The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

How the creative mindset affects Success in

entrepreneurial success in the the tourism
sector
tourism sector: the mediating role
of innovation capability
Natthawut Yodchai, Pham Thi Minh Ly and Lobel Trong Thuy 279
Tran Received 1 June 2021
Faculty of Business Administration, Ton Duc Thang University, Revised 11 August
2021
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 13 October 2021
Accepted 18 October 2021

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to adopt implicit theory (IPT) to develop a creative mindset model and
drive entrepreneurial success through innovation capability (IC).
Design/methodology/approach – Expert interviews were conducted using a questionnaire protocol.
This study investigated the effect of the creative mindset on entrepreneurial success through IC, using a
partial least squares analytical technique and by interviewing 176 Thai business owners.
Findings – The creative mindset drove entrepreneurial success through IC. Entrepreneurs possessing a
growth mindset reflected and drove success directly or through IC. Although, those with a strong,
fixed mindset did not significantly affect entrepreneurial success, they could drive success through IC.
Research limitations/implications – This study provides further insight into the probable
causation of how the creative mindset and IC affect tourism entrepreneurs’ success. Accordingly, this
study contributes a framework to help entrepreneurs’ creativity and performance in achieving their
business goals.
Originality/value – Drawing from IPT, this study empirically tests and substantiates the mediating
role of IC in the relationship between the creative mindset and entrepreneurial success in the tourism
industry. This study can help entrepreneurs increase their managerial effectiveness.
Keywords Innovation capability, Entrepreneurial success, Creative mindset, Implicit theory,
Tourism business
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In the digital market, entrepreneurs need to tackle strategic and operational practices that
challenge their ability to search for novel ideas and innovate to achieve business goals
(Kraus et al., 2019). Consequently, a creative mindset, which represents the core
individuality of entrepreneurs, is instrumental in adopting novel ideas to develop and
refine the firm (Tang et al., 2016). It is a vital source of organic growth and renewal to
sustain entrepreneurs’ abilities, as it can increase market and revenue growth
(Staniewski and Awruk, 2018). Accordingly, entrepreneurs should have a deep
contextual orientation on creativity and innovation to boost their managerial and
organizational performance (DiLiello and Houghton, 2006). Creative entrepreneurs reflect
their employees’ performance by delivering innovative directions. International Journal of
Innovation capability (IC) is also an important managerial capability, as it is linked Contemporary Hospitality
Management
to business performance (Geldes et al., 2017; Taheri et al., 2019). Existing studies on Vol. 34 No. 1, 2022
pp. 279-298
the tourism industry have indicated that innovation in business activities is vital to © Emerald Publishing Limited

respond to tourists’ changing demands, thereby improving their service experience (Cortese 0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2021-0695
et al., 2021;
IJCHM Palos-Sanchez et al., 2021). These studies show that the innovation process enhances
34,1 product quality and production efficiency, whereas innovative performance impacts product
innovation. Many innovative companies (e.g. Apple, Amazon) have emphasized the
development of ICs for superior firm performance, spending over 12% of their overall
sales revenue on IC (Wang and Dass, 2017). This indicates that a robust, positive
280 relationship exists between IC and superior performance achievement.
Jaiswal and Dhar (2015) have observed that IC and creativity are intrinsically linked, but
few studies have examined this linkage with respect to entrepreneurial success. Past
studies have paid little attention to analyze creative mindset and its influence on IC
and entrepreneurial success. Therefore, business practitioners seeking to implement
creative mindset have had no specific guidance as to the precise meaning of creative
mindset and its effect on IC and entrepreneurial success. Accordingly, the authors have
developed a model of creative mindset for its application to the tourism business in
Thailand.
Thailand is strategically recognized for its beautiful natural resources, geographic
location and long-standing culture. These characteristics create sustainable advantages for
tourism businesses in the country. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council
(WTTC), the travel and tourism industry in Thailand contributed to the national economy
by 31.7% in 2017, and the industry continued to grow by 6.0% in 2018, making Thailand
one of the top four destinations in worldwide travel and tourism (WTTC, 2019). With the
emerging trend of tour packages, an increased revenue of 27.57% has been added to the
market value, making tourism the second largest pillar of Thailand’s economy (Liu et al.,
2018).
In a highly competitive marketplace, creativity and innovation appear to be vital
means of firm survival, sustainability and future growth (Divisekera and Nguyen,
2018). For example, innovation adoption provides tourism firms with a systematic
mechanism to deal with intense competition. From that, firm managers can respond to
the changing markets more effectively to safeguard business profits. Therefore, the
need to be innovative has become a precondition for managers to sense and respond
to the changing environment effectively. This helps increase the advances in strategic
and operational challenges and leads to a better entrepreneurial performance.
In this study, we develop a model of creative mindset that draws implications for
entrepreneurial success in the context of Thailand’s tourism companies. First, we discuss
the mediating impact of IC on the creative mindset and entrepreneurial success relationship.
Then, we set forth the hypotheses for the proposed research model from the perspective
of implicit theory (IPT), as this provides potential relevance to creativity by enabling
logic, creativity, technology, work and business in a creative and innovation-established
framework in a systematic manner (Hass and Burke, 2016). By adopting IPT, we present
a framework that synthesizes knowledge in the creative mindset and innovation
literature to understand the path to entrepreneurial success in the tourism industry. The
following sections present relevant theories, methodology, results and research
implications.

2. Conceptual background and hypotheses development

We first assess critical literature to position our research’s value and to better
communicate insights to target readers. As shown in Table 1, there has been a strong
interest in published articles on the concept of creativity, relative to entrepreneurial and
business performance and its implementation. The search criteria of literature in Table 1
are keywords related to creative mindset and IC in the tourism sector from journal
articles indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases (Singh et al., 2021). This is
also consistent with the current logic in tourism research according to which identifying
and utilizing available data from various sources could help optimize business decision-
making processes Stylos et al. (2021),
 Examined creative/ Grounded Mediating Analysis
Author (s) Examined innovative variables theory effects Country approach
Divisekera and Innovation process in tourism No/No No No Australia LR
Nguyen (2018) enterprises
Gurel et al. (2010) Entrepreneurial traits, sociocultural No/No No No UK and LR
background and entrepreneurial Turkey
intention
Horng et al. (2015) 4P model with creative process No/No No No Taiwan SEM
Jaiswal and Dhar Transformational leadership No/No No Innovation India Hierarchical
(2015) climate linear
Powell and Eddleston Entrepreneurial success and female No/No No No USA ANCOVA
(2013) entrepreneur
Puente-Díaz and Creative mindset, task approach, Yes/No Implicit theory No Mexico Weighted
Cavazos-Arroyo avoidance achievement goals least squares
(2017)
Sipe (2016) Senior manager, experience economy, No/No No No USA Hierarchical
innovation, leadership and hospitality regression
Sulistyo (2016) Entrepreneurship, marketing No/Yes No No Indonesia PLS
capabilities, relational capital,
empowerment, innovation capability and
performance
Tang et al. (2016) Creative mindset, individualism, Yes/No No Individualism Poland PLS
collectivism and cross-culture and and
collectivism Germany
The authors of the Creative mindset, innovation capability Yes/Yes Implicit theory Innovation Thailand PLS
current study and entrepreneurial success capability

