http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz How entrepreneurs anticipate the future market: An initial approach of a future market anticipation model for small businesses Maria R. Rita1, Sony H. Priyanto2, Roos K. Andadari3, Jony O. Haryanto4 1Satya Wacana Christian University, maria.riorita@staff.uksw.edu 2Satya Wacana Christian University, sonecid@yahoo.com, (corresponding author) 3Satya Wacana Christian University, roos.kities@staff.uksw.edu 4President University, jonyharyanto@yahoo.com *Special appreciation to the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia for giving us permission and financial support during this research in 2014-2016. We are also grateful to all of those with whom we have had the pleasure to work during this and other related projects. A B S T R A C T This research examines and presents a new model concerning how small entrepreneurs predict what markets will be like in the future through considering the competitors, prices, finances, labor costs, raw materials, and progress of the ASEAN economic community. This study applies a descriptive explanatory technique. It also utilizes a quota sampling method with a structural equation model and qualitative descriptive technique. The research results reveal that companies’ entrepreneurial actions and backgrounds had a posi- tive influence on anticipating the future. Next, future anticipation had a positive effect on the additional effort, market performance, and consumer value. It was also discovered that the entrepreneurial learning process consisted of three stages for employers. The learning process was done through parents as employees and from their direct exposure as entrepreneurs. This is considered hybrid entrepreneurship. This study attempts to fill the research gap pertaining to the lack of models on future market anticipation (FMA) by providing an appropriate quantitative research framework and new perspectives on exploring research into FMA for SMEs. Future studies need to focus on examining the function of the learning process as it pertains to hybrid entrepreneurship, as examined from a number of viewpoints. Keywords: Journal of Small Business Strategy 2018, Vol. 28, No. 01, 49-65 ISSN: 1081-8510 (Print) 2380-1751 (Online) ©Copyright 2018 Small Business Institute® APA Citation Information: Rita, M. R., Priyanto, S. H., Andadari, R. K., & Haryanto, J. O. (2018). How entrepreneurs anticipate the future market: An initial approach of a future market anticipation model for small businesses. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(1), 49-65. w w w. j s b s . o rg Future market anticipation, Small and medium enterprises, Hybrid entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial actions Introduction Future anticipation deals with how consumers per- ceive a company’s doings to respond to customers’ future needs and desires. This study utilizes a futuristic (futurol- ogy) approach, which examines prospects for the future. This approach has become increasingly popular for acade- micians (Mello, Bhadare, Fearn, Galaviz, Hartmann, & Wor- rell, 2009). Even though this method has great implications for the marketing field, studies and related theories on the future are seldom covered in the marketing sphere (Hary- anto & Priyanto, 2013; Loveridge, 2008). From the explanation above, it is clear that future mar- ket anticipation is not a primary concern of marketing man- agement, but it does have entrepreneurial aspects. Future anticipation is the crossroads between entrepreneurship and marketing. This juncture is frequently referred to as entrepreneurial marketing. This is dissimilar to marketing management, in that entrepreneurial marketing must be decisive, informal, and intuitive (Collinson & Shaw, 2001). Entrepreneurial marketing also deals with having an entre- preneurial orientation, which consists of an entrepreneur- ial mentality, chance, and opportunity emphasis. These aspects are affected by relationships and entrepreneurial capital. It impacts how entrepreneurs can visualize innova- tions, chances, and market driving behavior (Schindehutte, Morris, & Kocak, 2008). According to these facets, it is strongly believed that a connection exists between entre- preneurship and future anticipation, which has not been extensively covered. Past studies on future anticipation did not delve into the connection between future anticipation and several other features like additional effort, market performance, and customer value. Studies carried out by Morales (2005) and Cardozo (1965) only examined the link between future anticipation and additional effort. Next, Kandemir, Yaprak, and Cavusgil (2006) just observed the connection between future anticipation and effort results. Then Flint, Blocker, and Boutin (2011) were interested in comparing future an- ticipation with consumers’ wants and values. Fontela, Guzmán, Pérez, and Santos (2006) performed a study by applying a trend analysis, extrapolation, and anticipation connected with a structural model about the future to recognize events of the past and situations that developed.. Then conjectures could be made about their likelihood of occurring in the future. Considering this situ- ation, more research is needed on this topic. Schatzel and Calantone (2006) tested their market anticipation models on various participants and objects to fulfill the generalized http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz http://www.jsbs.org 50 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 conditions. Jones and Rowley (2009) constructed the EMI- CO framework, which provides a better manner of evaluat- ing how small technology-oriented entrepreneurship busi- nesses utilize a qualitative method. This can be beneficial in comprising a quantitative scale analysis in the future. Jones and Rowley (2009) suggested that the EMICO context can be applied in quantitative research. As a product of Indonesian culture, batik was originally made during the royalty period by the palaces in approx- imately the 8th century B.C. It was not only a business venture, but it primarily was done to provide attire for the royal princesses. Batik is officially considered an Indone- sian heritage by UNESCO. This implies that batik can play a prominent role globally, especially in ASEAN. As agreed upon by the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), batik should be viewed as a primary Indonesian product to be sold within the AEC. Therefore, Central Java needs to ad- dress this global situation. Central Java Province has a reputation for producing batik. Javanese batik is mostly made in Solo, Yogyakarta, and the surrounding areas. Batik made outside the Solo and Yogyakarta regions is commonly called coastal batik. Coastal and non-coastal batik vary in terms of colors and designs. Most Central Java regions produce batik in vary- ing degrees with the biggest producers in Pekalongan, Solo, and Lasem. Related with future anticipation and the empirical is- sues that arise in the batik business, there is a research gap in examining future anticipation connected with the pre- cursors and consequences, in respect to the research par- ticipants and objects. With that in mind, this research was conducted to fill that gap. McCardle (2005) examined the ability to predict mar- kets at the product level. Even at the organizational level, having a market foresight ability can be beneficial. Com- panies which possess the knowhow to alter market condi- tions are able to predict and act appropriately in the face of changes, since rising associations inside companies may have specific abilities that are not fulfilled by the compa- nies (McCardle, 2005; Morgan, 2012; Tsoukas & Shepherd, 2004) Previous literature revealed that various researchers conducted studies connected with entrepreneurship, en- trepreneurial experience, and future anticipation. The re- search also examined how possessing future anticipation was related with additional effort, market performance, and customer value. Tambunan (2011) claimed that the pri- mary obstacles tackled by SMEs are financial and market- ing difficulties. Financial restraints are mostly due to having a lack of access to official credit sources. This obstacle can also be a source of marketing difficulties, as most SMEs do not have capital to explore or expand their markets. This limitation is actually connected to entrepreneurship from small business entrepreneurs. Stiglitz (1996) revealed that Southeast Asian small and medium enterprises are able to expand due to entrepreneurial ability, marketing spillover, and technological knowledge. Therefore, these three fac- ets are essential in order to be able to successfully compete internationally. In addition, market appeal, business strate- gies, and resource-based capabilities (for markets, technol- ogy, and entrepreneurship) are all connected with venture performance (Chandler & Hanks, 1994; Greene, Brush, & Brown, 2015). The first research objective is to scrutinize the effects of batik entrepreneurs’ experiences and entrepreneurial activities on future anticipation. The second research ob- jective is to discover the effects of anticipating the future on the additional effort, market performance, and custom- er value. The third research objective is to comprehend how entrepreneurial skills are formed, in order that entre- preneurs can make predictions about their firms. Literature Review Entrepreneurship Definitions Entrepreneurship has a long history. Entrepreneurs at- tempt to predict and act upon change within markets while bearing the uncertainty of market dynamics. Entrepreneurs were required to perform such fundamental managerial functions as direction and control (Knight, 1921). Having a business until it is able to grow and develop is inseparable from an individual’s initial idea/concept to start a business. This idea can surface when an individual sees a business opportunity that is perceived as having good prospects and is able to produce profit in the future. An early idea to start a business will eventually be transformed through the cre- ation of an organization to create that opportunity. So, the entrepreneurship process involves all functions, activities, and actions that are related with a perception towards op- portunity, and in creating an organization to bring that op- portunity into realization (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Maine, Soh, & Dos Santos, 2015; Sarasvathy, 2001). Shane, Locke, & Collins, (2003) stated that the ability to assemble resources is greatly influenced by the entre- preneurial motivation and cognitive factor. Individuals who possess a life vision, a need for achievement, a desire for independence supported by knowledge, expertise, and ca- pability – with the support of a conducive environment like entrepreneurial opportunity and environmental condition – will be able to recognize opportunities, develop ideas, and follow through on those ideas (Digan, Kerrick, Cumber- land, & Garrett, 