Process Change and Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise in Nigeria

  • -

Process Change and Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise in Nigeria


Onyiro .E. Christopher & Prof. John Ogolo

Department Management, Faculty of Management Sciences

University of Port Harcourt


The study found that SMEs that change their processes on their own are more likely to be innovative, competitive, employees’ satisfaction, and have a lower rate of employee turnover. This can lead to better performance and long-term success. It shows that process change can have a big effect on how well SMEs in Nigeria do their jobs and that investing in process change can help these organizations grow and get better. According to the findings of a research conducted on small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) in Nigeria, there is a positive correlation between the following factors: process change, innovation, competitiveness, employee satisfaction, and staff turnover.

Keywords: Process Change, Innovativeness, Competitiveness, Employees’ Satisfaction, and Turnover


It is a commonly held belief that SMEs are an important component of any economy. This view is supported by the fact that small firms are responsible for the vast majority of newly generated employment and serve as the main motivators of firm growth (European Commission, 2015). In response to the growing number of and emphasis placed on these types of small enterprises within the economy, the European Commission began an effort in the year 2003 to classify them as distinct entities (Prenaj & Ismajli, 2018). However, in 2015, an effort was made to better correctly define SMEs in terms of their operations, staff, and financial health; as a consequence of this work, the decision was reversed. After taking into account all that has been said, the European Commission (2015) reached the following conclusion: (1). Microbusinesses, sometimes known as firms that never employ more than ten (10) people at any one time, are becoming more popular (2). SMEs are defined as having ten or fewer employees and may have up to forty-nine workers on staff (3). Medium-sized businesses are those with between 50 and 249 employees, as defined by the World Economic Forum (4). If a firm has between one and two hundred and forty-nine (1-49) full-time workers, then it is regarded to be in the category of a small or medium-sized firm, sometimes abbreviated as SME (5). If a firm has more than 250 workers, it is considered to be of a size that is considered to be significant. Analogously, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) considered a business to be “small” in the year 2010 if it had ten workers or less, or if its total operating expenses were less than 1.5 million (including working capital, but excluding the cost of land).

From the 1980s through the 1990s, more than 70% of Nigeria’s workforce was employed by the nation’s small enterprises (Echu & Okpara, 2020; Sidik, 2012). At the same time, these SMEs were fast becoming a crucial platform for venture capital in every economy, for the return on money that was invested. SMEs are an efficient means of wealth redistribution but also because they are an essential source of both employment and tax revenue. The Nigerian Bank of Commerce and Industry (NBCI) and the Nigerian Industrial Development Bank Ltd. (NIDB) were both affected by lengthy outages of their computer systems in a similar manner (NBCI). These were development banks whose primary focus was on assisting small enterprises. The federal government of the United States provided financial backing for these institutions. They were designed to support nearby SMEs in determining how to make the most of the resources that are available to them in their immediate vicinity, in addition to any additional resources that they may be able to obtain in the future. They made forgiving loan conditions available to owners of SMEs who were willing to make investments in the growth of their SMEs over a period ranging from 5 to 7 years. At the beginning of the 1990s, this component was responsible for a growth in GDP of 73.3% (Sidik, 2012).

It was reported in 2005 by Kenya’s Central Bureau of Statistics and Ministry of Planning and National Development that the growth rate of the country’s GDP had greatly increased, going from 12% to 14% primarily due to the contributions of small firms. This was a significant jump from the previous year’s growth rate of 12%. In South Africa, small enterprises makeup 91% of all firms, employ 60% of the country’s workforce, and contribute around 52% of the overall gross domestic product. The entire gross domestic product of South Africa has benefited tremendously from the contributions made by the country’s SMEs. According to the findings of the Financial System Strategy 2020 International Conference, while small firms are responsible for 40% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in Asia and 50% of the GDP in both the United States and Europe, their contribution to the GDP in Africa is only about 1%. This contrasts with the situation in Asia, where small firms account for 40% of the GDP and both the United States and Europe has a GDP of 50%. SMEs account for 96% of the total number of enterprises in Nigeria and are the primary source of income for more than 84% of the country’s population. On the other side, in the United States, large corporations account for 96% of all businesses. They are accountable for around 18 million employments, which accounts for nearly half of the workers in the manufacturing industry, 90% of all manufacturing jobs, and 97.2% of all businesses in Nigeria (Nigeria SME Survey, 2017). Given these facts, it is difficult to overstate the importance of SMEs to an economy. As a consequence, improving the effectiveness of SMEs is vital to the ability of the sector to survive and develop over the long run.