sector
the tourism
Success in
Review of relevant
Table 1.
studies

281
IJCHM resulting in organizational performance and innovation (Thirumalesh Madanaguli et
34,1 al., 2021).
We summarize the findings of previous studies and evaluate their contributions in
terms of the research construct, theory base, mediating effect, countries and analytical
techniques. Most existing research has extensively focused on direct effects and conducted
282 in developed economies (e.g. the USA and UK). We advance the proposed framework
by using IPT to ground the norms of creative mindset, IC and entrepreneurial success
in an emerging
economy context (Thailand). The tourism and entrepreneurship literature also posits
the need to assess creativity and innovation to boost tourism business (Ateljevic and
Page, 2017). Similarly, Fu et al. (2019) indicated that entrepreneurship and its derivatives
help link innovation, competitiveness, productivity and job creation. Thus, we seek to
further this interest by assessing the mediating role of the IC.

2.1 Implicit theory

IPT refers to the personal attributes of individual mindsets that consist of an entity belief
system of intelligence (EBSI) and incremental belief system of intelligence (IBSI)
(Puente- Díaz and Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017). The EBSI is fixed intelligence, whereas the IBSI
pertains to the dynamism and malleability of intelligence to benefit creative activities
and future creative achievements (Desai et al., 2020). In contrast to IBSI, EBSI forms the
malleability of intelligence in which an individual with an incremental belief links
with the capacity of solving problems, whereas an entity mindset contains a resistant
thought (Desai et al., 2020). In tourism and hospitality firms, top managers are required
to possess a creative capacity for entrepreneurial innovation that enables them to improve
their firm performance (Taheri et al., 2019) through resource deployment, service exchange
and value co-creation (Marasco et al., 2018).
Extant literature considers IPT a sustainable source to ground and explain behavior
and creativity. It depicts the central role of personal belief and formulation in the belief
systems of intelligence (Puente-Díaz and Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017). Hass and Burke (2016)
emphasized that IPT visualizes creative achievement, thus enabling people to perform
better or create better creative tasks and solutions (Karwowski, 2014). In the tourism
research context, organizational performance is often derived from entrepreneurs
who possess vision, innovativeness and creativity, as they can recognize and capitalize
on internal and external resources to increase sales and profits (Kallmuenzer et al., 2019).
Additionally, IPT serves as a key indicator of business acumen and influences goals
and technology (Hass and Burke, 2016), thus implicating a part of IC. More typically, IBSI-
based managers perform better in a range of social tasks. Widely acknowledged and
important in creativity assessment, IPT helps us understand the underlying
mechanisms of entrepreneurs’ creativity with critical judgments in performing and
evaluating their innovations (Guo et al., 2019). Thus, IPT is critical in explaining the
creativity and innovation-based research model (Figure 1), as presented in the current
study.

2.2 Creative mindset

Creative mindset refers to a set of beliefs connected with a fixed (stable) versus growth
(malleable) nature of creativity (Karwowski, 2014). From IPT, a person’s fixed mindset is
formed by EBSI, and the growth mindset relates to IBSI. A fixed mindset pertains to
entrepreneurs’ personal attributes (like creative skills and intelligence) that are and
unchangeable, whereas the growth mindset allows entrepreneurs to develop through
knowledge and effective practice strategies (Burnette et al., 2020). Regarding the nature
of creativity, a fixed mindset tends to correlate negatively with self-assessed
everyday
 creativity (Karwowski and Brzeski, 2017); however, the nature of creativity is complex,
in which the fixed mindset and growth mindset correlation is often weak, assuming Success in
their association independence (Karwowski, 2014). the tourism
Fleck and Asmuth (2021) argue that creativity creates fluency, originality and sector
elaboration in producing product ideas that play an important role in the entrepreneurial
process. Based on the tourism human resource view, entrepreneurs are often surrounded by
vision, creativity and innovativeness, which enhance their firm’s operational performance
(Kallmuenzer et al., 2021). Tourism business operations can transform creativity into
innovation and adopt new technologies to boost business activities and respond to 283
changing environment (Divisekera and Nguyen, 2018). The authors conceptualize creative
mindset as a two-dimensional function consisting of a growth mindset and a fixed
mindset. Creativity has become increasingly important in the tourism field, as the
relational forms of tourism based on creativity and knowledge provide creative ideas,
solutions and strategies (Richards, 2014).
Furthermore, at the heart of business growth, creative mindset is a crucial determinant of
better performance for entrepreneurs. By its nature, creative mindset helps build
creative self-efficacy and capabilities for problem-solving solutions and
competitiveness in an entrepreneurial context (Fleck and Asmuth, 2021). A previous
study indicated that creativity generates an entrepreneur’s ability to develop ideas and
enhance performance goals (Puente-Díaz and Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017). According to
Jaiswal and Dhar (2015), creativity benefits business activities by designing and
delivering useful ideas for new product development and innovation. The
entrepreneurship literature on tourism also suggests that creativity and innovation
are necessary drivers of hotel branding that translate into service quality features to
satisfy customers (Peters et al., 2010).
Guided by IPT, the creative mindset contains fixed and growth mindsets (Figure 2),
which are a set of beliefs associated with the nature of creativity. A fixed mindset in EBSI is

Figure 1.
Research model

Figure 2.
Depicting the
mechanism of
creative mindset
IJCHM defined as one in which intelligence is static and criticism is taken negatively, resulting in
34,1 negative predictors in solving insight tasks (Karwowski, 2014). However, the growth
mindset in IBSI retains the intelligence dynamic and receives criticism
constructively. Existing hospitality literature also suggests that the dimensions of
entrepreneurial behaviors exert a significant effect on firm performance through
284 individual behaviors (Do and Luu, 2020). It is significantly associated with innovation
and enables entrepreneurs to implement a new process or method in business
practice, including adaptation in the
tourism business sector (Divisekera and Nguyen, 2018).

2.3 Innovation capability

To achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, firms must engage in periodic
innovation and make IC a key competence (Wang and Dass, 2017). This is because
innovation offers hospitality firms many opportunities to create new services and
personalize customer experiences (Pascual-Fern´andez et al., 2020). IC refers to an
ability or action that can generate and implement the success of innovation activities.
Extant literature argues that entrepreneurship is a critical driver of economic
development and how entrepreneurs successfully enhance employee performance and
production by implementing innovative technologies (Ferreira et al., 2019). Consequently,
innovation is considered a critical strategy for hospitality firms to operate in the long run
(Ouyang et al., 2021).
Prior research has investigated the effect of IC on firm performance through customer
participation and found its effects on firms’ service quality (Taheri et al., 2019). Firms
with innovation activities would increase their innovation performance (Geldes et al.,
2017). Existing entrepreneurship literature on tourism also suggests that IC provides
new and creative ideas that may lead to improvements of products, services and
technology adoptions (Kallmuenzer et al., 2019). However, although firms can develop their
IC in various ways, little is known about the relationship between creative mindset and
entrepreneurial success. In addition, few studies have considered the role of
entrepreneurial creativity in building a firm’s IC (Wang and Dass, 2017). Thus, the
underlying mechanism behind IC’s contribution to firm development remains to be
fully explored.
From an innovation-based perspective, entrepreneurs are seen as innovators who
integrate organizational resources to create innovations toward pursuing market
opportunities and firm performance (Farmaki et al., 2020). Ngo and O’Cass (2013) argued
that entrepreneurs may advance the role of technology in the IC and firm performance
relationship. Many advocate that tourism firms need more empirical evidence about
innovation to quantify and assess business performance. The desire to create an IC to
drive a firm’s business will produce the necessary organizational culture and learning to
achieve and maintain its performance. The IC is considered a one-dimensional construct
consisting of technical and non-technical innovation capabilities.
First, technical innovation capability (TIC) refers to a core asset or resource that
includes knowledge, technology, products or even operational processes (Geldes et al.,
2017). These issues can adapt and undertake innovation to develop new services, service
operations and technology. The TIC comprises product and process innovations,
which guide new technologies, products and knowledge. Such capabilities are also
associated with product and process innovations, enabling linking of new technology
development and application (Geldes et al., 2017).
Second, non-technical innovation capability (NTIC) is the ability to achieve higher
performance and enhance the operational quality of companies, including marketing and
organizational innovations (Ngo and O’Cass, 2013). The NTIC can be implemented in
new organization methods as well as in new marketing methods (Camis´on and Villar-L´opez,
2011).
Augmenting appropriate capabilities will help establish sustainable competitive
advantage, thereby increasing the firm’s growth and performance. Thus, firms Success in
emphasizing TIC and NTIC will increase their competitive advantages in the marketplace, the tourism
warranting long-term success (Wang and Dass, 2017). sector
2.4 Hypotheses development
Entrepreneurial success is a comparison of entrepreneurs’ achievements, assessed
by
285
measuring economic and entrepreneurial satisfaction with experience (Powell and Eddleston,
2013). Entrepreneurs are individuals who greatly contribute to the economy and society.
In different stages, entrepreneurs have various roles and duties, including
conceptualizing business vision and process, and planning and implementing business
operations (Przepiorka, 2017). In this study, entrepreneurial success was considered a
subjective and objective indicator. As argued by Staniewski and Awruk (2018),
subjective indicators often showcase the satisfaction levels that relate to business growths,
number of customers, employees’ task accomplishment and planned goals. Moreover,
objective indicators pertain to operational perspectives, including a registered office,
employees, job positions and finance that create a long-term relationship with stakeholders
(Staniewski and Awruk, 2018).
Dynamism in the tourism business caused by globalization, mergers and acquisitions
and technological changes has challenged entrepreneurs to be more innovative in creating
their business’ incremental wealth (Sulistyo, 2016). As previously described, the
creativity-based IPT consists of EBSI and IBSI. More specifically, EBSI believes that
intelligence is fixed, and IBSI believes that intelligence is dynamic and malleable. A person
with an incremental belief will pursue tasks effectively, whereas an entity mindset acts
negatively in solving tasks. Creative mindset is important for entrepreneurs to
transform creativity into innovation, leading to the growth of business benefits in the
marketplace. The entrepreneurs’ success is associated with creativity, innovation and
opportunity seeking (Gurel et al., 2010). However, the relationship between creative
mindset and entrepreneurial success remains unclear. In the following section, we develop
hypotheses for the IC role at the component level.
Mediating effect of TIC. Innovation implements new ideas and applications into an
operational process, which becomes strategically important for service industries (Divisekera
and Nguyen, 2018). In the tourism business today, there has been an increase in
technology adoption to drive changes or trends, enabling adopters to take economic
advantages (Sipe, 2016). TIC is a type of special assets/resource that integrates
technology, product, process, knowledge, experience and organization. For example,
product innovation involves differentiation and new markets, leading to increased
sales for the firm (Divisekera and Nguyen, 2018). Individuals with a growth mindset
believe that creativity can improve and develop a creative process. Horng et al. (2015)
found that people tend to be affected through creative processes (e.g. idea generation),
which in turn influences product outputs of creativity. Based on IPT, the belief in the
growth mindset would benefit creative activities and future creative achievements, thus
influencing technology (Hass and Burke, 2016). Recently, technology (e.g. e-marketing) has
increased efficiency for both firms and tourists (Divisekera and Nguyen, 2018). The linkage
of growth mindset and innovation creates hospitality experiences by integrating
guests, employees and experiential offerings (Sipe, 2016). For example, the
innovativeness of a service can determine the position of an organization and strengthen
its relationships with its members (Randhawa et al., 2016). Hence, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H1a. TIC positively mediates the relationship between growth mindset and
entrepreneurial success.
IJCHM Innovation is also the way entrepreneurs search for new opportunities or bring ideas to
34,1 a profitable conclusion. Adopting innovations can ensure their firm businesses for long-
term growth and sustainability (Divisekera and Nguyen, 2018). In particular, tourism
companies must provide experiences and satisfaction for their tourists because of the
power of word of mouth and the community (Gurel et al., 2010). Typically, creative
mindsets have social or economic implications, as seemingly developed under cultural
286 influences. In addition, a fixed mindset is more prevalent in individualistic cultures and
societies (Tang et al., 2016),
and the nature of intellectual abilities by IPT affects behavior performance and goal
orientation.
According to Puente-Díaz and Cavazos-Arroyo (2017), a fixed mindset pertains to
perceptions of goal achievement approaches (e.g. task performance). Even so,
existing theoretical developments on TICs have not suggested an empirical link
between fixed mindset and entrepreneurial success systematically. However, Gurel et al.
(2010) indicated a positive effect of innovativeness on entrepreneurial intention,
whereas Ngo and O’Cass (2013) used IC as a key factor for measuring firm
performance and success. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1b. TIC positively mediates the relationship between fixed mindset and
entrepreneurial success.
Mediating effect of NTIC. IC can develop in various ways, such as knowledge
acquisition, routines and process integration, to facilitate firm-level innovation (Ngo and
O’Cass, 2013). A consideration of NTIC is critical to understanding innovation and its
impact on a firm’s competitiveness. For example, NTIC promotes firms’
opportunities to sustain their competitive advantages from both the organization and
the market (Camis´on and Villar- L´opez, 2011) and enables them to increase their
sales (Divisekera and Nguyen, 2018). In recent years, creativity has become a focal point
in tourism development (Richards, 2014). The IBSI generates future creative activities.
That is, belief in the growth mindset improves creativity and skills. In a highly competitive
environment, the tourism business is one of the key indicators for many economies
(Ghalia and Fidrmuc, 2018), where IC enables them to achieve sustainable growth
(Divisekera and Nguyen, 2018), and has been considered a critical factor for firms to
safeguard their future businesses in the marketplace. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is proposed:

H2a. NTIC positively mediates the relationship between growth mindset and
entrepreneurial success.
Entrepreneur belief relates to the strength of a person’s belief in achieving success
(Staniewski and Awruk, 2018). Based on IPT, EBSI is derived from ideas in which
intelligence is fixed (Puente-Díaz and Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017), and not much can be
improved. Individual entrepreneurs with fixed mindsets often disengage from their
current task, resulting in poor and negative performance outcomes (Tang et al., 2016). In
individual belief, creativity cannot improve the leading innovation mechanism into
creative destruction. In tourism business, this destruction mechanism includes a new
product, new market, new sources of supply and new market structures (Divisekera and
Nguyen, 2018).
However, Karwowski (2014) found no differences in creative problem-solving among
employees. A strong fixed mindset employee tends to accept assigned goals by utilizing
reference standards to determine creativity value in task accomplishments. In addition,
this mindset further enhances an individual competence to achieve desired goals in
daily routines (Puente-Díaz and Cavazos-Arroyo, 2017). Accordingly, NTIC has the
potential to
create innovations in organizational management and marketing. Therefore the
following hypothesis is proposed: Success in
the tourism
H2b. NTIC positively mediates the relationship between fixed mindset and sector
entrepreneurial success.
Furthermore, as a source of creativity, a creative mindset can be viewed as an
individual’s capacity to produce novel and appropriate ideas to foster possible
outcomes (Tang et al., 2016). Creative mindset motivates entrepreneurial activities because
it contains a function of both self-appraisal and relationally derived social construction to 287
cultivate and boost self- competence in the development and implementation of new ideas
(Tantawy et al., 2021). The existing literature argues that a growth creative mindset
enables entrepreneurs to engage more intensively in various creative tasks, whereas
fixed creative mindsets tend to avoid complex and difficult tasks (Karwowski and
Brzeski, 2017). For instance, research on entrepreneurship careers suggests that people
with a fixed mindset focus on outperforming their colleagues, proving their ability and
avoiding mistakes, whereas people with a growth mindset focus on learning and
adopting mastery-oriented techniques to improve their performance (Burnette et al.,
2020). Given this discussion, we hypothesize the following:

H3a. Fixed mindset positively relates to entrepreneurial success.

H3b. Growth mindset positively relates to entrepreneurial success.

3. Methods
3.1 Measures
First, we adopted the scales of Karwowski (2014) to measure the creative mindset. We
used five items to form the growth mindset and five for the fixed mindset. The
adopted scales helped measure the constructs effectively, offering interesting
potential insights about creative mindsets with critical guidelines. Second, we extracted
the items from the work of Ngo and O’Cass (2013), including TIC and NTIC, to measure
IC. More specifically, the TIC contains four items and the NTIC contains five. The
selected scales provide significant benefits for applying knowledge and generating
skills. Third, we measured entrepreneurial success using subjective and objective
indicators adopted from Staniewski and Awruk (2018). This development of
psychometric analysis with respect to entrepreneurial perspectives provides a reliable
measure and quantifier of entrepreneurial success. We detail the research items in Table 3.

3.2 Survey design

A questionnaire was used as the key means for data collection. The clarity and readability
of the surveyed items were carried out by consulting one professor and two academic
experts, who specialized in psychology, hospitality and tourism and marketing disciplines.
We then translated the questionnaire from English into Thai, as we conducted the survey
in Thailand. We submitted the items that received high ratings to the second panelist
consisting of a psychologist and a firm manager who are recognized authorities in the
tourism business. They offered further recommendations regarding the consistency of the
subjects. A pre-test was conducted on 24 tourism company owners. We recorded the
responses using a seven- point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
The question items were further reconsidered and refined based on the
respondents’ comments. In the reliability test, six items (GM3, FM1, NTIC3, SI4, OI1
and OI4) received
IJCHM weak dedications and were thus eliminated. We accordingly revised and completed the final
34,1 instrument for further examinations. The sample consisted of 176 tourism companies
in Thailand. We chose Thailand’s tourism sector because of its rapid growth, and few
provided empirical evidence. It is also one of the most attractive sectors within the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
288 3.3 Data collection
A sample of 181 tourism companies was assessed by hiring a group of research
experts. Before data collection, we conducted a power analysis to estimate the sample
size for four predictors with an a of 5% and a power 1 — b of 95% (Faul et al., 2009).
The results required a total sample of 89, whereas we received 176 valid responses
from 181 invitees (97.2% response rate), surpassing the required sample size for further
analyses. The key respondents were tourism company owners for several reasons. First,
we focused on the perceived knowledge of entrepreneurs in the tourism industry, as
they have a solid and compelling understanding of their business operations and
profitability.
Second, tourism company owners have accumulated outstanding experiences
through their business practices, as they can demonstrate resilience, adaptability and
ability to handle failure, thus providing a better perspective on strategy and
management practices. We then used Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al.,
2003) to examine the bias possibility for a six-factor solution. The results indicated no
major factor that explained over 50% of the variance, suggesting that bias issues were
not the case in this study. The respondent characteristics are provided in Table 2.

3.4 Analytical technique

We estimated the model using partial least square (PLS), a component-based
structural equation modeling method that allows for optimizing the measurement
model, fitting the theoretical exploration and representing both formative and
reflective latent constructs (Hair et al., 2011). This technique explains not only the
covariation between all indicators, but also the causal relationships among the research
constructs. The PLS technique works effectively with a small sample size and complex
mode, which is the case in our study. We assessed the path significance using bootstrap
statistics with 5,000 resamples and 176 cases per sample, in which Model 2 added the
controlling effects of personal and company profiles. The inclusion of control variables in
Model 2 ensured that the research results are not biased because of covariance with other
variables (Cooper and Schindler, 2013).

4. Analysis and results

4.1 Measurement model
Following Benitez et al. (2020), we assessed the quality of measurement using a set of
factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). Table 3
showed that the AVE and CR values were above 0.50 and 0.70 (Hair et al., 2011),
respectively. Thus, the research model was reliable and convergently valid. We also
calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each construct (highest VIF = 1.9), which
was below 5, as suggested by Hair et al. (2011). Given these findings, multicollinearity was
not a concern.
Furthermore, we assessed discriminant validity to evaluate whether the constructs were
statistically different using both the square root of the AVE and the heterotrait–
tomonotrait (HTMT) ratio (Benitez et al., 2020). Table 4 indicate that the square roots
of AVEs were higher than the correlations of others, whereas the highest HTMT (0.733)
was far below the
0.85 benchmark, thereby confirming discriminant validity. We also determined how well
the measured model fits the data using the standard root mean square (SRMR)
criterion
Characteristic Category Frequency (%)
Success in
the tourism
Gender Male 61 34.7 sector
Female 115 65.3
Age Under 30 62 35.2
years
31–40 years 61 34.7
41–50 years 31 17.6 289
51–60 years 17 9.7
Over 60 years 5 2.8
Education Below 41 23.3
bachelor
degree
Bachelor 114 64.8
degree
Master degree 20 11.4
Doctoral 1 0.6
degree
and
postdoc
Work experience Under 3 years 35 19.9
3– 7 years 45 25.6
8–12 years 34 19.3
13–20 years 38 21.6
Over 20 years 24 13.6
Type of company Single owner 78 44.3
Partnership 24 13.6
Company 65 36.9
Public 9 5.1
company
Type of tour operation Area 54 30.7
Domestic 40 22.7
Inbound 13
7.4
Outbound 69 39.2
Business age Under 5 years 33 18.8
5–10 years 52 29.5
11–15 years 39 22.2
16–20 years 16 9.1
Over 20 years 36 20.5
Number of employees 10 and under 99 56.3 Table 2.
11–20 30 17.0 Demographic
21–50 29 16.5 characteristics
Over 50 18 10.2

(Benitez et al., 2020) in which a set of X2 = 806.29, NFI = 0.75 and SRMR = 0.08 appeared to
satisfy the model fit.

4.2 Structural results

We adopted the PLS analytical procedure (Benitez et al., 2020), using path coefficient
estimation, in which the conclusions were drawn from the bootstrapping confidence
interval. Figure 3 shows that the model explained 35.70% of R2 in TIC, 25.70% in NTIC
and 56.20% of R2 in entrepreneurial success. H1a and H1b, which stated that TIC
positively mediates the relationship between growth mindset (b = 0.564, p < 0.01) and
fixed mindset
 290

34,1
IJCHM
measurement
Construct
Table 3.
Constructs items Loadings t-value

Growth mindset (CR = 0.912, AVE = 0.722)

GM1 Everyone can create something great at some point if given appropriate conditions 0.847 34.660
GM2 Anyone can develop their creative abilities up to a certain level 0.830 30.012
GM3 Practice makes perfect – perseverance and hard work are the best ways to develop and expand one’s capabilities. (Deleted item)
GM4 Rome was not built in a day – creativity requires effort and work, and these two are more important than talent 0.906 52.771
GM5 It does not matter what creativity level one has – you can always increase it 0.813 28.176
Fixed mindset (CR = 0.848, AVE = 0.585)
FM1 You either are creative or you are not even trying very hard you cannot change much. (Deleted item)
FM2 You have to be born a creator – without innate talent you can only be a scribbler 0.714 6.365
FM3 Creativity can be developed, but one either is or is not a truly creative person 0.681 7.141
FM4 Some people are creative, others are not – and no practice can change it 0.728 6.401
FM5 A truly creative talent is innate and constant throughout one’s entire life 0.911 12.149
Technical innovation capability (CR = 0.933, AVE = 0.777)
TIC1 Our business uses knowledge to engage in technical innovations (e.g. new service, service operations and technology) much better than major competitors 0.873 44.530
TIC2 Our business uses skills to engage in technical innovations (e.g. new service, service operations and technology) much better than major competitors 0.889 48.054
TIC3 Service innovations of our business are much better than major competitors 0.891 50.899
TIC4 Service operations and technology of our business are much better than major competitors 0.872 38.782
Non-technical innovation capability (CR = 0.876, AVE = 0.640)
NTIC1 Our business uses knowledge to engage in non-technical innovation (e.g. managerial, market, marketing) much better than major competitors 0.738 13.029
NTIC2 Our business uses skills to engage in non-technical innovation (e.g. managerial, market, marketing) much better than major competitors 0.775 14.862
NTIC3 Managerial innovations of our business are much better than major competitors. (Deleted item)
NTIC4 Market innovations of our business are much better than major competitors 0.827 28.376
NTIC5 Marketing innovations of our business are much better than major competitors 0.858 38.779
Subjective indicators (CR = 0.934, AVE = 0.780)
SI1 I am satisfied with the way my business developed 0.895 54.009
SI2 I am satisfied with the number of clients in my business 0.875 34.806
SI3 I am satisfied with the outcome of tasks performed by employees 0.882 47.940
SI4 I am satisfied with the competitiveness of the company. (Deleted item)
SI5 I am satisfied with the attainment of established business development goals 0.879 41.541
Objective indicators (CR = 0.920, AVE = 0.699)
OI1 I am satisfied with my company profit. (Deleted item)
OI2 I am satisfied that my company already has a registered office 0.844 31.492
OI3 I am satisfied having employees in my company 0.828 28.491
OI4 I am satisfied with the job positions my company created. (Deleted item)
OI5 I am satisfied that my company has maintained financial liquidity 0.822 25.427
OI6 I am satisfied that my company offers benefits to employees (e.g. laptop) 0.827 18.795
OI7 I am satisfied with my company maintaining long-term cooperation with clients (e.g. longer than one year) 0.857 40.809
(b = 0.263, p < 0.01), and entrepreneurial success (b = 0.219, p < 0.01), were
supported. Next, H2a and H2b, which suggested that NTIC positively mediates the Success in
relationship between growth mindset (b = 0.442, p < 0.01) and fixed mindset (b = the tourism
0.263, p < 0.01), and entrepreneurial success (b = 0.345, p < 0.01), were also sector
supported. Given these findings, creative mindset and IC are important in facilitating
entrepreneurial success.
In addition, we found that a fixed mindset did not affect entrepreneurial success (H3a:
b = —0.061, p > 0.05). However, we found strong support for H3b, which stated that
a growth mindset appears to positively relate to entrepreneurial success (b = 0.344, p <
0.01). These findings indicate that growth mindset is an important focal driver of 291
entrepreneurial
success in tourism companies. We further found that personal profile exerted its
controlling effects on growth mindset through gender (b = 0.182, p < 0.05) and
education (b = 0.139, p < 0.10), whereas none of the controlling effects on fixed
mindset was significant. This suggests that gender and education are necessary to
create growth mindset. Only one
control variable of company profile, type of company, had a significant negative effect on
entrepreneurial success (b = —0.134, p < 0.05). This is perhaps because many
tourism companies are relatively young (e.g. 19.9% under three years and 25.6%
between 3 and 7 years of establishment; Table 2) requiring more nourishing
competence to grow. The research results are presented in Table 5.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 Highest HTMT
1. Growth mindset 5.413 1.150 0.849
2. Fixed mindset 4.183 1.274 0.013 0.763 0.206
3. TIC 5.099 1.077 0.540 0.275 0.882 0.604
4. NTIC 4.789 1.054 0.437 0.258 0.609 0.801 0.509
5. SI 4.970 1.200 0.410 0.135 0.450 0.619 0.883 0.698
6. OI 5.390 1.062 0.647 0.069 0.572 0.550 0.660 0.836 0.733

Notes: Italic values on the diagonal represent the square root of AVE, whereas the other matrix entries Table 4.
represent the correlations, SI = subjective indicators, OI = objective indicators
Discriminant validity

Figure 3.
Research model
results
 292

34,1
IJCHM
results
Hypotheses testing
Table 5.

Model 1 Model 2
Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial
TIC NTIC success GM FM TIC NTIC success
Control variables
Gender 0.182** 0.098
Age 0.106 —0.034
Education 0.139* 0.008
Work experience 0.131 —0.142
Type of company —0.134**
Type of tour operation —0.055
Business age 0.075
Number of employees 0.093

Independent variables
Growth mindset (GM) 0.534*** 0.430*** 0.360*** 0.564*** 0.442*** 0.344***
Fixed mindset (FM) 0.270*** 0.252*** —0.053 0.263*** 0.263*** —0.061

Mediating variables
Technical innovation capability (TIC) 0.169** 0.219***
Non-technical innovation capability (NTIC) 0.370*** 0.345***

Model statistics
R2 36.60% 25.40% 54.00% 35.70% 25.70% 56.20%

Notes: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

5. Discussion and conclusions reduce
5.1 Conclusions common
This study aimed to provide a model of a creative mindset and its application to the method
tourism businesses in Thailand. Drawing from IPT, we have systematically and sufficiently variance
proposed a conceptual model for the relationship between creative mindset and while
entrepreneurial success. Given these findings, IC appears to positively mediate the proposed helping
relationship. Accordingly, we contribute to theory and practice, as well as directions for entrepreneu
future research. rs increase
their
5.2 Theoretical implications managerial
Today’s business dynamism challenges entrepreneurs’ creativity and performance
in achieving their business goals. Given these findings, we provide a better
understanding of how entrepreneurial success is predicted in the context of tourism
businesses. First, we adopted IPT to advance the creative research-based framework by
assessing the components of creative mindset and IC for entrepreneurial success
(Karwowski, 2014; Ngo and O’Cass, 2013; Staniewski and Awruk, 2018). From our
research findings, IPT serves as a critical means of assessing creative and innovative-
based research models in the tourism sector. We also take IPT one step further in
assessing the initial drivers of entrepreneurial success.
Second, our study finds that technical and non-technical innovation capabilities
positively mediate the relationship between growth and fixed mindsets and entrepreneurial
success. These mediating effects imply that a creative mindset is an important source of
IC that leads to successful entrepreneurship. Ngo and O’Cass (2013) indicated that
previous studies have paid much attention to technical innovation, and not to non-
technical innovation, in enhancing an organization’s superior performance. From a
competitive-based standpoint, innovation is a critical source of attracting new customers,
creating new market opportunities and improving firm profits (Horng et al., 2018).
Drawing on IPT, our findings advance the idea that creative mindset acts as a critical
focal driver of IC to enhance entrepreneurial success in the context of the tourism industry.
This is consistent with Alford and Duan (2018) and Anning-Dorson and Nyamekye
(2020), who argued that IC plays an important role in creating competitive advantages
for hospitality firms.
Third, our findings on the component of creative mindset showed that a fixed
mindset
does not directly influence entrepreneurial success. On the contrary, the growth mindset
appears to exert a strong effect on entrepreneurial success. A previous study suggested
that creativity drives organizational innovation that leads to firm performance and
allows hospitality firms to operate globally (Ouyang et al., 2021). Pascual-Fern´andez et
al. (2020) also argued that creativity helps reinforce the provision of superior value by
embracing service innovation and proper responsiveness. Thus, our results indicate
that a growth mindset is conducive to facilitating entrepreneurial success. This finding
is in line with the interpretation of the creative mindset concept proposed by
Burnette et al. (2020), who emphasized the importance of a growth mindset in
leveraging entrepreneurial self-efficacy and persistence in the context of pursuing
entrepreneurship goals.
Our study also contributes to the empirical setting. Creative mindset was measured as
a
second-order construct using two formative mindsets (a growth and fixed mindset),
to facilitate IC, which is also a second-order consisting of technical and non-technical
innovation capabilities. This setting fits well with the PLS analytical technique for
measuring formative variables in an empirical estimation model (Benitez et al., 2020). In
addition, our empirical model includes both mediating and controlling effects that provide
intervention conditions under which entrepreneurial success is facilitated. Such effects could
Success in the tourism sector

293
IJCHM effectiveness (Palmatier, 2016). Thus, future tourism researchers should consider
34,1 investigating our empirical setting (e.g. moderating variables) more closely.

5.3 Practical implications

Given these findings, the implications for tour entrepreneurs are clear. First, there is a
need to encourage creative abilities to develop a relationship between creative mindset
294 and IC. A relative growth mindset can result in better entrepreneurial success (Desai et
al., 2020). Therefore, entrepreneurs should explore appropriate conditions to enhance
their growth mindset, such as dedicating and persevering. This will enable them to
embed creative skills in practical business strategy implementation. The increasingly
changing globalization creates more challenges for entrepreneurs. We suggest that
entrepreneurs position themselves as a key factor in improving firm performance.
There is ample scope in entrepreneurial issues, most commonly applied in terms of
subjective and objective indicators. Given the subjective aspects, entrepreneurs could develop
their employee’s task-solving ability and obtain business goal by encouraging creative
ideas that are consistent with corporate objectives (Staniewski and Awruk, 2018). In
addition, we recommend that entrepreneurs cultivate objective aspects, such as
company policy and regulation (e.g. registered office, profit, financial liquidity),
employee reward system (e.g. benefits to employees) and market performance (e.g.
maintaining long-term cooperation with clients).
Second, IC appears to mediate the relationship between creative mindsets and
entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurs should seek, commit and improve their
innovation capabilities to boost their organizational performance (Anning-Dorson and
Nyamekye, 2020). Focusing on the component level, tourism entrepreneurs should
recognize and capitalize on innovation opportunities before competitors do so, through
technical innovation capabilities. In so doing, they have to commit efforts to use knowledge
and skills for new services, service operations and technology acquisitions. For
example, engaging innovation in tourism business operations leads to better
performance than that of major competitors (Alford and Duan, 2018). In terms of non-
technical IC, entrepreneurs should focus strategically on managerial or marketing
activities to generate their firm’s related innovation in management, market entry and
marketing. Thus, entrepreneurs should devote greater support to innovation activities to
more efficiently enhance organizational success.
Third, to the extent that gender and education positively affect the growth mindset,
entrepreneurs should take the differential gender into account and educate themselves to
build a strong and compelling knowledge in understanding such gender traits and skills.
Moreover, the more education obtained, the more the growth mindset increases. We
suggest that entrepreneurs investigate an unexplored area, where a negative relative
type of company is applied to entrepreneurial success. To this end, entrepreneurs should
invest more resources in education and more strategically about the type of company
that would be especially for capturing the developmental aspects of creative mindset and
entrepreneurial success.

5.4 Limitations and future research

Future research can take advantage of this study by addressing several issues. First,
this study was conducted with entrepreneurs of tourism companies in Thailand. The
characteristics of entrepreneurs in Thai tourism companies might not apply to those in other
countries and cultures that are distinct from Thailand. Second, the sample was drawn
from a single industry (tourism business), and the results may narrow the
generalizability. Thus, future research should consider conducting a cross-national
study (e.g. comparison of
 developed and emerging economies and in different industries), so that the findings could be
cross-validated and applied. Success in
Third, few of the control variables were statistically linked with creative mindset the tourism
and entrepreneurial success; however, future research can take this investigation sector
further by including firm capital to determine the effect on the proposed model. Fourth,
our study had a small sample size (176 tourism companies), future research should
consider conducting a larger sample to enhance the empirical interpretability. Finally, this
study used questionnaires for data collection. However, future research could include
secondary data such as financial and sales reports to measure entrepreneurial success. 295

