-specific skills. The expansion
of this framework include skill category industr i related to the transfer to
companies in other industries that make related products or utilize the
resources and capabilities related (Castanias and Helfat, 2001). This
framework also includes a variety of skills extended manager in an
organization, from the lowest to the highest. Measurement of human capital is
not an easy thing to do given it is dynamic and constantly changing with
circumstances. Determination of dimensions and indicators measurement
noticed various factors such situation and also the scope of empirically.
The ability of social capital reflects the social ties and social relations (both
external and internal) of man a ger can improve the performance of the
company, each different managers in their network relationships, both
internally and externally, they have different social capital, including access to
information. Such differences cause managers to make different decisions.
Cognitive managerial approach refers to the managerial beliefs and mental
models which serves as a basis for decision making. Cognitive capital for the
decision consists of knowledge or assumptions about future events, knowledge
about alternatives, and knowledge the consequences of the alternative.
In combination, managerial human capital, social capital managerial and
managerial cognition form the basis of resources and capabilities corporation
through the action of dynamic managerial capability so menjadu unique and
 difficult to imitate by competitors, and there is no substitute. Managerial
capabilities unique characteristics of the starting of the planning that is able to
analyze the threats and opportunities dar i external environment, difficult to be
imitated by competitors and no successor. Similarly, decision-making process
in organization and the company's reputation, can a source of competitive
advantage provided that the characteristics of the resource mentioned
       In larger companies, the manager has three roles: the role of leadership, the
role of the entrepreneur and operational roles. Through dynamic framework of
managerial capability has been recognized as a potential source for a model of
entrepreneurial companies (Zahra et al., 2006). This framework prioritizing the
identification process of the organization and managerial qualities that can
helping companies large and calibrate the latent customer needs and
technological opportunities that promise, mengorkestra the resources required
for a innovate, or continuing to innovate on products and services (Teece 2007,
2012a)
      Managerial capabilities and strategic focus holds a central role in the
process of creating a series of disktinktif competence in the sense of
competence based on the input or resource, or a process of transformation as
well as the output or customer market. Managerial capabilities in a broader
sense generated from the decisions and actions of the upper-level manager can
be seen as influencing the interactions between the various components of the
system based on the input, process and output. The form of the ability is
competency-based resources can be understood as capability based on human
assets and non-human, tangible assets and intangible assets, which allows the
company to outperform its peers for a sustained period of time. These
competencies eg innovation capabilities including technological innovation,
marketing innovation and managerial innovation has the potential to create an
organizational capability for generating or producing process or product. The
new content much faster than can be done by the competitors that take full
advantage of pre-emptive or first mover advantage (Ferdinand, 2003).
      Most of the research in the field of dynamic capability consists of
conceptual and theoretical discussion (Helfat and Peteraf, 2009; Macher and
Mowery, 2009), whereas in the realm of empirical among others examined the
characteristics of managerial, such as experience, and the ability to influence
developing or enhancing the dynamic capability (Adner and Helfat, 2006;
MacCormack and Iansiti, 2009).
      Research on the dynamic managerial cognitive abilities develop on how
managers influenced the development dynamic capabilities through motivation,
skills and experience (Ambrosini and Bowman, 2009; Augier and Teece, 2009;
Rothaermel and Hess, 2007). Research gap is understandable because of
globalization and
technological changes that gave significant pressure on the organization to
adapt, so they needs strategic management in the adaptation (Agarwal and
Helfat 2009; Mellahi and Sminia, 2009).
       Management capabilities are important in contributing to business
performance. The ability of management is always used as an important
parameter in the production process. Research findings (Nuthail, 2001), that an
important component used to assess and change the managerial ability to
improve business performance, namely; personality, intelligence (knowledge),
motivation and processing system. High managerial skills can contribute to
employee satisfaction and business performance is consistent with the findings
of Duygulu and Kurgun (2009); Yin (2012); Emadzade, et al. (2012).
Performance is the target level achieved by the organization (Sloma, 1980),
or as an evaluation of the effectiveness of individuals, groups, or organizations.
At the individual level, it refers to job satisfaction, achievable goals, and
personal adjustment; at the group level, referring to the spirit, cohesion,
efficiency, and productivity; and at the organizational level, it is about profits,
efficiency, productivity, absenteeism, turnover rates, and adaptability
(Ivancevich, 1977)
Research Emadzade et al. (2012) stated that it affects the performance
management capabilities of business where multiple sources of knowledge
such as: organizational structure, application of knowledge directly influence
business performance, technology, conversion of knowledge that not directly
related to business performance. The reason that companies with low
performance because the company has a low managerial capability within the
organizational structure, the application of knowledge, technology, knowledge
conversion.
The results of the study Yin (2012) found no significant manejerial
capabilities in performance, however, the managerial capabilities have a
significant impact on customer satisfaction. It proves that impact management
capabilities plays a major role in determining the strategy of small businesses,
especially for the company's partners and customers.
Based on test results influence on business performance management
capabilities of previous researchers, there are contradictions caused by
variability in the measurement of business performance and the ability ma en d
an indicator of the performance measurement of the ability of management to
encourage consideration of researchers to me nelitinya further. This gap in
perceived to researchers is the original i bag, so it needs to be researched and
studied the conditions and characteristics of different objects.
Research research gap megenai dynamic managerial capabilities are still
very few research in this field. Dynamic managerial capabilities research
empiricly was conduct at 2007 by Peteraf and Reed , Eager and Kaplan (2009),
Salvato (2009), Srmon and Hitt (2009), and Ringov (2013) at the level of the
constellation corporation
Empirical research managerial capabilities of dynamic is still very limited
and as well as some did not include the three dimensions at once, thus giving
wide space especially dimensional measurements per object of research in
SMEs is different from the corporation more originality empiric. Walter,
Vosse, Alfaresh (2013) for example, examined the management capabilities of
oak asp technology in biotech firm corporation and found a positive association
with performance. Goldeano et al (2016) also only examined the dynamic
capabilities of innovatifvess in the family firm and find that it takes a series of
skills huma n capital unt uk further enhance the competitive nes of the family
firm. Tseng and Lee 2014 examine empirically the k n owledge Management
of capability and found a significant relationship with organizational
performance. Mesa et al 2013 examined the association design management
capability as interverning of organizational learning with innovative product
performance, research shows dynamic design capabilities are only able to
partially mediate.
 
C. SELF EFFICACY
In this paper, we conceptualize synthesis managerial capabilities with self
efficacy is derived from the concept of social cognitive Albert Bandura. Self-
efficacy by Bandura (1997), is a person's perception of its ability to achieve a
certain goal. Furthermore Bandura (1997, in Friedman & Schustack, 2008),
says that self-efficacy is the expectation-belief (hope) about how much a person
is able to perform the behavior in a given situation. Someone who has a
positive self-efficacy will be sure to be able to do a behavior in question. Self-
efficacy will determine how people exhibit a certain resilience in the face of
adversity or failure, and how the success or failure can affect our behavior in
the future.
Bandura (1986), distinguishes the component self-efficacy consisting of
efficacy expectations and outcome expectations. Efficacy expectations is a
person's self confidence that he can successfully perform the behavior you
want to do. While the outcome expectations determine how much and how
long someone tried to persist in such behavior.
According to Bandura (1986), there are four things that affect the level of
self-efficacy in man, namely:
a. Mastery experiences: a source that most affect self-efficacy. In general,
success dit entukan of how hard people try, and how long they will last in the
behavior. First, success can be achieved based on the proportion of self-
efficacy in the face of difficulty of the task. Second, the task can be completed
by yourself would be more satisfactory if compared with assistance from
others. Thirdly, when we fail it will reduce self-efficacy, when it fails in a state
of high emotional arousal or stress that does not weaken themselves as failures
in maximum condition. Fifth, failure before building a sense of mastery over
hurt feelings of personal success than getting a later failure. Sixth, the
association showed that the failure had little effect on efficacy, especially for
people who have high expectations for success.
b. Social modeling: source further efficacy is social modeling that is by seeing
others perform a specific behavior or less the same (vicarious experience).
However, the effect of social modeling is not for personal performance to get
the level of efficacy.
c. Social persuasion: the effect of social persuasion is still limited. But if it is
affected by the condition, persuasion of others may increase or decrease self-
efficacy. Bandura hypothesized that the efficacy of the power of suggestion is
directly related to the status and authority of the person who gives persuasion.
d. Physical and emotional states: strong emotions usually degrade
performance, when people experience intense fear, acute anxiety, or high
levels of stress,
      Self-efficacy is defined as "an assessment of their ability to regulate and
implement programs and actions necessary to achieve the performance
(Bandura, 1986, p391). Conceptualization of elf-efficacy is recommended as a
principal cognitive, motivational, affective processes and selection process of
managers (Bandura 1986; 1991; Bandura and Wood 1989; Wood and Bandura
1989a).
Through this process, managers can make reconciliation
make a choice of their decision. Through cognitive processes, managers are
able to reconcile mismatch between personal and situational variables.
According to social cognitive theory of Bandura (1986), this study shows the
concept of self-efficacy as The main determinant of self-regulatory process
manager '(ie, cognitive processes). This study uses the concept of social value
orientation and social situation as a moderator that become importance to
influence the choice of the manager's decision.
      Self Efficacy can affect motivation, successful completion of tasks and
performance (word and Bandura, 1989). Chandler (1997) in his research found
a positive relationship between experience and education of managers
significant effect on managerial efficacy. Technical experience also affects the
efficacy tehnical tehnical efficacy but did not affect the performance and
growth. Studies carried out longitudinally on the dimensions of efficacy
entrepreneur, manager and technical efficacy efficacy.
      Wood and Bandura (1987) conceptualize that self-efficacy may be
investigated further in the application of organizational behavior and human
resour- ces management, but validasiny must be made to fit the object, this
refers to Katz (1955) that the managerial ability refers to three things, namely
technical, conceptual and human relations. In various categories, some skill is
required at various competencies managerial capabilities at various levels of
management.
       Bandura's research on self efficay goes that self-efficacy is not a personal
trait, not something inherent in the behavior (Bandura; 2011). In the
organization of self-efficacy is the mechanism of human agency and obtain
empirical support. In organizational settings, self-efficacy as a key mechanism
of a human being, has received strong empirical support. Stajkovic & Luthans
(1998) confirmed in a meta-analysis of 114 s tudi they do span of 20 years that
the perception of the employee's ability to significantly related to task
performance, with the weighted average correlation of 0.38. It has also been
shown to influence job satisfaction (Reid, 2014; Federici, 2013),
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB organizational) (Royle et al., 2005)
and well-being in the workplace (Pomaki, Karoly & Maes, 2009). Self-
efficacy is connected with large-scale organizational changes have also been
 found to be highly associated with lowering stress and psychological well-
being among employees (Jimmieson, Terry & Callan, 2004).
      Fficacy selff mechanism on the ability of the manager has been examined
by several experts, among others Van Eaton (2000) elf efficacy required of
managers in achieving goals, but without careful consideration and rationally it
can lead to incorrect decisions. Van Eaton (2000) affirmed, the confidence is too
high may influence decision decision in two ways. First, decision makers with
self efficacy (confidence) is too high tend to be less critical in analyzing
investment decisions. Second, decision makers with self efficacy (confidence) that
is too high will tend to ignore Current negative information related to investment
decision making. An example, self efficacy decision makers too high making a
decision maker believes that the investment will be good results despite poor
signals over, this as well as the smokers who continue smoking even after they
read the warning labels.
          Some research suggests that counterfactual thinking (both own and
mediated by self-esteem), elements of strategic decision making process
(Forbes, 2005), entrepreneurship education (Sánchez, 2013 (Arora et al, 2
013.); Zhao et al., 2005), entrepreneurship (Dalborg and Wincent 2015),
gender (Wilson et al., 2007), and the national culture (Shneor et al., 2013) can
be influenced by self-efficacy.
 