It has been acknowledged in the past that the sector of small enterprises makes substantial contributions; yet, despite these efforts, there are still a considerable number of difficulties to be discovered in this sector. Throughout business history, the most significant challenges that entrepreneurs have needed to overcome have been primarily associated with concerns regarding their originality and distinctiveness; and (1) requires carving out a niche for oneself in a market that is already fraught with intense competition. (2) coming up with a concept for, as well as putting in place, a dependable operational technique for the supply of products and services, as well as developing a dependable operational process for the delivery of goods and services. (3). Creating meaningful links on a social level with internal stakeholders (such as workers), linked stakeholders (such as suppliers and rivals), and external stakeholders (such as the government and regulatory agencies) is an important step (Mclntyre, 2019).

However, the overwhelming majority of small firms in Nigeria do not have the resources necessary to effectively compete in a global arena. When trying to explore commercial possibilities in an environment that is friendly to international trade, it seems that a lack of resources has led to a variety of obstacles. These obstacles make it difficult to do business. As a consequence of this, it would seem that the globalization of business has had a detrimental effect on small businesses by increasing the level of competition. This is the case because of the reasons stated above. As a direct result of this, small firms in Nigeria are compelled to compete in an atmosphere in which the degree of competition is increased (Ade, 2012). Problems such as ineffective promotional strategies, insufficient firm resource utilization, poor personnel management strategies and poorly designed action plans, inadequate product customization, and a lack of policy implementation result from this. Further, this leads to inefficient policy implementation. This results in a deficiency in the application of certain policies. More than seventy percent of Nigeria’s small enterprises have been unsuccessful during the first three years of their operations as a direct result of this (Ade, 2012; Ahiauzu, 2016; Echu & Okpara, 2020; Yatu et al., 2018).

As a direct consequence of this, SMEs have seen a deterioration in their overall performance as well as a reduction in their income. Another element that tends to have a negative effect on the operations of small enterprises in Nigeria is the likelihood of meddling from the government, as well as bad economic circumstances and inefficient regulations (Yatu, Bell & Loon, 2018).

Theoretical Foundation

Resource-Based View Theory

Expert in strategic management and a professor at the University of Utah in the United States, Jay B. Barney is well-known for his work in the field. His article titled “Firm Resource and Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” which was released in 1991, provides a summary of the theory’s primary principles as well as the reasons that support them. The resource-based approach was first described in Edith Penrose’s book “the theory of the development of the firm,” which was published in 1959. However, there are several ideas that suggest the concept was first developed in the 1930s (Penrose, 1959). The resource-based approach, which is also known as the resource-advantage theory, postulates that the ability of firms to gain a competitive edge is founded on their ability to acquire, maintain, and improve a better set of resources and skills. This theory is also known as the resource-advantage theory (Barney, 1991). A paradigm known as resource-based perspective analysis is used to study the disparities in firm performance (Peteraf & Barney, 2003). To begin, various firm operating within the same sector could have varying resources. Secondly, such resources might not be readily moved from one firm to another, which might result in resource imbalances that persist for an extended period of time (Barney, 1991). How can firm that operate in highly competitive environments, such as the one that exists now, manage to preserve their unique and long-term competitive advantages? That is the question that an approach that is based on resources makes an effort to address (Hoopes et al., 2003). This method, rather than focusing on differences between firm in terms of criteria such as market share or collusion, emphasizes differences in the firms’ ability to function effectively in their respective markets (Peteraf & Barney, 2003). The resource-based approach is a paradigm that places an emphasis on the resources and capabilities of a firm, with the underlying assumption that they are the key factors that determine the business’s level of competitiveness (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984).