References
Alford, P. and Duan, Y. (2018), “Understanding collaborative innovation from a dynamic capabilities
perspective”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No.
6,
pp. 2396-2416.
Anning-Dorson, T. and Nyamekye, M.B. (2020), “Be flexible: turning innovativeness into competitive
advantage in hospitality firms”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 605-624.
Ateljevic, J. and Page, S.J. (2017), Tourism and Entrepreneurship, Routledge.
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A. and Schuberth, F. (2020), “How to perform and report an
impactful analysis using partial least squares: guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory is
research”, Information and Management, Vol. 57 No. 2, p. 103168.
Burnette, J.L., Pollack, J.M., Forsyth, R.B., Hoyt, C.L., Babij, A.D., Thomas, F.N. and Coy, A.E. (2020),
“A growth mindset intervention: enhancing students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
career development”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 878-908.
Camis´on, C. and Villar-L´opez, A. (2011), “Non-technical innovation: organizational memory and
learning capabilities as antecedent factors with effects on sustained competitive
advantage”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1294-1304.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P. (2013), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill.
Cortese, D., Giacosa, E. and Cantino, V. (2021), “Knowledge sharing for coopetition in
tourist destinations: the difficult path to the network”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol.
15 No. 2,
pp. 275-286.
Desai, N., Jain, S.P., Jain, S. and Tripathy, A. (2020), “The impact of implicit theories of personality
malleability on opportunistic financial reporting”, Journal of Business Research, Vol.
116,
pp. 258-265.
DiLiello, T.C. and Houghton, J.D. (2006), “Maximizing organizational leadership capacity for the
future: toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and creativity”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 319-337.
Divisekera, S. and Nguyen, V.K. (2018), “Determinants of innovation in tourism evidence from
Australia”, Tourism Management, Vol. 67, pp. 157-167.
Do, T.T.P. and Luu, D.T. (2020), “Origins and consequences of intrapreneurship with behaviour-based
approach among employees in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 3949-3969.
Farmaki, A., Altinay, L., Christou, P. and Kenebayeva, A. (2020), “Religion and entrepreneurship in
hospitality and tourism”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 148-172.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. and Lang, A.-G. (2009), “Statistical power analyses using G*power
3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 1149-1160.
IJCHM Ferreira, J.J., Fernandes, C.I. and Kraus, S. (2019), “Entrepreneurship research: mapping
34,1 intellectual structures and research trends”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp.
181-205.
Fleck, E. and Asmuth, J. (2021), “Building capacity for creativity: rediscovering the inner ‘superhero’
as a mechanism for developing a creative mindset for entrepreneurial problem-solving”,
Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 82-95.
296 Fu, H., Okumus, F., Wu, K. and Kö seoglu, M.A. (2019), “The entrepreneurship research in
hospitality and tourism”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 78, pp. 1-12.
Geldes, C., Felzensztein, C. and Palacios-Fenech, J. (2017), “Technological and non-technological
innovations, performance and propensity to innovate across industries: the case of an
emerging economy”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 61, pp. 55-66.
Ghalia, T. and Fidrmuc, J. (2018), “The curse of tourism?”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 979-996.
Guo, J., Ge, Y. and Pang, W. (2019), “The underlying cognitive mechanisms of the rater effect in
creativity assessment: the mediating role of perceived semantic distance”, Thinking Skills and
Creativity, Vol. 33, p. 100572.
Gurel, E., Altinay, L. and Daniele, R. (2010), “Tourism students’ entrepreneurial intentions”, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 646-669.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hass, R.W. and Burke, S. (2016), “Implicit theories of creativity are differentially categorized by
perspective and exemplar domain”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 19, pp. 219-231.
Horng, J.-S., Liu, C.-H.S., Chou, S.-F., Tsai, C.-Y. and Hu, D.-C. (2018), “Developing a sustainable service
innovation framework for the hospitality industry”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 455-474.
Horng, J.-S., Tsai, C.-Y., Liu, C.-H. and Chung, D.Y.-C. (2015), “Measuring employee’s creativity: a
new theoretical model and empirical study for tourism industry”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, Vol. 20 No. 12, pp. 1353-1373.
Jaiswal, N.K. and Dhar, R.L. (2015), “Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative
self- efficacy and employee creativity: a multilevel study”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 51, pp. 30-41.
Kallmuenzer, A., Kraus, S., Peters, M., Steiner, J. and Cheng, C.-F. (2019), “Entrepreneurship in
tourism firms: a mixed-methods analysis of performance driver configurations”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 74, pp. 319-330.
Kallmuenzer, A., Baptista, R., Kraus, S., Ribeiro, A.S., Cheng, C.-F. and Westhead, P. (2021),
“Entrepreneurs’ human capital resources and tourism firm sales growth: a fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 38, p. 100801.
Karwowski, M. (2014), “Creative mindsets: measurement, correlates, consequences”, Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 62.
Karwowski, M. and Brzeski, A. (2017), “Chapter 21 – creative mindsets: prospects and challenges”,
in Karwowski, M. and Kaufman, J.C. (Eds), The Creative Self, Academic Press, San
Diego,
pp. 367-383.
Kraus, S., Roig-Tierno, N. and Bouncken, R.B. (2019), “Digital innovation and venturing: an
introduction into the digitalization of entrepreneurship”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol.
13 No. 3, pp. 519-528.
Liu, Y., Li, Y. and Parkpian, P. (2018), “Inbound tourism in Thailand: market form and scale
differentiation in ASEAN source countries”, Tourism Management, Vol. 64, pp. 22-36.
Marasco, A., De Martino, M., Magnotti, F. and Morvillo, A. (2018), “Collaborative innovation in
tourism and hospitality: a systematic review of the literature”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 2364-2395.
Ngo, L.V. and O’Cass, A. (2013), “Innovation and business success: the mediating role of
customer participation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1134-1142. Success in
Ouyang, X., Liu, Z. and Gui, C. (2021), “Creativity in the hospitality and tourism industry: a the tourism
meta- analysis”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. sector
Palmatier, R.W. (2016), “Improving publishing success at JAMS: contribution and positioning”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 655-659.
Palos-Sanchez, P., Saura, J.R. and Correia, M.B. (2021), “Do tourism applications’ quality and
user experience influence its acceptance by tourists?”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol.
15 No. 5,
pp. 1205-1241.
297
Pascual-Fern´andez, P., Santos-Vijande, M.L. and L´opez-S´anchez, J.Á . (2020), “Harnessing
innovation success in hotels: the interplay among key drivers of new service performance”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 2757-2776.
Peters, M., Pfurtscheller, A., Wong, K. and Kraus, S. (2010), “The influence of entrepreneurial
branding on entrepreneurial/growth orientations: an empirical study in the Austrian
tourism industry”, International Journal of Business Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 28-29.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
Powell, G.N. and Eddleston, K.A. (2013), “Linking family-to-business enrichment and support to
entrepreneurial success: do female and male entrepreneurs experience different outcomes?”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 261-280.
Przepiorka, A.M. (2017), “Psychological determinants of entrepreneurial success and life-satisfaction”,
Current Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 304-315.
Puente-Díaz, R. and Cavazos-Arroyo, J. (2017), “The influence of creative mindsets on
achievement goals, enjoyment, creative self-efficacy and performance among business
students”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 24, pp. 1-11.
Randhawa, P., Kim, M., Voorhees, C.M., Cichy, R.F., Koenigsfeld, J.P. and Perdue, J. (2016), “Hospitality
service innovations in private clubs”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 93-110.
Richards, G. (2014), “Creativity and tourism in the city”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 17 No.
2,
pp. 119-144.
Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J. and Mayr, P. (2021), “The journal coverage of web of
science, scopus and dimensions: a comparative analysis”, Scientometrics, Vol. 126 No.
6,
pp. 5113-5142.
Sipe, L.J. (2016), “How do senior managers influence experience innovation? Insights from a hospitality
marketplace”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 54, pp. 75-83.
Staniewski, M.W. and Awruk, K. (2018), “Questionnaire of entrepreneurial success – report on
the initial stage of method construction”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 88, pp. 437-442.
Stylos, N., Zwiegelaar, J. and Buhalis, D. (2021), “Big data empowered agility for dynamic, volatile,
and time-sensitive service industries: the case of tourism sector”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 1015-1036.
Sulistyo, H. (2016), “Innovation capability of SMEs through entrepreneurship, marketing capability,
relational capital and empowerment”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 21 No.
4,
pp. 196-203.
Taheri, B., Bititci, U., Gannon, M.J. and Cordina, R. (2019), “Investigating the influence of performance
measurement on learning, entrepreneurial orientation and performance in turbulent
markets”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp.
1224-1246.
Tang, M., Werner, C. and Karwowski, M. (2016), “Differences in creative mindset between
Germany and Poland: the mediating effect of individualism and collectivism”, Thinking
Skills and Creativity, Vol. 21, pp. 31-40.
IJCHM Tantawy, M., Herbert, K., McNally, J.J., Mengel, T., Piperopoulos, P. and Foord, D. (2021),
34,1 “Bringing creativity back to entrepreneurship education: creative self-efficacy, creative
process engagement, and entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing
Insights, Vol. 15,
p. e00239.
Thirumalesh Madanaguli, A., Kaur, P., Bresciani, S. and Dhir, A. (2021), “Entrepreneurship in rural
298 hospitality and tourism. A systematic literature review of past achievements and future
promises”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 8,
pp. 2521-2558.
Wang, X. and Dass, M. (2017), “Building innovation capability: the role of top management
innovativeness and relative-exploration orientation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 76,
pp. 127-135.
WTTC (2019), “Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2019”, World Travel and Tourism Council,
London.

About the authors

Natthawut Yodchai is Doctoral Candidate in the Faculty of Business Administration at Ton Duc
Thang University in Vietnam. His research interests include business psychology, tourism
business and social behavior.
Lobel Trong Thuy Tran is Lecturer in the Faculty of Business Administration at Ton Duc
Thang University in Vietnam. He received his PhD in the Department of Business
Administration at Asia University in Taiwan. His research interests include marketing strategy,
consumer and social media, education marketing, tourism and hospitality innovation, decision-
making under uncertainties and organizational behavior and HRM. Lobel Trong Thuy Tran is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: ltthtran@tdtu.edu.vn
Pham Thi Minh Ly serves as the Dean of Faculty of Business Administration, Ton Duc Thang
University, Vietnam. She received her PhD from Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. Her
research interests include topics in the fields of world economy and international economic relations,
marketing and human resource management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com