2017). Based on the definitions above, it can be concluded that an entrepreneur can be defined as a person who has a need for high achievement, acceptance of risk and failure, independence, creativity and innovation, and knowledge, particularly with respect to a business. Additionally, an en- trepreneur has the ability or the technical expertise to run a business (Mitchell, 1996; Priyanto & Sandjojo, 2005). Future Market Anticipation Future market anticipation deals with how consumers perceive the activities of producers who want to fulfill con- 51 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 sumers’ wants and needs in terms of model, price, labor, material, competition, and ASEAN anticipation (Haryanto & Priyanto, 2013; McCardle, 2005). Adam (2008) revealed that a company must strive to predict the future. This can be done to acquire profit and become competitive. Next, humans and companies have the right to create and shape their futures. In other words, companies can participate in altering the future. In fact, companies allocate a great deal of financial resources for research and development to give future consumers the best quality. Companies use innovation to anticipate the future. Companies which do not take this action will end up in demise. One such example is Nokia, which led the cellular phone market for decades. Nokia did not do as much as it should have done in terms of future anticipa- tion. Eventually, iPhone and Blackberry were able to chip away at Nokia’s market. DeRoo (2013) stated that material, social, and politi- cal actions are done to predict the future. This is connect- ed with the social environment, since individuals want to envision what the future will be like. This is related with funding, as companies need to utilize financing to predict future trends. From a political perspective, companies strive to determine the market to make themselves more competitive. Even though the future is rather multifaceted to examine, predictions can still be made about it. Various multinational companies like Pizza Hut and United Colors of Benetton have done studies through conversing with and accompanying youths for a predetermined period of time to comprehend what they need now and realize their future preferences. These actions are done in an effort to realize what the future may hold. By knowing what the fu- ture may look like, company CEOs can better anticipate to acquire advantages (Adam, 2008). For future anticipation, Chang, Hung, and Ho (2007) devised a means for searching for possible consumers by analyzing future needs. This method begins with devising a customer profile based on loyalty. Then it is necessary to find prospective consumers. After this, studies need to be carried out to know consumers’ future needs. Chang et al. (2007) exhibited the significance of recog- nizing sales patterns for the main products and consum- ers’ upbringings to comprehend their profiles. Afterwards, possible buyers should be examined as well as their back- grounds to know what purchases they may make. Finally, the current data can be utilized to know what purchasing opportunities may be present later to project the potential consumers. This kind of an analysis is necessary for SMEs, since they seldom recognize sales patterns and custom- er profiles (Andadari, Priyanto, & Haryanto, 2016). When companies can understand current sales patterns and con- sumer profiles along with consumers’ future needs, then their market will expand, leading to better marketing for SMEs. Relationship between Entrepreneurship and Future Antic- ipation Entrepreneurs are distinguished from non-entrepre- neurs based on their perspectives of the world (Allinson, Chell, & Hayes, 2000; Gaglio & Katz, 2001; Gartner, 2002; Krueger, 2003; McGrath & MacMillan, 1992). Successful entrepreneurs see opportunities while taking into account the risks in environmental changes (Begley & Boyd, 1987; Collinson & Shaw, 2001; Dyer Jr., 1994; Linstead & Hytti, 2005; Littunen, 2000). Entrepreneurial activity emphasizes the art of future anticipation and exploration (Abebe & An- griawan, 2014; Hätönen & Eriksson, 2009; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Sauka, 2008). There is a strong correlation between entrepreneurial ownership and one’s ability to anticipate the future (Foss, Foss, Klein, & Klein, 2007). Future antici- pation is determined based on the ability of entrepreneurs themselves in terms of creation, courage, and imagination (Fontela et al., 2006; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Okoye & Eze, 2010; Okpara, 2007). When an entrepreneur seizes new opportunities, new market potentials are created. If an entrepreneur creates new products, he/she will create the possibility of comple- mentary products and increase the demand for inputs into new products. This may, however, also reduce the demand for other goods. If an entrepreneur finds a better process for producing an existing product, he also creates opportu- nities for potential input suppliers. Thus, this means that any entrepreneurial activity will create opportunities in the future, allowing entrepreneurs to get opportunities in the future (Holcombe, 2003). From the definitions of entrepreneurship above, it ap- pears that people who have an entrepreneurial mindset may also have the ability to anticipate the future. On the other hand, Schumpeter (1961) identified that an entre- preneur was characterized by having an initiative, respon- sibility, or authority and being forward-looking (hopeful =foresight). In addition, Schumpeter (1961) said that an entrepreneur has the ability to recognize a combination of productive factors to be processed and to do so before others. This view is similar to the view of John Bernard Say. McClelland (1961) revealed that entrepreneurs exhibit characteristics such as moderate risk taking as a function of skill, energetic and/or novel instrumental activity, individ- ual responsibility, knowledge of the result of the decision, anticipation of future possibilities, and organizational skills. An entrepreneur is a person who has a creative action that builds the value of something that has not been visible be- fore. It is an opportunity to pursue acts without regard to the resources or lack of resources at hand. It requires vi- sion, interests, and a commitment to lead others to achieve this vision. Entrepreneurship also requires a willingness to calculate and take risks (Timmons, Spinelli, & Tan, 1994; Lambing & Kuehl, 2000). An entrepreneur has characteristics of being fond of doing business, being strong even in failure, being confi- dent, being self-determined or the locus of control, manag- ing risks, seeing a change as an opportunity, being tolerant of many options, taking an initiative and having the need for achievement, being creative, being a perfectionist, hav- ing a broad view, considering time as precious, and having strong motivation (Carland Jr., Carland, & Carland III, 2015; 52 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 Lambing & Kuehl, 2000). Stevenson (1983) conceptualized entrepreneurship as a management approach with a great desire to have the opportunity to pursue and exploit op- portunities without regard to currently controlled resourc- es. A stronger form of indeterminism emphasizes that the future is not merely unknown, but unknowable. That said, however, it is emphasized here that “the future is unknow- able, but not unimaginable” (Lachmann, 1976). Entrepre- neurship is seen as a human action that creatively formu- lates and solves new problems (Antonites, 2003; Buchanan & Vanberg, 1991; Klein, 2008) Hypothesis 1. Entrepreneurship has a positive impact on future anticipation. Entrepreneurial Background and Future Anticipation According to Hisrich and Peters (1992), personal as- pects consist of childhood family environment, education, personal values, age, and work history that together be- come the determining factors of a person’s entrepreneur- ship. In another case, this aspect is also related to the abil- ity to anticipate the future. Education. Lee and Tsang (2001) said that although there are many successful entrepreneurs who dropped out of school but still managed to become successful busi- nesspeople, education is still needed to be a qualified busi- nessperson because of the increasing complexity of the business world environment. The level of education, espe- cially for those in large companies, is positively related to the growth of the business. Cooper and Dunkelberg (1987) reported that employers in Canada and the United States had a higher education than others around the world. Rob- inson and Sexton (1994) found that one’s education level is positively associated with business growth. Lee and Tsang (2001) and Ahluwalia, Mahto, and Walsh (2017) said that people who are better educated will have a stock of knowl- edge that is broader and with a lot of information, which enables them to find opportunities and anticipate the fu- ture in conducting their businesses. A properly designed educational curriculum will enable students to integrate past experiences and anticipate the future in the form of an action plan. Daily ecological practices allow the student to make a connection with past experiences and the future by setting goals, delaying immediate gratification, anticipating future problems, learning from past experiences, and eval- uating action (Strauss, 1998). Age. The correlation between a person's age and en- trepreneurial success has been investigated carefully. In evaluating this, it is important to distinguish between en- trepreneurial age and chronological age. Entrepreneurial age is identified as the length of business experience, while chronological age refers to when an entrepreneur started one’s business. In general, a successful entrepreneur has started his or her business in the age range of between 22- 25 years old (Hisrich & Peters, 1992). In this regard, age also affects a person in performing future anticipation. Work Experience. An entrepreneur’s experiences are divided into three components: entrepreneurial, industrial, and managerial. Entrepreneurial experience points to the involvement of a number of previous venture and man- agement roles at other ventures (Stuart & Abetti, 1990). Industrial experience means experience in the industry in which the venture exists. Managerial experience is the total experience in management, no matter what type of industry it is. Various studies have focused on managerial and industrial experiences. Gasse (1982) showed that an entrepreneur’s experience may positively/negatively affect the business growth. Past experiences can infuriate peo- ple if bad strategy changes occur. Van de Ven, Hudson, and Schroeder (1984) put forward a positive impact on indus- trial experience; Dyke, Fischer, and Reuber (1992) reported a positive impact of industrial and managerial experiences; Duchesneau and Gartner (1990) used the concept of the managerial experience