Process Change

Getting the project off the ground, coming up with strategies, and including individuals who will be directly impacted by it are all aspects of the endeavor that are on par with its final outcome in terms of importance. This step is essential to the accomplishment of the project as well as the overall goals of the firm. After the completion of any successful project, certain remnants of the firm structure remain. If it leaves behind hurt emotions, distrust, and anger, or if it helps to establish a constructive environment, then it indicates that it supports a positive work culture and climate. This may be determined by looking at whether or not it leaves behind a productive atmosphere. The amount of time needed to complete a job is relatively constant regardless of whether or not a human is engaged. If the people who will be directly impacted are not engaged in the process, it is possible that it may take much more time than originally anticipated to give them with answers to their queries and assurances of their safety. The ongoing hostility and distrust that exists inside the firm will make it far more difficult to achieve the subsequent significant change. Projects that make an effort to satisfy the wishes and requirements of their stakeholders almost always end up going over their allotted budget and falling behind schedule.


As long as its meaning is tied to how a firm operates, the way it functions, or the results it achieves, the word “performance” may be understood in a variety of contexts. The success of the firm is a reflection of the success of the firm as a whole, which is a reflection of the performance of the firm as a result of producing products and delivering services and operating different divisions within the firm. It’s possible to see performance as an integral aspect of the firm’s forward progress as a whole. What this means is that growth in the firm’s business is a reflection of its performance and can thus be used as a yardstick to evaluate the success with which it operates. To stress the importance of good business management in determining the firm’s ultimate success is crucial at this juncture. As a result, a firm’s output would rise in direct correlation with the efficacy of its operations. When compared to this, the total performance of a firm would suffer if its operations were inefficient and its employees underperformed. In today’s competitive market, a firm’s people resources are its most valuable marketing asset, making their efficacy a key factor in measuring the firm’s overall success.


To be creative is to be able to think up new things and have some of those things get adopted by the larger system at large (Rogers, 1983). The ability to create novel and effective strategies is the driving force behind every firm’s expansion into untapped areas or the development of cutting-edge offerings for established ones (Aas et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2017). The readiness of a firm to try out and introduce to the market new ideas, goods, services, and technology processes and procedures is often cited as the definition of “innovation” by business owners. Contrast this with the common understanding of innovation, which centers on the introduction of new concepts. One of the personality traits linked to product adoption is, thus, the propensity and willingness to invest in new and exciting options as they become available. One possible definition of innovation is “the act of creating something new.” While it’s useful to have a sense of the total number of inventions, it’s much more essential to have a sense of the average number of innovations, the typical time it takes for innovations to be adopted, and the regularity with which innovations have been adopted (Aas et al., 2015). Once again, the number of novel approaches used by a corporation is indicative of its innovativeness. The term “innovation” may thus be argued to have evolved through time.


Businesses need to constantly fine-tune the elements that give them an edge over their competitors if they want to survive in a competitive market. A firm’s “competitive edge” lies in its capacity to provide goods and services that are superior to those of its competitors (Dereli, 2015; Gareche et al., 2017). What sets one firm apart from another in the same market or industry is the ability it cultivates via its assets and/or qualities to surpass its competitors (Barney, 1995; 2011; & Porter, 1985). Having access to a big number of skilled people, an advantageous location, advanced technical skills, and plenty of raw materials and completed products are all examples of such advantages. For a business to have a competitive advantage, its goods or services must be preferred by consumers above those of its rivals. According to the extant literature, there are a number of distinct lenses through which competitive advantage might be analyzed (Anna & Neil, 2017; Lobacz & Glodek, 2015; Pawel, 2016; Shaari, 2019). There are many different forms of commercial advantage. A few examples include (1) having the market to oneself in terms of a particular technology, (2) having an exceptionally skilled workforce, (3) having early access to the most innovative products, and (4) having an instantly recognizable brand (5). Possessing the capacity to provide distinctive products and services at competitive rates (Thanwr & Vaidya, 2021).

Employees’ Satisfaction

When it comes to making a product, a firm’s goal and vision can only be realized with the help of its employees. Each employee is responsible for achieving the established performance standards of the firm in terms of both output quantity and output quality. Firm that wants to maintain high performance levels must provide an environment in which workers can focus on their tasks at hand without being distracted by unnecessary distractions (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015). They need a supportive workplace and a leader who can inspire them to do their best job in the correct manner and make them feel like they’ve achieved something at the end of the day. Job happiness is defined differently by each individual. Management style may be as important to a firm’s competitiveness and employee retention as factors like income, hours worked, schedule, perks, stress level, and flexibility. Job satisfaction was linked to higher levels of productivity, motivation, job performance, and subjective well-being, according to research by Abuhashesh et al. (2019). That’s a strong indicator that the concept follows the workers home as well as into the job. Consider the connection between a person’s satisfaction with their work and their feeling of job security. Happier employees take more pride in their work and the success of the business as a whole, leading to more output. Therefore, contentment in one’s employment is important in fostering a risk-free workplace (Wolniak and Olkiewicz, 2019; Niciejewska, 2017).

Employees’ Turnover

Many researchers have looked at the causes and effects of employee turnover (Shaw et al (1998). To the contrary, there are a variety of factors that might lead to employee turnover. Employee turnover is the process through which employees shift across the labor market, from one firm to another, from one job to another, and from being employed to being unemployed. Anisa Abadi et al (2000). Price (1977) defines turnover as the percentage of a firm’s workforce that leaves within a certain time period as compared to the average number of workers at the firm during that time. There is a percentage next to this ratio. Some managers define employee turnover as the time and resources used to find, hire, and train a new employee to replace one who has voluntarily left their position. Any former worker is eligible for this treatment. Workers often change positions, a phenomenon known as “turnover” (1995). This idea is also used in exit surveys to assess the degree of loyalty former workers feel toward their former employers. When compared to the conventional knowledge, the “unfolding model” of voluntary turnover (Hom & Griffeth, 1995) emphasizes the decisional element of employee turnover, i.e., it portrays voluntary turnover events as decisions to quit. The “unfolding model” of voluntary turnover is different from common understanding in this respect. This approach to troubleshooting is based on the “image theory” decision-making paradigm.

Process Change and Performance

Altering a process may have a substantial impact on the output it produces. When a procedure is altered, it often results in gains in terms of both efficiency and production, as well as in quality. For instance, the implementation of a new technology or the simplification of a process may result in the quicker completion of tasks and the decrease in the number of mistakes. On the other side, a change in the process that is poorly conceived or executed might result in lower performance, confusion, and irritation among the workforce. It is essential to verify that any modifications to a process that are about to be implemented will have a beneficial effect on performance before actually putting those changes into effect by carefully planning and testing them. Any adjustments to an existing process should be well thought out and tested to guarantee a net positive effect on output before being put into place. To do so, one must first determine what issue or opportunity the proposed process change is meant to solve, then conduct an in-depth analysis of the existing process to isolate the underlying causes of any issues, and last, create a comprehensive blueprint for the proposed process redesign. Involving workers and other stakeholders in the process transformation helps get buy-in and insights. To ensure the change is having the intended effect and to identify and resolve any difficulties that may occur, it is also crucial to monitor the process and assess its effectiveness after it has been implemented.

Test of Hypotheses

Ho1: There is no significant link between process change and innovativeness of small and medium-sized enterprises in Nigeria.

Ho2:     There is no significant link between process change and competitiveness of small and medium-     sized enterprises in Nigeria.

Ho3:     There is no significant link between process change and employees’ satisfaction of small and        medium-sized enterprises in Nigeria.

Ho4:     There is no significant link between process change and employees’ turnover of small and             medium-sized enterprises in Nigeria.

Figure 1: Hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4

Source: SmartPLS 3.3.3 output on Research Data, 2022

The path analysis depicted in figure 4.9 reveals significant positive links between Process Change and Innovativeness (= 0.391, t = 6.935, p = 0.000), Process Change and Competitiveness (= 0.354, t = 6.485, p = 0.000), Process Change and Employee Satisfaction (= 0.136, t = 2.150, p = 0.032), and Process Change and Employee Turnover. Therefore, HO1, HO2, HO3, and HO4 were all shown to be false. Hence;

There is a significant link between Process Change and Innovativeness.

There is a significant link between Process Change and Competitiveness.

There is a significant link between Process Change and Employees’ Satisfaction.

There is a significant link between Process Change and Employees’ Turnover.

Table 4.26: Results of Hypotheses Testing

Null Hypothesis Path Coefficient (β) P Values (p) Predictive Accuracy (R2) T Statistics (t) Effect size (f2) Predictive Relevance (Q2) Decision on Hypothesis
HO1 0.391 (Moderate) 0.000 (Accepted) 0.153 (Weak) 6.935 (Significant) 0.180 (Medium) 0.129 (Relevant) Reject
HO2 0.354 (Moderate) 0.000 (Accepted) 0.126 (Weak) 6.485 (Significant) 0.144 (Small) 0.114 (Relevant) Reject
HO3 0.136 (Weak) 0.032 (Accepted) 0.018 (Weak) 2.150 (Significant) 0.019 (Small) 0.013 (Relevant) Reject
HO4 0.447 (Moderate) 0.000 (Accepted) 0.200 (Weak) 9.411 (Significant) 0.250 (Medium) 0.129 (Relevant) Reject

Discussion of Finding

Process Change and Innovation

The p-value for the association between Process Change and Innovativeness was 0.000, which is lower than the threshold of significance of 0.05 (p = 0.000 0.05), indicating that there is a meaningful link between the two variables. Study results on the link between Process Change and Innovativeness led the researchers to believe that there is a substantial link between the two. Because of this, we can now go on with testing our alternative hypothesis and reject the null. The path coefficient was calculated to be 0.391 in this case. These results indicate a strong positive correlation between innovative thinking and practice. Predictive accuracy, as measured by r2, was calculated to be 0.153. In this case, the research suggests that a modification to the Process Change might account for 15.3 percent of the variation in Innovativeness across employees.

This outcome is in line with the study of Bajenescu (2017) which revealed that the introduction of new procedures inside a firm may sometimes serve as a catalyst for innovation within, hence the two concepts are frequently found to be closely related to one another. Process change may entail updating or totally reworking the way work is done inside a firm, which can lead to new ways of thinking and working. This can be beneficial for both the business and its employees. For instance, a firm that transitions to a new manufacturing method may find that it is able to develop a new product as a consequence of the change, or it may find that it is able to save money or become more efficient as a result of the shift. On the other side, innovation refers to the introduction of new concepts, products, or processes into a company that increase the value of the firm. These inventions may originate from inside the company, or they may be taken from outside sources. Either way, they are considered to be innovations. The modification of a process may, in many instances, serve as a driver of innovation since it can result in new ways of thinking and working, which in turn can inspire new ideas. If a corporation, for instance, implements a brand-new customer link management system, it could find new methods of communicating with clients or new insights into the behavior of customers. Nevertheless, it is essential to keep in mind that process transformation and innovativeness do not necessarily go hand in hand with one another. It is possible to innovate without producing new ideas or introducing new processes, and it is also possible to introduce new procedures without coming up with innovative new ideas. In spite of this, the modification of processes may often serve as a significant impetus for innovation inside a business.