D. RESEARCH SELF EFFICACY AND MANAGERIAL ABILITY IN
DYNAMIC MICRO
Self concept efficacy derived from the concept of social cognitive (Bandura:
2001) to the basic premise that the evaluation of the ability of self will affect the
intention and behavior. Research on entrepreneurship is growing by involving
self-efficacy, which is the intention and persistence entrepreneurship. The concept
of self entrepreneursih efficac y (McGee et al: 2009) defined as "a construction
that measures a person's belief in their ability to successfully glide right a
kewirausaha an effort. Wood and Bandura (1989) states the definition of self-
efficacy: 'belief in a person's Ability to mobilize, motivation, cognitive resources,
and actions required to meet the demands of situational
This definition recognizes that perceived self-efficacy depen onthe situation at
hand. Indeed, there is debate over whether self-efficacy largely generic or specific
context. Some believes that the general self-efficacy more precise to determine
entrepreneurial intentions and behavior (McGee et al., 2009). However, research
Gist (1987) and McGee et al. (2009) which shows that the perception of self-
efficacy differs depending on the task and context, as well as Wood and Bandura
(1989: 408) refers to 'situational demands'. However selff efficacy can be
interpreted also as a subjective thing and was influenced by the experience of
heterogeneous (Bandura, 1977; Boyd and Vozikis, 1994; Stajkovic and Luthans,
1998), self-efficacy and the effect may be different for each individual according
to their own particular context. Thus, investigating self-efficacy as a potential
dynamic in the microcosm is dasarkemampuan micro businesses can generate
important special understanding features dynamic capabilities.
 Research on the perceived self-efficacy in entrepreneurship domain has
largely focused on one or both of two areas: first, y ang factors affecting self-
efficacy such counterfactual thinking (Arora et al, 2013), elements of strategic
decision making process (Forbes, 2005), business planning activities (McCann
and Vroom, 2015), pendidika n entrepreneurship (Sánchez, 2013, Zhao et al.,
2005), pull entrepreneurship (Dalborg and Wincent 2015), gender (Wilson et al.,
2007) and culture (Shneor et al., 2013). The second area focuses on the effects of
self-efficacy, for instance, s elf-efficacy may have an effect on individual
intention to become an entrepreneur (Bacq et al, 2016;Lanero et al, 2015),
entrepreneurial orientation (Poon et al, 2006) and entrepreneurial passion
(Dalborg and Wincent 2015).
Perceived self-efficacy may affect the individual to act in (Bandura, 1978;
Boyd and Vozikis, 1994), and the ability to facilitate dynamic change-oriented
action (Helfat et al., 2007), it it can be said that the self-efficacy of individual
potential is part of the dynamic capabilities of a company.
However, outside the tentative suggestion by Koryak et al. (2015) and Lockett et
al. (2013), the potential influence of self-efficacy on the ability of dynamic small
businesses and entrepreneurship domain has not been considered. This is perhaps
not surprising because the study of dynamic capabilities has historically focused
primarily on companies greater (Koryak et al, 2015 .; McKelvie and Davidsson,
2009).
Research at the micro scale as to whether the owner -manajeri self-efficacy
(the micro business owner is the manager) can play a role in the dynamic
capabilities as owner-managers often have a strong influence in the micro
business that it becomes originality in this study.

E. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM

Based on the background of the phenomenon and the existing research gap,
the question of this research problem is:
RQ1: whether self-efficacy of cognitive abilities of dynamic managerial
influence the performance of the organization in SMEs?
RQ2: whether self-efficacy capabilities managerial social capital dynamic
effect on the performance of the organization in SMEs?
RQ13 whether self-efficacy capabilities managerial human capital dynamic
effect on the performance of the organization in SMEs
  

F. PROPOSITION
Furthermore proposition to be developed in this study are:
Proposition 1: There is a significant relationship between cognitive dynamic
managerial capability self efficacy and organizational performance in SMEs
Proposition 2: There is a significant relationship between human capital
dynamic managerial capability self-efficacy and organizational performance in
SMEs
Proposition 3: There is a significant relationship between social caital
dynamic managerial self-efficacy capability and organizational performance
in SMEs 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 
Adler, PS, & Kwon, S.-W. (2002) Social capital: Prospects for a new concept.
ACADEMYOF Management Review 27 , 17-40.
 
Adner, R., & Helfat, CE (2003) Corporate effects and dynamic managerial
capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24 , 1011-1025.
 
Augier M and Teece DJ (2009) Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in
business strategy and economic performance. Organization Science 20 (2): 410-
421.
 
Bandura, A. (1982), "Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency", American
Psychologist , Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 122-47.
 
Bandura, A. (2003), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York,
NY. A Bandura (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review 84 (2): 191-215.
 
A Bandura (1978) Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research
and Therapy 1 (4):
237-269.
 
A Bandura (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual
Review of Psychology 52: 1-26.
 
Barney, J., Wright, M. and Ketchen, DJ (2001), "The resource-based view of the
firm: ten years after 1991", Journal of Management, Vol. 27, pp. 625-41.
 
Brady, A. and Voss, B. (1995), "Small is small as does", Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 44-52.
 
Chandler, G. and Hanks, S. (1994), "Market attractiveness, resource-based
capabilities, venture strategies and venture performance", Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 9, pp. 331-49.
 
Chen, GC, Greene, PG, & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy
extinguishing entrepreneurs from managers. Journal of Business Venturing , 13 ,
295-317.
 
Cox, L., Mueller, SL, & Moss, SE (2002). The impact of entrepreneursh ip
education on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education , 1 (2), 229-247.
 
Davidsson, P. & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital Among
nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing , 18 , 301-331.
 
Degravel 2011, Managing organizational capabilities: the Keystone step, Jou rnal
of Strategy and Management Vol. 4 No. 3, 2011
 
Driesch et al. 2015 How CEO experience, personality, and network Affect firms'
dynamic capabilities, European Management Journal 33 (2015) 245-256
 
Gist an Mitchel, 1992, "Self Efficacy: a theoricical analysis of its determinants
and malleability", Academy of Management Review
 
Gist ME (1987) Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and
human resource management. Academy of Management Review 12 (3): 472-485.
 
Helfat CE, Finkelstein S, Mitchell W, et al. (2007) Dynamic Capabilities:
Understanding Strategic Changein Organizations . Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
 
D Higgins, Trehan K and P McGowan (2015) Developing perspectives and
challenging the 'status quo'. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
& Research 21 (3): 286-290.
 
Drnovsek et al, 2010, Entrepreneurial Self and bussiness start up: development a
multidefinisional development, Internatinal Journal of entrepereneurial behavior
 
Helfat and Martin, 2015, Dynamic Managerial Capability: review and assessment
of managerial impact on strategic change, Journal of Management vol 41 no 45
 
Mesa et al. Design management capability and product innovation in SMEs ,
International Small Business Journal, 2017
 
Kelliher and Reinl, 2009, A resource-based view of a micro- firm management
practice, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Vol. 16 No. 3,
2009 pp. 521-532
 
Welter et al , 2013, The Interaction between Managerial and Technological
Capabilities as a Determinant of Company Performance: An Empirical Study of
Biotech Firms International Journal of Management Vol. 30 No. Part 1 March 2,
2013
1