breadth that combined industrial and managerial experiences and found that the combi- nation had a successful impact on the business. It seems that the evidence supports a positive correlation between a businessperson’s experience and performance (Lee & Tsang, 2001). Extensive and long work experience will con- struct the entrepreneur’s background of a person as well as how they anticipate the future (Delmar, 1996; Matthews & Moser, 1995; Matthews & Moser, 1996; Priyanto, 2006; Priyanto & Sandjojo, 2005; Watson, Hogarth-Scott, & Wil- son, 1998). Hypothesis 2. An entrepreneur’s background affects future anticipation. Future Anticipation, Customer Value, Marketing Perfor- mance, and Extra Efforts Customer value is concerned with how consumers per- ceive what they obtain and what they have to give up to get it. When a company understands customer value, it can in- novate to acquire better perceived customer value (Kotler, Keller, & Lu, 2009). Related with this, businesspeople can establish customer value to know what should be provided to consumers. Flint et al. (2011) indicated that consumers’ percep- tions of what product value is given by the companies is a significant aspect for building emotional ties. Companies frequently invest a great deal of money and time to predict the wants and needs of consumers in the future. Never- theless, it will be pointless if consumers do not appreciate this, because it does not match with what they desire or require. Flint et al. (2011) did a study on a wide range of industries and discovered that customer satisfaction and loyalty was positively affected by engaging in consumer fu- ture anticipation. These results conveyed the necessity of SMEs and industries to engage in doing future anticipation, in order to give the best customer value, make customers appeased, and establish customer loyalty. Similarly to the above, Kandemir,Yaprak, and Cavusgil (2006) did research on SMEs in the USA to comprehend 53 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 the need for future anticipation. Because increasing com- petition makes everything more complicated and unstable, SMEs should strive for breakthroughs and innovations to advance their market performance. By engaging in partner- ships with current stakeholders, especially with suppliers and challengers, SMEs can have an advantage over others to predict the future. Next, Mische (2009) revealed that by attempting to comprehend the future, entrepreneurs can connect companies with consumers. This will assist con- sumers in their purchase decisions. When SMEs and bigger companies attempt to predict the future, their efforts will be esteemed by consumers (Morales, 2005). This is be- cause the businesses place the consumers in the forefront when making business decisions. If consumers recognize this effort, they will be more willing to engage in business with these firms. This concept can be understood through the persuasion and the attribution theory. Businesses should engage in future anticipation as a marketing strategy connected with customer persuasion. Various research has been carried out regarding a compa- ny’s ability to persuade consumers (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000; Cardozo, 1965; Kirmani & Wright, 1989), while the attribution theory has also been researched through var- ious studies (Folkes, 1988; Weiner, 2000). In spite of this, a limited number of studies have been done on company persuasion and additional effort (Morales, 2005). Preliminary research was carried out by Morales (2005) on a company’s additional efforts, as it connected neutral motives and persuasion. Nevertheless, researching the ex- tra effort done by companies has been done before. Cardo- zo (1965) did research that revealed that in particular situ- ations, expectations had an effect on how the product and purchasing experience were evaluated. When a product or service does not match up with its expectations, then it will be ranked low. When more effort is made to improve the shopping experience, it may curtail these effects or even be contrary to a poor shopping experience. Obviously, ex- erting a high degree of effort results in a better product evaluation. In addition, Cardozo (1965) also found that consumer expectations have an effect on how a product or service is evaluated. If a product or service has high expec- tations, then it will be more challenging for the company or service provider to meet that satisfaction. If a product or service has low expectations, then it will be easier to meet consumer demands. Attribution theory was applied in Morales’ study (2005), which claimed that customers will be appreciative for the extra effort done by a company in general. Custom- ers’ expectations for particular attributes are related with the failures or negative results (Folkes, 1988). Likewise, this also applies for successful or positive outcomes. Related with this, Weiner (1974) said that when a behavior is con- trollable, then individuals with moral and emotional opin- ions will be motivated to support or disavow it. If a behav- ior is connected with a company’s additional effort, then customers will react negatively to companies that do not meet their expectations and react positively to companies that go the extra mile. Weiner (2000) further revealed that the whole attribute searching process is integrated with the rationale for feelings which are then acted upon. Equity theory was also applied by Morales (2005). This emphasizes the reciprocity principle (Adams, 1965). Based on this theory, individuals tend to respond positively to those who do acts of kindness to them (Regan, 1971). Moreover, individuals do not desire to be indebted to oth- ers. If kindness is connected with additional effort, then customers will repay the good deed (a company’s extra ef- fort) by buying a product or service or at least have a good opinion of it. This theory claims that customers will repay a good deed if they think they have direct or personal ad- vantages. Differences between equity theory (which claims that customers only repay a positive action if they receive direct and personal benefits) and attribution theory (which pos- tulates that customers will repay good deeds in general) motivated Morales (2005) to do a further study. This re- search revealed customers were still grateful for a compa- ny’s additional effort, even if it was only done in a general manner and did not have an immediate or personal impact on the customers. Another finding of the study was that customers were still appreciative of the additional effort of a company even if it had neutral and non-persuasive mo- tives. In addition, the study found that being appreciative facilitated the extra effort, while a feeling guilty increased when extra effort was exerted. Related with persuading customers, Campbell and Kirmani (2000) acknowledged and studied aspects that encouraged the use of persuasive knowledge by custom- ers. If customers had unlimited resources, then persuasive knowledge would be used to affect the persuasion motives and a salesperson’s evaluation. The Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) was utilized with the primary idea that cus- tomers acquire insights into persuasion and apply it to com- pete with the persuaded aspects. As a result, persuasion knowledge is used based on how accessible the persuasion motives are. Therefore, customers will not be appreciative to a company in terms of additional effort if the company is considered to have a persuasive motivation. Morales (2005) only examined the additional efforts made by the company, even though the quality was unal- tered. The results conveyed that customers would be more willing to purchase from a company that did extra effort even if the quality did not improve. This was related to a study done by Kirmani and Wright (1989) who devised the method by which the alleged advertising cost influenced the quality. Folkes (1988) accentuated the significance of attribution theory as it relates to customer behavior. The suggestion was proposed to better comprehend customer perception and causal relationships as they related to cus- tomer behavior. Marketers could then apply it to marketing activities. Folkes (1988) clarified that customers bought the products or services due to the cause-effect relationships. Examples include a customer who purchases a deodorant that claims to improve one’s social life, sports shoes to im- prove performance, and medicine to alleviate pain. Folkes’ literature review (1988) of attribution theory 54 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 showed that it is a detailed and advanced approach in terms of consumer behavior issues. Various research on attribu- tion covers when customers give good product reviews to other potential customers or when they complain about a product aspect. Attribution theory is actually a combina- tion of two theories that have similar basic assumptions. Based on attribution theory, individuals will search for the reasons behind a particular occurrence (Kelley, 1967). If a company is considered as providing additional effort, then, based on attribution theory, customers will feel grateful for the company’s additional effort provided to them, even if it is general in nature (Haryanto & Priyanto, 2013; Hesaraki, 2015; Lichtenstein, Ridgway, & Netemeyer, 1993). Morales’ research results (2005), which guided this study and support attribution theory, show that custom- ers have a positive image of a company when it puts forth additional effort for customers, even if it is general in na- ture and does not affect customers in a direct or personal manner. Kruger, Wirtz, Van Boven, and Altermatt (2004) discovered that a company’s efforts were frequently used by customers to know the product, service or quality giv- en. When a company exhibited greater effort, then the customers considered it as having higher quality. Similar with Morales (2005), even if the quality does not show a marked improvement, customers will still have a more favorable impression of the company’s product or service due to the extra effort provided (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2001; Wells, 1995). Hypothesis 3. Future anticipation positively affects the ex- tra effort. Hypothesis 4. Future anticipation positively affects the cus- tomer value. Hypothesis 5. Future anticipation positively affects the market performance. Method This study is descriptive and explanatory research. It targets the characteristics of variables and relationships between variables, a deeper understanding of the cor- relation between existing variables, and an explanation of the cause and effect relation (Blaikie, 2009). As a causality study, we aim to analyze the causal relationship between the variables associated with future anticipation, such as entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs’ background, that affect batik (cloth dyeing) business performance through hypothesis testing (Sekaran, 2000). The population of this research was batik entrepre- neurs in Solo, Lasem, and Pekalongan. The three locations were chosen since these regions have many batik SMEs, whether or not they are involved in export activity. The ex- act number of this population was not known. However, it was identified that these batik entrepreneurs had simi- lar criteria. Most of them were high school graduates and used these batik businesses as their main income. Ques- tionnaires were distributed with a Likert scale of 1-7 to ob- tain respondents' perceptions of the variables examined in this study. A snowball sampling method was used in this study with 50 respondents from each city, with a total of 150 samples obtained. However, 6 respondents were elim- inated due to invalid data, so only 144 respondents were used in this research. A pre-test was conducted with 30 respondents to check the validity and reliability. Data was then processed with a structural equation modeling (SEM) method and AMOS 5.0 software to test the hypothesis. Related variables and measurements were formulated for the following components of each variable, ie: entre- preneurship was measured on the need for achievement, risk taking, independence, creativity, and innovation. En- trepreneurial background was measured by gender, age, education, expenditures, experience, batik and non-batik training completed, training in anticipation of the future, social networks, government support, and a support asso- ciation. Anticipation of the future was measured from the model anticipation, anticipation of materials, labor antic- ipation, anticipation of competition, anticipation of the development of the ASEAN countries, and the anticipated price. The consequences of ownership anticipation of the future were comprised of three variables: extra effort, cus- tomer value, and performance marketing. Extra effort was measured by providing solutions from consumer needs, responsiveness, extra service, empathy, and reliability. Customer value was measured from having a good prod- uct, a better product than competitors, excellent service, attractive pricing, and benefits for consumers. Market per- formance was measured by sales competitiveness, sales targets, sales growth, market shares, market growth, and sales performance. All variables were measured using a Likert scale of 1 to 7 in order to acquire the data. The variables involved in this study were independent latent variables, dependent latent variables, measurable variables/indicators/manifests, as well as exogenous and endogenous variables. Independent latent variables were formed from the measured variables. The correlation be- tween these variables was recursive, meaning that the correlation was not two-way but the correlation was in the same direction. This means that the correlation was causal. These variables can be explained from the research model that was tested in this study as it appears in the figure be- low. Data Analysis and Findings Pekalongan Batik SMEs’ Profile Besides Solo, one of the cities that affect the batik in- dustry in Central Java is Pekalongan. Just like Solo, Pekalon- gan is a batik manufacturer. In fact, the batik artworks from Pekalongan have been exported to Australia, the USA, and the Middle East. Bright colors are used to make Pekalongan batik blend- ed with various patterns as a sign of the multicultural di- verse cultures that exist in Pekalongan: the Chinese, Ma- lay, Japanese, Dutch, and Arabic cultures. Pekalongan batik motifs are influenced by ancient cultures that once lived in 55 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 this city. The Pekalongan batik floral pattern is influenced by European flowers, Japanese flowers, and Arabic callig- raphy as well as by the original pattern of Pekalongan such as a pattern named Jlamprang. The beauty of Pekalongan batik is illustrated by its ability to combine seven colors that are blended together in a generated pattern. Lasem Batik SMEs’ Profile Lasem batik is a different batik that has its own unique- ness compared to the other two types of batik. The differ- ence and uniqueness lie in the history underlying the for- mation of this batik, including the pattern. Lasem batik is created as a result of the influence of two cultures of two countries, namely Javanese and Tionghoa culture originat- ing from China. The two different cultures produce batik with distinctively different and unique designs compared with batik from other regions. One other well-known pattern of Lasem batik is Three States batik. This batik consists of three colors: red, blue, and soga (brown). The three colors are representative of three cities of batik producers, and each color describes the characteristics of each city. The red color comes from the city of Lasem, the blue color comes from the city of Pekalongan, and soga (brown) comes from the city of Solo. Batik coloring with three different colors is not only done in Lasem, but also in three different cities based on the color origin. Lasem batik is the one that shows Indonesian ba- tik is not only able to express local culture, but also able to collaborate with other cultures of Indonesia and other countries as in China's culture through the Tionghoa ethnic group, of which its members are currently settled in many parts of Indonesia. Solo Batik SMEs’ Profile As a cultural product, batik reflects the situation of the community. Although most of the styles are called batik, if its history is traced, there are differences among the three batik types from Solo, Pekalongan, and Lasem. For the Solo region, the populations involved in the batik production activities were courtiers who were trained to make batik for jarik (the fabric used for men and women as outer gar- ments fastened around the waist and hanging down around the legs) and scarves. Therefore, the Solo batik pattern is closely related to the pattern that is often used by the royal palace family. The royal palace determines the tastes, both in Java and in various other places in the archipelago. The best results from the crafters will be ordered by the royal family and will be used by themselves. This creates a major impact on art, especially the art of batik. The royal palace can be said to play a major role in moving the refinement of the art of batik. Model Testing After the data collection was performed, it was processed and analyzed using SEM, which obtained the following results: Future Market Anticipation Extra Effort Marketing Performance Customer Value Entrepreneurship H1 H5 H2 H3 H4 Entrepreneur's Background Figure 1. Research model. Entrepreneurship Future Market Anticipation Entrepreneur's Background Innovativee5 .63Creativee4 .66 Independencye3 .48 Risk Takinge2 -.14 Need For Achievemente1 .32 Association Supporte16 .73 Government Supporte15 .76 Social Networke14 .62 Anticipation Traininge13 .76Non Batik Traininge12 .62 Batik Traininge11 .56 Experiencee10 .21 Expendituree9 .22 Educatione8 .11 Agee7 .14 Gendere6 .20 Model Anticipation e18 .68 Material Anticipation e19 .43 Labor Anticipation e20.57 Competition Anticipation e21 .81 ASEAN Anticipation e22 .64 Price Anticipation e23 .10 .31 .31 Z1 Figure 2. Results of the future anticipation antecedent. 56 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 Entrepreneurship had an impact on the future anticipa- tion of the batik entrepreneurs. Taken together, variables such as motivation to always move forward, be indepen- dent, be creative, and be innovative, influence future antic- ipation with a regression coefficient of 0.31. The variable, risk taking, is not taken from the entrepreneurship of the owner because the company is usually run through family lines. Batik is a cultural product where almost every owner of the batik industry is in a high risk-taking environment. Meanwhile, for entrepreneurial backgrounds, all mea- suring variables were significant except the measuring vari- ables of age and education. For age, it was spread flat or in straight lines that did not match the principle of normali- ty. Meanwhile, for education, on average the respondents were less educated. The data was not normally distribut- ed. From the hypothesis test results, the entrepreneur’s background positively and significantly affected the future anticipation with a regression coefficient of 0.31. Entrepreneurship values such as the desire to move forward, independence, creativity, and innovation could make someone continue to pursue a variety of ideas. Mc- Clelland, (1961) stated that a person who has an entrepre- neurial spirit will have the ability to anticipate the future associated with a variety of things, including the future anticipation of the market. Lambing and Kuehl (2000) said that an entrepreneur is a person who has a creative action that builds the value of something that was not visible be- fore. It is an opportunity to pursue without regard to re- sources or a lack of resources at hand. They have a vision, interest, and commitment to lead others to achieve the vi- sion. Entrepreneurship also requires a willingness to take and count risks related to the upcoming events. If someone has an entrepreneurial spirit and an ade- quate background associated with business, then the en- trepreneur will be able to anticipate the future in terms of a model or design. Entrepreneurs are also able to anticipate the type, quantity, sources of raw materials, and auxiliary materials they will need and they want to buy. On the other hand, they will also be able to take over the management of the workforce that they will use related to the qualifica- tions, competence, quantity, and direction of development of human resources in their companies. Choi and Shepherd (2004) stated that entrepreneurs were more likely to ex- ploit opportunities when they perceived more knowledge of customer demand for the product, more fully developed enabling technologies, greater managerial capability, and greater stakeholder support. The favorable perceptions of more knowledge of customer demand for the product, more fully developed enabling technologies, and greater slakeholder support were further enhanced when the new product has a long lead time. They are also able to anticipate the future related to the possibility of competition that may occur and adjust themselves to the conditions of the competition. Com- petitive equity is related positively to market anticipation (Schatzel & Calantone, 2006). Entrepreneurship can equal- ly be considered an important factor in the development of established firms increasingly beset by competition (Gupta, MacMillan, & Surie, 2004). The competitive scope is likely to be affected by the entrepreneur’s competencies in in- terpreting environmental conditions (Sánchez, 2012). An entrepreneurial orientation is critical. Firms with an en- trepreneurial orientation adapt their capabilities to meet emergent competition through flexible resource deploy- ment, which allows the firm to use or expand the compa- ny’s resources and thus raise long-term capacity (Kanter, 1981). Entrepreneurially oriented firms are capable of corporate transformation by effectively translating emer- gent options into platforms for continuous value creation (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 2000). This allows them to move fast to gain first-mover advantage in emerging new products or markets (Kuratko & Hornsby, 2001). They will also be able to design and set prices that al- low consumers to be satisfied and loyal to them, and they are able to set prices that will increase the brand image and imagery as well as the brand position of the product and company. The quality of marketing management related to price is supported by the dimension of entrepreneurship (Carson, Gilmore, Cummins, O’Donnell, & Grant, 1998). An owner or manager who is entrepreneurial will be able to set the price right in the future. Most of the future will be a direct result of goal deci- sions taken in the present. Achievements and future events are influenced by anticipation, interpretation, and vision of the present (Thaler, 2000). Future orientation can be a pow- erful motivator of current behavior (Greene & DeBacker, 2004). If the context of the rationality limits the setting, the future of the anticipation context will place limits on the ef- ficacy of entrepreneurial rationality. The anticipation con- text requires more than competence in rationality; it also requires competence in entrepreneurial decision-making aesthetics. There is a close correlation between entrepre- neurial skills and how to anticipate the future (Koellinger, Minniti, & Schade, 2007). When information is not disseminated equally and uniformly, it can cause a different perception among indi- viduals in the society. This situation is the result of each individual’s product opportunity set differing from others Table 1 Analysis results of the future anticipation antecedent Hypothesis Hypothesized Association p-value (Un)/Supported H3 H1: Entrepreneurship à future anticipation .01* Supported H5 H2: Entrepreneur’s background à future anticipation .00** Supported * significant at the .05 level, ** significant at the .01 level. 57 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 (Michaels, 2000). Altered types of cognitive biases can pos- sibly appear in a diverse situation (Gaglio & Katz, 2001). Whatever the personality of an individual, whether some- one is proactive, reactive, or indifferent to what they see, sometimes different conditions will shake idea creation. Entrepreneurs might not accept things as take it for grant- ed, but as something they can do something about (Hunter, 2013). A different business will offer dissimilar underlying thinking surroundings that improve thoughts or increase bias and impede individuals’ decision making. Choi and Shepherd (2004) stated that entrepreneurs can take time and gather information to reduce uncertainties and build the firm's resources and capabilities before making the de- cision to enter the market and exploit the opportunity. Al- ternatively, entrepreneurs can exploit the opportunity now to lengthen their lead time. Lead time refers to the period of monopoly for the first entrant prior to competitors en- tering the industry. Entrepreneurs who have anticipated future markets are influenced by entrepreneurial marketing (Fillis, 2000; Rezvani & Khazaei, 2013). Entrepreneurial marketing is influenced by market, entrepreneurial and technological orientation. These three aspects are influenced by capital relations derived from the environment or market factors and entrepreneurial capital derived from firm-specific fac- tors (Schindehutte et al., 2008). An organization’s assets, competencies, and also self- sight will significantly affect the member’s image and beliefs about the future. So an organization really needs a strong leader to determine the future trajectory of the business (Bass, 1985; Conger & Benjamin, 1999). Such conditions require entrepreneurial leadership (O'Regan, Ghobadian, & Sims, 2004). The actions that entrepreneur- ial leaders precipitate in pursuit of their vision constitute proactive enactment of new combinations of capabilities in the organization—reconfigured and focused to forge an entirely reconstructed transaction set for the firm (Gupta et al., 2004). Entrepreneurship is driven by continuous change and perception towards potential opportunities (Baron & En- sley, 2006; Singh, 2001). An individual has to perceive an opportunity as a media to grow abilities, resources, and links into strategies to create a firm opportunity. The opportunity must encounter the social and infrastructur- al circumstances for it to be feasible in society (Ozgen & Baron, 2007). It needs to see the ground directions about exchanges between different units within the environment according to how they should be implemented, where a shared belief can be recognized between the members within the environment. Future Market Anticipation .71 COMPETITe18 .84 .23 LABORANTe19 .48 .27 MATERIALe20 .52 .14 MODELANTe21 .38 .37 Extra Effort .49 Customer Value .15 Market Performance .13 GOODPROD e29 .35 .02 PRODUCTC e30.15 .24 EXCELLEN e31 .49 .05 ATTRACTI e32 .22 .31 BENEFITS e33 .56 .62 SALESCOM e34 .79 .55 SALESTAR e35.74 .30 SALESGRO e36.54 .57 MARKETSH e37 .76 .20 MARKETGR e38 .45 .00 SALESPER e39 -.07 .61 .70 .57 SOLUTION e24 .75 .43 RESPONSI e25.66 .42 EXTRASER e26 .65 .18 EMPHATY e27 .42 .10 RELIABIL e28 .32 Z2 Z3 Z4 .68 ASEANANTe40 .82 .51 PRICEANTe41 .72 .39 Figure 3. Results of the future anticipation consequences. 58 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 Based on the analytical results above, it was found that future anticipation had a positive impact on extra effort. In the third hypothesis test, it was found that the future anticipation done by the company made the company give extra effort for customers. This is in line with the opinion of Morales (2005), who stated that companies that put the customers as the focal point would give extra effort for the customers. Companies that viewed the future anticipation by looking at the political, social, economic, cultural, and technological factors would make companies conduct extra effort to meet the needs and desires of their customers. The future anticipation also had a positive impact on customer value. In the fourth hypothesis test results, it is revealed that companies which anticipated the future would provide superior customer value for their customers. The companies would understand the changes in customer tastes and changes in the social structure, so that the com- panies would provide the best service for their customers, as reflected in the value of the customer. This research is in line with findings from Kandemir et al. (2006) who stated that if a company was oriented to the future, the customer value provided by the company would be better. Batik en- trepreneurs who understand the future will provide supe- rior customer value to their customers through the unique creation of batik motifs or batik designs. In addition to the results above, it was also established that future anticipation had a positive impact on market performance. Future anticipation undertaken by a com- pany would be appreciated by customers. The customers conveyed their forms of appreciation through customer satisfaction and loyalty to the company. This, of course, had an impact on repeat purchases, which means an in- crease in sales led to an increase in company profits. Thus, the company perceived as performing future anticipation would positively impact the company's market perfor- mance. This is in line with research conducted by Flint et al. (2011), who stated that future anticipation would have a positive impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty. Loy- alty is what will lead to repeat purchases and also positive word of mouth to other customers to improve the market performance. The findings of this study support McCardle (2005), who revealed that the effect of information processes on the competency of market anticipation is reliant on a busi- ness’ learning culture (upcoming orientation and learning orientation) and also connections among departments. They can strongly encourage the harmonization and inte- gration of information between performers in the business environment. A business can achieve long-term competi- tive advantage and build a structure of valuable resourc- es by using the foresight understanding of its market. It means that a business has to exploit its capability in antic- ipating variation through the improvement of a new prod- uct and service offerings to satisfy the customers. Having a higher capability in market foresight creates fascinating new product creativity, rapid penetration into the market, and finally superior market-entry timing. These brand-new product results of market anticipation capability are more conjectured to raise the financial performance of business- es as long as they can take advantage of market chances. Hence, organizational inertia quietly supports the connec- tions between market foresight capability and the results of new products. Conclusion The true entrepreneur does not live merely in the con- text of the present. The entrepreneur and the enterprise exist now, but always with a view to the context of the futu- re. The implications of today’s decisions are realized tomor- row (Thaler, 2000). This means every entrepreneur must have a future orientation in terms of products, technolo- gies and markets. To have this, the entrepreneur must have the ability to have market driving behavior that will enable him to see his future market. To have market driving be- havior, the entrepreneur must have entrepreneurial mar- keting, which is formed from market and entrepeneurial orientation plus technological orientation. In order for the entrepreneur to have this, he must have relational capital and entrepreneurial capital, which can be obtained from the market and the company (Schindehutte et al., 2008; Van Zyl & Mathur-Helm, 2007). An ability in entrepreneur- ial leadership is also required to embody ideas and move into successful business activities (Chen, 2007; Gupta et al., 2004; Van Zyl & Mathur-Helm, 2007). If the entrepreneurial context is shifted from the present to the future, all deci- sion making becomes more complicated and potentially less rational. It requires consideration of uncertain market developments, undiscovered technologies, changing or- ganizational patterns, and ever-shifting financial options (Thaler, 2000). This study used a structural equation model to deepen the earlier view that there is a strong correlation between entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial background, and future anticipation. Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial back- ground greatly affect the ability to anticipate the future. Table 2 Analysis results of the future anticipation consequences Hypothesis Hypothesized Association p-value (Un)/Supported H3 Future anticipation à extra effort .00** Supported H4 Future anticipation à customer value .00* Supported H5 Future anticipation à market performance .00** Supported * significant at the .05 level, ** significant at the .01 level. 59 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 If employers have entrepreneurship, they will be able to anticipate the future in six aspects. Ardichvili and Cardozo (2000) stated that entrepreneurial awareness and alert- ness, information asymmetry and prior knowledge, oppor- tunity discovery, networking, and creativity, which are the dimensions of entrepreneurship, affect successful opportu- nity recognition. The perceived opportunities available are also influenced by an intention-driven process determined by various personal variables (Greene et al., 2015; Krueger, 2003; Sánchez, 2012). Meanwhile, family background also positively affects the future anticipation of batik entrepre- neurs (Lindquist, Sol, Van Praag, & Vlădășel, 2016; Mat- thews & Moser, 1995). Other results associated with the ownership of the ability to anticipate the future showed that the FMA model could improve the extra effort, cus- tomer value, and marketing performance. In the process of establishing batik entrepreneurial enterprises, there are at least three learning resources for batik entrepreneurs. The first is a learning source from parents. The second is a learning source from other entrepreneurs as employees, and the third is a source of personal experience as busi- nesspeople. This model is often referred to as hybrid en- trepreneurship. Further Research The study is limited to the efforts of explanation in a cross-sectional approach and entrepreneurship in general aspects so that the process of future anticipation as expect- ed by Fontela et al. (2006) cannot be found. Research is still very open to explore the correlation between the creative and innovative processes, independence, courage to take risks, as well as passion to move forward either by the cycle stage or longitudinally. Additionally, the role of information technology is very important in the process of future anticipation, which has not been studied in this study. Recently, information tech- nology has been widely used in order to improve capability and cost efficiency. The challenges of changes in IT are very dynamic as seen in firms with a greater IT presence (inter- net) and firms whose websites are far more likely to have a mobile optimized website than those who do not (Voelker, Steel, & Shervin, 2017). If a company can combine this with a corporate culture to be more aware and accepting of IT, such change can push IT into an increasing strategic role in more organizations. This condition has encouraged the im- portance of managing IT in these organizations. Benemati and Lederer (2000) stated that understanding the challeng- es of managing today’s rapidly changing IT can escalate the comprehension of the future’s challenges. Therefore, future researcher should investigate the role of information technology in future anticipation. One study that deserves to be explored is the role of e-market- ing in strengthening future anticipation. In this context, lit- tle research has been done. The findings of this study are interesting because, in the learning process, there is more than one model that allows individuals to be batik entrepreneurs. These iclude through parents, working as employees, or through per- sonal experiences, which is called the hybrid entrepreneur- ship model. Previous studies indicate that the model has become an entrepreneurship learning model, even though the pattern, system, and mechanism are still unclear. Un- fortunately, this study has not touched upon the learning process of this model. Thus, it is suggested that further re- search should observe the dynamics of the hybrid entre- preneurial learning process as viewed from various aspects. Folta, Delmar, and Wennberg (2010) state the hybrid entrepreneur is an individual who engages in self-employ- ment activities while simultaneously holding a primary job in doing wage work. There are two reasons why entry into hybrid entrepreneurship might be unique compared to self-employment entry or wage work. First, the decision to eventually enter self-employment may be endogenous to the hybrid entry decision. A positive signal about prospects of performance may arouse hybrids to abandon wage work and choose self-employment, whereas a negative signal may induce abandonment of their self-employment activ- ity. Second, the factors that generate hybrid entry may be systematically different from those that lead individuals to enter self-employment or remain in wage work. They have done a longitudinal data study and performed it on a mac- ro scale for a high technology intensive industry. Further research should test this study for a cross-sectional com- parison on a micro, individual, and personal scope and also for a cultural based industry. References Abebe, M. A., & Angriawan, A. (2014). Organizational and competitive influences of exploration and exploita- tion activities in small firms. Journal of Business Re- search, 67(3), 339-345. Adam, B. (2008). Future matters: Futures known, created and minded. Twenty-First Century Society, 3(2), 111-116. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299. Ahluwalia, S., Mahto, R. V., & Walsh, S. T. (2017). Innovation in small firms: Does family vs. non-family matter? Journal of Small Business Strategy, 27(3), 39-49. Allinson, C. W., Chell, E., & Hayes, J. (2000). Intuition and entrepreneurial behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 31-43. Andadari, R. K., Priyanto, S. H., & Haryanto, J. O. (2016). An- tecedents of future market anticipation: A better understanding from the fashion industry in Indo- nesia. International Journal of Organizational Inno- vation (Online), 8(3), 156-168. Antonites, A. J. (2003). An action learning approach to en- trepreneurial creativity, innovation and opportu- nity finding. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa. Ardichvili, A., & Cardozo, R. N. (2000). A model of the entre- preneurial opportunity recognition process. Jour- nal of Enterprising Culture, 8(2), 103-119. 60 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recog- nition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experi- enced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9), 1331-1344. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond ex- pectations. New York, NY: The Free Press. Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1987). Psychological charac- teristics associated with performence in entrepre- neurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 79-93. Benamati, J. S., & Lederer, A. L. (2000). Rapid change: Nine information technology management challenges. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Re- search, 38(4), 336-358. Blaikie, N. (2009). Designing social research. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Buchanan, J. M., & Vanberg, V. J. (1991). The market as a creative process. Economics & Philosophy, 7(2), 167-186. Bygrave, W. D., & Hofer, C. W. (1991). Theorizing about en- trepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac- tice, 16(2), 13-22. Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers' use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influ- ence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69-83. Cardozo, R. N. (1965). An experimental study of custom- er effort, expectation, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 244-249. Carland Jr., J. W., Carland, J. A. C., & Carland III, J. W. T. (2015). Self-actualization: The zenith of entrepre- neurship. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 6(1), 53-66. Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Cummins, D., O’Donnell, A., & Grant, K. (1998). Price setting in SMEs: Some em- pirical findings. Journal of Product & Brand Man- agement, 7(1), 74-86. Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Market attractive- ness, resource-based capabilities, venture strate- gies, and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(4), 331-349. Chang, H. J., Hung, L. P., & Ho, C. L. (2007). An anticipation model of potential customers’ purchasing behavior based on clustering analysis and association rules analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(3), 753-764. Chen, M. H. (2007). Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: Creativity in entrepreneurial teams. Cre- ativity and Innovation Management, 16(3), 239- 249. Choi, Y. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ deci- sions to exploit opportunities. Journal of Manage- ment, 30(3), 377-395. Collinson, E., & Shaw, E. (2001). Entrepreneurial market- ing–a historical perspective on development and practice. Management Decision, 39(9), 761-766. Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How successful companies develop the next generation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1987). Entrepreneurial research: Old questions, new answers and method- ological issues. Purdue University, Krannert Gradu- ate School of Management. Delmar, F. (1996). The determining factors of the entrepre- neurs' forecasts of their business development: An attribution theory perspective. (Doctoral disserta- tion). Entrepreneurial Behavior and Business Per- formance, 143-167. DeRoo, N. (2013). Futurity in Phenomenology: Promise and Method in Husserl, Levinas, and Derrida. New York, NY: Fordham Univ Press. Digan, S. P., Kerrick, S., Cumberland, D. M., & Garrett, R. (2017). The roles of knowledge and organizational form on opportunity evaluation. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 27(2), 65-89. Duchesneau, D. A., & Gartner, W. B. (1990). A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging indus- try. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5), 297-312. Dyer Jr., W. G. (1994). Toward a theory of entrepreneur- ial careers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(2), 7-22. Dyke, L. S., Fischer, E. M., & Reuber, A. R. (1992). An in- ter-industry examination of the impact of owner experience on firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 30(4), 72-87. Fillis, I. (2000). Being creative at the marketing/entrepre- neurship interface: Lessons from the art industry. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepre- neurship, 2(2), 125-137. Flint, D. J., Blocker, C. P., & Boutin, P. J. (2011). Customer value anticipation, customer satisfaction and loyal- ty: An empirical examination. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 219-230. Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent attribution research in consum- er behavior: A review and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 548-565. Folta, T. B., Delmar, F., & Wennberg, K. (2010). Hybrid en- trepreneurship. Management Science, 56(2), 253- 269. Fontela, E., Guzmán, J., Pérez, M., & Santos, F. J. (2006). The art of entrepreneurial foresight. Foresight, 8(6), 3-13. Foss, K., Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., & Klein, S. K. (2007). The en- trepreneurial organization of heterogeneous cap- ital. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1165- 1186. Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alert- ness. Small Business Economics, 16(2), 95-111. Gartner, W. B. (2002). Who is the entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. In N. R. Krueger (Ed.), Entrepre- neurship: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, Vol. 2 (pp. 153-177) London: Rout- ledge. 61 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 Gasse, Y. (1982). Elaborations on the psychology of the en- trepreneur. Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, 57- 71. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (2000). Rebuilding behavior- al context: A blueprint for corporate renewal. In M. Beer & N. Nohra (Eds.), Breaking the Code of Change (pp. 195-222). Boston, MA: Harvard Busi- ness Press. Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). Gender and orien- tations toward the future: Links to motivation. Edu- cational Psychology Review, 16(2), 91-120. Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G., & Brown, T. E. (2015). Resourc- es in small firms: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 8(2), 25-40. Gupta, V., MacMillan, I. C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepre- neurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business Ven- turing, 19(2), 241-260. Haryanto, J. O., & Priyanto, S. H. (2013). Recent future re- search in consumer behavior: A better understand- ing of Batik as Indonesian heritage. Researchers World, 4(4), 32-40. Hätönen, J., & Eriksson, T. (2009). 30+ years of research and practice of outsourcing–Exploring the past and an- ticipating the future. Journal of International Man- agement, 15(2), 142-155. Hesaraki, E. (2015). An empirical assessment of students perception of host community toward town loyal- ty: The case of Famagusta, TRNC. (Doctoral disser- tation). Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)- Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi (DAÜ). Hisrich, R. D., & Peters, M. P. (1992). Entrepreneurship: Starting, developing, and managing a new enter- prise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Holcombe, R. G. (2003). The origins of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Review of Austrian Economics, 16(1), 25-43. Hunter, M. (2013). A typology of entrepreneurial opportu- nity. Economics, Management, and Financial Mar- kets (2), 128-166. Jones, R., & Rowley, J. (2009). Presentation of a generic “EMICO” framework for research exploration of entrepreneurial marketing in SMEs. Journal of Re- search in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 5-21. Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Alliance orientation: Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 324-340. Kanter, R. M. (1981). The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review, 60(4), 95-105. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Syposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238. Kirmani, A., & Wright, P. (1989). Money talks: Perceived advertising expense and expected product quality. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 344-353. Klein, P. G. (2008). Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization. Strategic Entre- preneurship Journal, 2(3), 175-190. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Hart Schaff- ner and Marx prize essays no 31. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin. Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2007). “I think I can, I think I can”: Overconfidence and entrepre- neurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 502-527. Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., & Lu, T. (2009). Marketing manage- ment in China: Pearson. Krueger, N. F. (2003). The cognitive psychology of entre- preneurship. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research (105-140) Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, T. W. (2004). The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 91-98. Kuratko, D. F., & Hornsby, J. S. (2001). Corporate entrepre- neurship and middle managers: A model for corpo- rate entrepreneurial behavior. [Presentation]. Pa- per presented at the USASBE Conference, Reno, NV. Lachmann, L. M. (1976). From Mises to Shackle: an essay on Austrian economics and the kaleidic society. Journal of Economic Literature, 14(1), 54-62. Lambing, P., & Kuehl, C. (2000). Entrepreneurship (2nd ed.): Prentice-Hall Inc., USA. Lee, D. Y., & Tsang, E. W. (2001). The effects of entrepre- neurial personality, background and network activ- ities on venture growth. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 583-602. Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Re- search, 30(2), 234-245. Lindquist, M. J., Sol, J., Van Praag, M., & Vlădășel, T. L. (2016). Family background and entrepreneurship. [Presentation]. Paper presented at the The DRUID 20th Anniversary Conference. Linstead, A., & Hytti, U. (2005). New meanings for entre- preneurs: From risk-taking heroes to safe-seeking professionals. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(6), 594-611. Littunen, H. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the characteris- tics of the entrepreneurial personality. Internation- al Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6(6), 295-310. Loveridge, D. (2008). Foresight: The art and science of an- ticipating the future. New York, NY: Routledge. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entre- preneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimen- sions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm perfor- mance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429-451. Maine, E., Soh, P. H., & Dos Santos, N. (2015). The role of 62 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 entrepreneurial decision-making in opportunity creation and recognition. Technovation, 39–40, 53-72. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technova- tion.2014.02.007 Matthews, C. H., & Moser, S. B. (1995). Family background and gender: Implications for interest in small firm ownership. Entrepreneurship and Regional Devel- opment, 7(4), 365-378. Matthews, C. H., & Moser, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal in- vestigation of the impact of family background and gender on interest in small firm ownership. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(2), 29-43. McCardle, M. (2005). Market foresight capability: Deter- minants and new product outcomes. (Doctoral dis- sertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. McClelland, D. C. (1961). Entrepreneurial behaviour and Characteristics of entrepreneurs. The achieving so- ciety. McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (1992). More like each other than anyone else? A cross-cultural study of entrepreneurial perceptions. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5), 419-429. Mello, Z. R., Bhadare, D., Fearn, E. J., Galaviz, M. M., Hart- mann, E. S., & Worrell, F. C. (2009). The window, the river, and the novel: Examining adolescents'con- ceptions of the past, the present, and the future. Adolescence, 44(175), 539-556. Michaels, C. F. (2000). Information, perception, and action: What should ecological psychologists learn from Milner and Goodale (1995)? Ecological Psychology, 12(3), 241-258. Mische, A. (2009). Projects and possibilities: Researching futures in action. Sociological Forum, 24(3), 694- 704. Mitchell, R. K. (1996). Oral history and expert scripts: De- mystifying the entrepreneurial experience. Journal of Management History, 2(3), 50-67. Morales, A. C. (2005). Giving firms an “E” for effort: Con- sumer responses to high-effort firms. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 806-812. Morgan, N. A. (2012). Marketing and business perfor- mance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- ence, 40(1), 102-119. O'Regan, N., Ghobadian, A., & Sims, M. (2004). The link between leadership, strategy, and performance in manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 15(2), 45-58. Okoye, K., & Eze, T. (2010). Promoting creativity and entre- preneurship in education: The panacea for poverty reduction in Nigeria. African Research Review, 4(3), 119-133. Okpara, F. O. (2007). The value of creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship. Journal of Asia Entrepreneur- ship and Sustainability, 3(2), 1-14. Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Social sources of informa- tion in opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums. Jour- nal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 174-192. Priyanto, S. H. (2006). A structural model of business per- formance: An empirical study on tobacco farmers. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 8(1), 103-134. Priyanto, S. H., & Sandjojo, I. (2005). Relationship between entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurial compe- tencies and venture success: empirical study on SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 5(5-6), 454-468. Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on com- pliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6), 627-639. Rezvani, M., & Khazaei, M. (2013). Prioritization of en- trepreneurial marketing dimensions: A case of in higher education institutions by using entropy. In- ternational Journal of Information, Business and Management, 5(3), 30-41. Robinson, P. B., & Sexton, E. A. (1994). The effect of educa- tion and experience on self-employment success. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(2), 141-156. Sánchez, J. (2012). The influence of entrepreneurial com- petencies on small firm performance. Revista Lati- noamericana de Psicología, 44(2), 165-177. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: To- ward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Man- agement Review, 26(2), 243-263. Sauka, A. (2008). Productive, unproductive, and destructive entrepreneurship: A theoretical and empirical ex- ploration (Vol. 3). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Schatzel, K., & Calantone, R. (2006). Creating market antic- ipation: An exploratory examination of the effect of preannouncement behavior on a new product's launch. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- ence, 34(3), 357-366. Schindehutte, M., Morris, M. H., & Kocak, A. (2008). Un- derstanding market-driving behavior: The role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Man- agement, 46(1), 4-26. Schumpeter, J. A. (1961). The Theory of Economic Develop- ment: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Inter- est, and the Business Cycle. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sekaran, U. (2000). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. Medford, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneur- ial motivation. Human Resource Management Re- view, 13(2), 257-279. Singh, R. P. (2001). A comment on developing the field of entrepreneurship through the study of opportuni- ty recognition and exploitation. Academy of Man- agement Review, 26(1), 10-12. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2001). Differential effects of incentive motivators on work performance. Acade- my of Management Journal, 44(3), 580-590. Stevenson, H. H. (1983). A perspective on entrepreneur- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.02.007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.02.007 63 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 ship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School. Stiglitz, J. E. (1996). Some lessons from the East Asian mira- cle. The World Bank Research Observer, 11(2), 151- 177. Strauss, D. A. (1998). The illusory distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of result. In N. Devins & D. M. Douglas (Eds.), Redefining Equality (pp. 51-64). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Stuart, R. W., & Abetti, P. A. (1990). Impact of entrepre- neurial and management experience on early per- formance. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(3), 151- 162. Tambunan, T. T. H. (2011). Development of small and medi- um enterprises in a developing country: The Indo- nesian case. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 5(1), 68- 82. Thaler, R. H. (2000). From homo economicus to homo sa- piens. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 133-141. Timmons, J. A., Spinelli, S., & Tan, Y. (1994). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century (4th ed.). Irwin Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill. Tsoukas, H., & Shepherd, J. (2004). Coping with the future: Developing organizational foresightfulness. In L. A. Costanzo & R. B. MacKay (Eds.), Handbook of research on strategy and foresight (pp. 137-144). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Van de Ven, A. H., Hudson, R., & Schroeder, D. M. (1984). Designing new business startups: Entrepreneurial, organizational, and ecological considerations. Jour- nal of Management, 10(1), 87-108. Van Zyl, H. J., & Mathur-Helm, B. (2007). Exploring a con- ceptual model, based on the combined effects of entrepreneurial leadership, market orientation and relationship marketing orientation on South Africa's small tourism business performance. South African Journal of Business Management, 38(2), 17-24. Voelker, T., Steel, D., & Shervin, E. (2017). Internet presence as a small business capability: The case of mobile optimization. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 27(2), 90-103. Watson, K., Hogarth-Scott, S., & Wilson, N. (1998). Small business start-ups: Success factors and support im- plications. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 4(3), 217-238. Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press. Weiner, B. (2000). Attributional thoughts about consum- er behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 382-387. Wells, A. (1995). Meta-cognition and worry: A cognitive model of generalized anxiety disorder. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(03), 301-320. Appendix Descriptive Statistics of the Future Anticipation Antecedent Variable M SD 1 2 3 Entrepreneurship 2.61 .22 1 Entrepreneur’s_Background 2.11 .36 .08 1 Future_Market_Anticipation 5.18 .62 .21* .36** 1 * p< .05, ** p< .01 Regression Weights of the Future Anticipation Antecedent Independent Variable StandardizedEstimation Unstandardized Estimation S.E. C.R. P Entrepreneurship .31 .99 .40 2.51 * Entrepreneur's_Background .31 .36 .12 2.99 ** *p< .05, ** p< .01 Descriptive Statistics of the Future Anticipation Consequences Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 Extra Effort 5.93 .75 1 Customer Value 5.58 .71 .56** 1 Market Performance 5.58 .76 .48** .54** 1 Future Market Anticipation 5.45 .70 .55** .33** .32** 1 * p< .05, ** p< .01 64 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 Regression Weights of Future Anticipation Consequences Variable Independent StandardizedEstimation Unstandardized Estimation S.E. C.R. P Extra_Effort .61 .64 .11 5.79 ** Customer_Value .70 .35 .11 3.14 * Market_Performance .39 .50 .13 3.95 ** * p< .05, ** p< .01 Regression Weights of Future Anticipation Antecedent: (Group number 1 - Default Model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Future_Market_Anticipation <--- Entrepreneurship .99 .40 2.46 .01 par_20 Future_Market_Anticipation <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .36 .13 2.68 .01 par_21 Innovative <--- Entrepreneurship 1.00 Creative <--- Entrepreneurship 1.17 .30 3.94 *** par_1 Independency <--- Entrepreneurship 1.40 .36 3.88 *** par_2 Risk Taking <--- Entrepreneurship -.41 .31 -1.33 .18 par_3 Need For Achievement <--- Entrepreneurship .66 .25 2.68 .01 par_4 Association Support <--- Entrepreneur's_Background 1.00 Government Support <--- Entrepreneur's_Background 1.00 .12 8.57 *** par_5 Social Network <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .70 .11 6.62 *** par_6 Anticipation Training <--- Entrepreneur's_Background 1.03 .12 8.34 *** par_7 Non Batik Training <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .85 .13 6.50 *** par_8 Batik Training <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .66 .11 5.95 *** par_9 Experience <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .21 .09 2.28 .02 par_10 Expenditure <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .54 .22 2.43 .02 par_11 Education <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .11 .10 1.17 .24 par_12 Age <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .16 .10 1.54 .12 par_13 Gender <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .19 .09 2.19 .03 par_14 Model Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation 1.00 Material Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .97 .21 4.62 *** par_15 Labor Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .69 .11 5.97 *** par_16 Competition Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation 1.15 .16 7.43 *** par_17 ASEAN Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .92 .14 6.44 *** par_18 Price Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .23 .21 1.10 .27 par_19 Standardized Regression Weights of Future Anticipation Antecedent: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Future_Market_Anticipation <--- Entrepreneurship .31 Future_Market_Anticipation <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .31 Innovative <--- Entrepreneurship .63 Creative <--- Entrepreneurship .66 Independency <--- Entrepreneurship .48 Risk Taking <--- Entrepreneurship -.14 Need For Achievement <--- Entrepreneurship .32 Association Support <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .73 Government Support <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .76 Social Network <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .62 Anticipation Training <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .76 Non-Batik Training <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .62 Batik Training <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .56 Experience <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .21 Expenditure <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .22 Education <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .11 Age <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .14 Gender <--- Entrepreneur's_Background .20 Model Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .68 Material Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .43 Labor Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .57 Competition Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .81 ASEAN Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .64 Price Anticipation <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .10 65 M. R. Rita, S. H. Priyanto, R. K. Andadari, & J. O. Haryanto Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 49-65 Regression Weights of Future Anticipation Consequences (Group number 1 - Default Model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Extra_Effort <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .64 .11 5.79 *** par_13 Customer_Value <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .35 .11 3.14 .00 par_14 Market_Performance <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .50 .13 3.95 *** par_21 Competit <--- Future_Market_Anticipation 1.00 Laborant <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .57 .10 5.76 *** par_1 Material <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .88 .14 6.19 *** par_2 Modelant <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .56 .13 4.40 *** par_3 Goodprod <--- Customer_Value 1.00 Productc <--- Customer_Value .55 .42 1.31 .19 par_4 Excellen <--- Customer_Value 1.24 .44 2.83 .00 par_5 Attracti <--- Customer_Value .85 .47 1.81 .07 par_6 Benefits <--- Customer_Value 1.49 .51 2.93 .00 par_7 Salescom <--- Market_Performance 1.00 Salestar <--- Market_Performance .85 .10 8.34 *** par_8 Salesgro <--- Market_Performance .54 .09 6.09 *** par_9 Marketsh <--- Market_Performance .91 .11 8.45 *** par_10 Marketgr <--- Market_Performance .48 .10 5.02 *** par_11 Salesper <--- Market_Performance -.12 .16 -.74 .46 par_12 Solution <--- Extra_Effort 1.00 Responsi <--- Extra_Effort .87 .13 6.48 *** par_15 Extraser <--- Extra_Effort .96 .15 6.41 *** par_16 Emphaty <--- Extra_Effort .48 .11 4.40 *** par_17 Reliabil <--- Extra_Effort .43 .13 3.30 *** par_18 Aseanant <--- Future_Market_Anticipation 1.22 .11 10.92 *** par_19 Priceant <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .81 .09 9.19 *** par_20 Standardized Regression Weights of Future Anticipation Consequences (Group Number 1 - Default model) Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Extra_Effort <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .61 Customer_Value <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .70 Market_Performance <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .39 Competit <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .84 Laborant <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .48 Material <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .52 Modelant <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .38 Goodprod <--- Customer_Value .35 Productc <--- Customer_Value .15 Excellen <--- Customer_Value .49 Attracti <--- Customer_Value .22 Benefits <--- Customer_Value .56 Salescom <--- Market_Performance .79 Salestar <--- Market_Performance .74 Salesgro <--- Market_Performance .54 Marketsh <--- Market_Performance .76 Marketgr <--- Market_Performance .45 Salesper <--- Market_Performance -.07 Solution <--- Extra_Effort .75 Responsi <--- Extra_Effort .66 Extraser <--- Extra_Effort .65 Emphaty <--- Extra_Effort .42 Reliabil <--- Extra_Effort .32 Aseanant <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .82 Priceant <--- Future_Market_Anticipation .72