Process Change and Competitiveness

The p-value for the second hypothesis was 0.000, meaning the significance level was lower than 0.05 (p = 0.000 0.05). This hypothesis looked at the correlation between process improvement and market competitiveness. The second hypothesis was investigated by looking at how process innovation affects business competitiveness. This provides support for the idea that process innovation and competitiveness are inextricably linked. After weighing all of the available evidence, it was concluded that the alternative hypothesis was more likely to be correct than the null hypothesis. Increases in the Process Change provide an incentive for workers to do a better job throughout the broad spectrum of tasks assigned to them. A path coefficient of 0.354 was calculated. This data supports the inference of a positive and substantial link between competitiveness and process change.

The outcome of this study is in line with the study of Farniha et al. (2016) which noted that introducing new procedures into a firm may often result in a rise in that entity’s level of competitiveness. This is due to the fact that altering the processes by which work is completed may result in increases in productivity, quality, and cost, all of which can provide a company with a competitive advantage. For instance, if a firm implements a new manufacturing method that shortens production periods and cuts down on waste, the company may be able to manufacture items at a cheaper cost and in a more expedient manner, which may make the company more competitive in the market. In a similar vein, a firm may be able to distinguish itself from its rivals and secure more business if it implements a new customer service procedure that speeds up response times and boosts the level of pleasure experienced by customers. However, it is essential to keep in mind that there is not always a straight correlation between process improvement and competitiveness. Altering procedures could not result in major benefits in certain circumstances, and it might even have the opposite effect on a company’s ability to remain competitive. Before adopting any changes, it is essential for businesses to conduct detailed analyses of the possible effects that a process change might have on their level of competitiveness. Although process change has the potential to be a significant component in determining a firm’s level of competitiveness, it is just one of many variables that may have an effect in this regard. Other aspects, such as product quality, market demand, and pricing strategy, may also play a key role in determining a company’s level of competitiveness.

Process Change and Employees’ Satisfaction

0.136 was the value of the path coefficient. This demonstrates that there is a modest association between changes in the process and employees’ levels of satisfaction. The existence of a positive correlation suggests that the level of Process Change is inversely correlated to the degree to which workers are satisfied with their jobs.

This outcome is in line with the studies of Kwon et al. (2018), and Hjorth et al. (2015) which revealed that altering a process may have a variety of effects on the level of satisfaction experienced by workers. There is a possibility that some workers will be pleased when procedures are altered because they may see these alterations as a chance for personal advancement or as a means of making their job more productive. In situations like these, a modification in the process might lead to an increase in the level of satisfaction among the personnel. On the other side, changes to processes may also be disruptive and lead to increased levels of stress and discontent among workers. Confusion and a loss in satisfaction might result, for instance, when personnel are not provided with the appropriate training on new procedures or when changes are not communicated in an effective manner. In addition, if workers believe that their suggestions are not being taken into consideration or that the changes will not be to their advantage, this may also contribute to a loss in satisfaction on their part. In general, the effect that a change in process will have on employee satisfaction will depend on a number of different factors. These factors include the nature of the changes, the amount of communication and support that is provided to employees, and the degree to which employees feel that the changes are beneficial. When introducing new procedures, it is essential for companies to give careful consideration to the aforementioned criteria in order to guarantee that the changes will have the greatest potential good impact on their workforce.

Process Change and Employees’ Turnover

A value of 0.447 was obtained for the path coefficient. This demonstrates that there is some association between changes in the process and employee turnover. The existence of a positive connection between the two variables suggests that the number of workers who leave their jobs increases in proportion to the level of process change.

This result accords with the research of Kwon et al. (2018), who found that modifying a process might have a wide range of effects on turnover. Increased employee turnover may occur in certain settings if new procedures are implemented. This might happen if workers start to feel that the improvements aren’t helping them or if they just lose faith in the new direction the company is taking. The likelihood of an employee leaving their current position increases, for instance, if they believe that the company’s processes have been changed to the point where their past expertise and experience are no longer necessary. The number of workers that quit your firm may be reduced, though, by just changing a technique. This is because the new process may provide workers with novel chances or difficulties that they will like tackling. Situations like this may give workers the idea that their employer cares for them as individuals and their professional development, both of which have the ability to increase their loyalty to the firm. Increased loyalty might be good for business. The extent to which a method shift affects employee turnover depends on a number of factors; yet, there are several areas that are almost certainly going to be impacted. How effectively employees adapt to change depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the changes, the quantity of information and aid that is supplied to workers, and the degree to which employees think that the changes are useful. When making changes to a process, it’s crucial for companies to keep the aforementioned considerations in mind to reduce the risk of losing employees.


Based on the results of a research study, it can be said that small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in Nigeria have a positive relationship between process change, innovativeness, competitiveness, employees’ satisfaction, and employee turnover. First, the study found that process change and innovativeness in SMEs in Nigeria are linked in a good way. The study found that SMEs that change their processes more on their own are more likely to come up with new products, services, and ways of doing business. This is likely because process change lets SMEs find and fix inefficiencies, which can lead to the creation of new and better products, services, and ways of doing business. Second, the study found that process change is related to SMEs in Nigeria being more competitive in a good way. The study found that SMEs are more likely to be competitive in their markets if they are more open to making changes to their processes. This is likely because process change lets SMEs improve their efficiency and productivity, which can lead to lower costs and better products and services. Third, the study found that process change and employee satisfaction in SMEs in Nigeria are linked in a good way. The study found that employees are more likely to be happy at SMEs that make changes to their processes on their own. This is likely because changing a process can led to better working conditions, more freedom, and more chances to grow professionally.

Lastly, the study found that the turnover of employees in Nigerian SMEs is linked to process change in a way that is not good. The study found that small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) that change their processes more often are less likely to have a lot of employees leave. This is likely because changing the way things are done can lead to better working conditions, more freedom, and more opportunities for professional growth, all of which can make people happier at work and reduce turnover. In the end, the study found that there is a positive link between process change, innovativeness, competitiveness, employee satisfaction, and employee turnover in SMEs in Nigeria. SMEs that are proactive about changing their processes are more likely to be innovative, competitive, have satisfied employees, and have a lower turnover rate. This can lead to better performance and long-term success.


Based on the result of the analysis, findings and the conclusion above the following recommendations has been made to small businesses.

  1. Firms should encourage an all-inclusive analysis of its environment using a comprehensive thought process that fosters the acquisition of low-cost raw materials.
  2. Firms should enhance its operation by allowing for flexible decision-making process with the aid of cognition towards efficiently managing operational processes.
  3. Firms are required to establish long-term learning programmes which will aid firms achieve firm needs seamlessly.
  4. Small businesses should take advantage of opportunities for developing innovative strategies to be self-efficient. This thus helps entrepreneurs develop deeper interest in their activities thereby focusing on market penetration.


Baker, T. & Welter, F. (2016). Come on out of the ghetto, please! — Building the future of entrepreneurship research. Working Paper. Bonn, Germany: IfM Bonn

Bamel, U.K., Rangnekar, S., Stokes P. &Rastogi, R. (2015). Managerial effectiveness: An            Indian experience. Journal of Management Development, 34(2), 202 – 225

Barakat, S., Boddington, M. & Vykarnam, S. (2014). Measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to   understand the impact of creative activities for learning innovation. The International            Journal of Management Education. 1-21.

Barrett, S. (2014). Subnational climate justice? Adaptation finance distribution and climate    vulnerability. World Development, 58, 130-142.

Blomberg, O. (2011). Concepts of cognition for cognitive engineering. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 21(1), 85-104. 1080/10508414.2011.537561

Bradley, S. W. (2015). Entrepreneurial resourcefulness. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management (3rd eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Boiral, O., Baron, C., & Gunnlaugson, O. (2014). Environmental leadership and consciousness     development: A case study among Canadian SMEs. Journal of business ethics, 123(3),           363-383.

Bolarinwa, O. A. (2015). Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of         questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Nigerian Postgraduate    Medical Journal, 22(4), 195 – 201

Bozward, D. & Rogers-Draycott, M., (2017) Developing a staged competency-based approach     to enterprise creation. Proceedings of the International Conference for Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Regional Development.

Central Bank of Nigeria (2010). N200 billion small and medium enterprises (SME) credit guarantee scheme (SMECGS) guidelines. Development Finance Department, CBN Abuja.

Chiekezie, O.M., Nzewi, H.N. & Erhinmwionose, I.A. (2016). Entrepreneurial skill acquisition     and job creation in Benin City, Nigeria. EPRA International Journal of Economic            and      Business Review, 4(6), 94-101

Cho, E (2016). Making reliability reliable. Organisational Research Methods, 19(4), 651–682.

Mekic, E. &Mekic, E. (2014). Supports and critiques on porter’s competitive strategy and competitive advantage, 1-13. file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/icesosmo8final.pdf

Miles, D.A. (2017). A taxonomy of research gaps: Identifying and defining the seven research        gaps, doctoral student workshop: Finding research gaps.Research Methods and       Strategies, Dallas, Texas, 2017.file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Miles2017.pdf

Mohajan, H.K. (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability.    Annals of Spiru Haret University, 17(3), 58-82.

Muhammed, T., Dönüş, S., & Muhammed, Z. (2018). Managerial resourcefulness in school administrators: Association with stress and depression. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 47(1), 216-232.

Müller-Bloch, C. &Kranz, J., (2014). A framework for rigorously identifying research gaps in       qualitative literature reviews. The Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015, 1–19.

Nafuna, E. Masaba, A.K., Tumwine, S., Watundu S., Bonareri, T.C. &Nakola, N. (2019). Pricing strategies and financial performance: The mediating effect of competitive advantage. Empirical evidence from Uganda, a study of private primary schools. Global Journal of     Management and Business Research: C Finance, 19(10), 1-18.

Nieuwenhuis, S., & de Kleijn, R. (2013). The impact of alertness on cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance39, 1797–1801.

Nigeria SME Survey (2017). Assessing current market conditions and business growth prospects. PwC, Nigeria.

Nkuda, M.O. (2016). Strategic agility and competitive advantage: Exploration of the ontological, epistemological and theoretical underpinnings. British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade 16(1), 1-13, 30979, 10.9734/BJEMT/2017/30979

Nota, L. Ginevra, M.C. & Soresi, S. (2012). The career and workplace adaptability questionnaire (CWAQ): A first contribution to its validation. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1557-    1569.

Oberthür, S. & Groen, L. (2018). Explaining goal achievement in international negotiations: The   EU and the Paris Agreement on climate change. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(5), 708–27.

Ochonogor, D.I. & Onuoha, B.C. (2020). Environmental stewardship and organizational competitiveness of the oil and gas industry in Nigeria. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development, 5(5), 6-15.


Google Scholar


Impact Factor

2018 : 3.466

2015 : 0.676

Current impact factor evaluation is in progress.

Call for papers

Research Articles written in English Language are invited from interested researchers in the academic community and other establishments for publication. Authors who wish to submit manuscripts should ensure that the manuscripts have not been submitted elsewhere neither is it under consideration in another journal. The articles should be the original work of the authors. High quality theoretical and empirical original research papers, case studies, review papers, literature reviews, book reviews, conceptual framework, analytical and simulation models, technical note from researchers, academicians, professional, practitioners and students from all over the world are welcomed.