Need for achievement and financial performance: a mediating role of board creativity

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Source: Literature review with modifications.

Table 1. Sampling procedure.

S/N	Sampling procedure
1	The study used simple random sampling to reduce bias and giving board members equal chance of being selected as used by Solomon and Makuya (2022).
2	Sampling frame was obtained from BoT (2023) with 374 board members, one from each MFI.
3	A priori sample size calculator was used and came up with 137 as the minimum required sample size to detect an effect and which is the recommended sample in this case
4	193 respondents were randomly selected based on sample size obtained by using a Slovin formula with confidence interval of 95%. $\text{n}=\text{N}/(1+\mathrm{N}e2)$ (1) Where: N = Population = 106, n = Estimated Sample Size, and e = Error term (percentage) = 5% (0.05). Therefore, the calculated sample size was n = 374/ (1 + 374 × 0.05^2) = 193 the sample size was considered enough as it is within the recommended range
5	Questionnaires were distributed to 193 board members, one for each MFI
6	189 valid responses were collected, yielding an impressive response rate of 97.9%.
7	4 questionnaires were not returned or responded, there were no missing data in the collected questionnaires.

Table 2. Operationalization of variables.

Variable	Definition	Class	Measurement	Source
Need for achievement (NFA)	Individual’s intrinsic motivation to excel	Independent variable	Measured using 5- point Likert scale with four items.	Gürol and Atsan (2006); Ismail (2022) and Conradi et al. (2014
Board creativity (BCR)	Ability to generate novel/innovative ideas	Mediator	Measured using 5- point Likert scale with three items.	Torchia et al. (2011), and Nwekpa and Wabara (2022
Financial performance of MFI (FIN)	Quantitative measure of a firm’s profitability, revenues growth, or other financial metrics	Dependent variable	Measured using 5- point Likert scale with three items.	Horváthová et al. (2015) and Chi and Gursoy (2009)

Figure 2. Path diagram indicating CFA results.

Source: Figure by author.

Table 3. Measurements, reliability, and validity.

Construct/items	Loadings	Cronbach’s alpha	CR	AVE
Need for achievement		0.867	0.868	0.622
I will not be pleased until I have achieved the desired outcomes (NFA1)	0.834
Nothing crucial is ever postponed until a more opportune time for me (NFA2).	0.771
I consider my work to be merely a means of achieving my objectives (NFA3).	0.758
Although many people believe it is impossible, I shall persevere (NFA4).	0.790
Board creativity		0.807	0.809	0.585
The board meetings are characterized by creative discussion (BCR1)	0.705
The board members present a number of creative and innovative proposals in the meetings (BCR2)	0.812
The board finds a number of creative and innovative solution plans (BCR3)	0.775
Financial performance		0.841	0.861	0.679
Profitability (FIN 1)	0.825
Return on investment (FIN2)	0.653
Net profit (FIN3)	0.965

Model fit indices: X² = 58.920, df = 32, p = 0.003, X²/df = 1.841, CFI = 0.969, GFI = 0.945, AGFI =0.905, NFI = 0.936, RFI = 0.911, IFI, = 0.970, TLI = 0.957, SRMR = 0.056, RMSEA = 0.067, PCLOSE = 0.144.

Source: Table by author.

Table 4. Fornell-Larcker criterion of discriminant validity.

	AVE	MSV	NFA	BCR	FIN
NFA	0.622	0.148	0.789
BCR	0.585	0.092	0.286	0.765
FIN	0.679	0.148	0.385	0.303	0.824

Notes: Bolded values present square root of AVE.

Source: Table by author.

Table 5. Structural model analysis by using process macro.

Hypotheses	Coeff	Se	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
NFA -> BCR (H1)	0.288	0.088	3.285	0.001	0.115	0.461
NFA -> FIN (H2)	0.366	0.091	4.020	0.000	0.186	0.545
BCR -> FIN (H3)	0.255	0.074	3.464	0.001	0.110	0.401
Direct effect	Effect	Se	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
	0.366	0.091	4.020	0.000	0.186	0.545
Indirect effect	Effect	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
NFA ->BCR -> FIN (H4)	0.074	0.033	0.020	0.146
Total effect	Effect	Se	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
	0.440	0.91	4.827	0.000	0.260	0.619

Source: Field survey.

Solomon, S., & Makuya, V. (2022). Corporate governance and firm performance: Evidence from microfinance institutions in Tanzania. African Journal of Accounting and Social Science Studies, 4(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajasss.v4i2.16

 Google Scholar

BOT (Bank of Tanzania). (2023). List of Licensed microfinance institutions; https://www.bot.go.tz/BankSupervision/Institutions.

 Google Scholar

Gürol, Y., & Atsan, N. (2006). Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Some insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey. Education + Training, 48(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610645716

 Google Scholar

Ismail, I. J. (2022). Entrepreneurial start-up motivations and growth of small and medium enterprises in Tanzania: The role of entrepreneur’s personality traits. FIIB Business Review, 11(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145211068599

 Google Scholar

Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., & McKenna, M. C. (2014). Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 127–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9245-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Morner, M. (2011). Board of directors’ diversity, creativity, and cognitive conflict the role of board members’ interaction. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015.1005992

 Google Scholar

Nwekpa, K. C., & Wabara, S. T. (2022). Creativity and the performance of family business: A study of ABC transport Plc., Nigeria. International Journal of Development and Management Review, 17(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijdmr.v17i1.5

 Google Scholar

Horváthová, J., Mokrišová, M., Suhányiová, A., & Suhányi, L. (2015). Selection of key performance indicators of chosen industry and their application in formation of creditworthy model. Procedia Economics and Finance, 34(15), 360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)01641-x

 Google Scholar

Chi, C. G., & Gursoy, D. (2009). Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and financial performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(2), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.08.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar