Second Revision

As a result of the first pilot study a number of further changes were introduced to the questionnaire.

5.7.4.1 Structure

The welcome page was slightly changed. The time estimation for questionnaire completion was extended. One of the managers after completing the questionnaire sent an email with a following comment: ‘I feel the estimate of ‘no more than 15 minutes to complete’ is extremely optimistic, it would be closer to 25 mins in all if done in one go’. Additionally, it was advised to complete the questionnaire in one

session as it cannot be saved. Also, a research assistant was employed to aid with data collection for the second pilot study. As a result her name was added to the welcome page.

5.7.4.2 Constructs

The variance of all items in the questionnaire was checked using the SPSS data analysis package (mean, standard deviation and minimum-maximum). It was not meant to be used to draw inferences, but to get a first gauge of the data.

Based on that information the wording of a number of items was changed. For the planning construct, items 1, 2, 3 and 6 were slightly reworded, due to the lack of variance. More specifically, none of the respondents had ‘strongly disagreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the statements. The wording was changed in the following way:

Item 1: ‘Our export decisions are often made explicit in the form of precise plans’. New item 1: ‘Our export decisions are always made explicit in the form of precise

plans’.

Item 2: ‘When we formulate an export decision it is often planned in detail’.

New Item 2: ‘When we formulate an export decision it is usually planned in detail’. Item 3: ‘We tend to have precise procedures for achieving export objectives’. New Item 3: ‘We usually have precise procedures for achieving export objectives’. Item 6: ‘We often evaluate potential export-market options against explicit export-

market objectives’.

New Item 6: ‘We always evaluate potential export-market options against explicit

export-market objectives’.

Regarding the spontaneity construct, items 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 did not have enough variance. The answers of items 2 and 3 varied from ‘slightly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ which means that not one of the respondents ‘strongly disagreed’ or

‘disagreed’ with the statements. Additionally, no one ‘strongly disagreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with statements 5, 6 and 10. The wording of the items was slightly changed:

New item 2: ‘In our export function we are good at thinking on our feet all the time’. Item 3: ‘We have an ability to respond ‘in the moment’ to unexpected export

problems’.

New item 3: ‘We have a great ability to respond ‘in the moment’ to unexpected

export problems’.

Item 5: ‘We often make export decisions spontaneously’.

New item 5: ‘We usually make export decisions spontaneously’. Item 6: ‘We often make export decisions out of the blue’.

New item 6: ‘When necessary, we make export decisions out of the blue’. Item 10: ‘We often make export decisions ‘on the hoof’’.

New item 10: ‘When it is called for, we will make export decisions “on the hoof” ’.

In relation to creativity, items 2, 4, 5 and 7 did not have enough variance. The

answers of items 4 and 7 varied from ‘slightly disagree’ to ‘agree’, which means that not one of the respondents ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’ or ‘slightly agreed’ with the statements. For items 2 and 5, answers varied from ‘disagree’ to ‘agree’. The wording was again slightly changed:

Item 2: ‘We are very inventive in our export function’ New Item 2: ‘Our export staff are very inventive’.

Item 4: ‘We often try new approaches to export problems’.

New item 4: ‘We always try new approaches to export problems’. Item 5: ‘We often demonstrate originality in our export work’ New item 5: ‘Our export work is very original’.

Item 7: ‘We find new solutions for existing export problems’.

Item 7: ‘We are very good at finding new solutions to export problems’.

Regarding action-orientation, items 2, 3, 4 and 8 did not have enough variance. The answers for item 2 varied from ‘neutral’ to ‘strongly agree’, which means that no one ‘disagreed’ with a statement in any way. Items 3 and 4 varied from ‘slightly disagree’ to ‘agree’. Item 8 varied from ‘disagree’ to ‘agree’. The wording was changed in a following way:

Item 2: ‘We are persistent in seeing through our export decisions’.

New item 2: ‘We are very persistent in seeing through our export decisions’. Item 3: ‘We do not tend to be distracted when actioning an export decision’ New item 3: ‘We can be distracted when actioning an export decision’ (reverse

coded).

Item 4: ‘In our export function we are often action-orientated’.

New item 4: ‘In our export function we are always action-orientated’.

Item 8: ‘We never get bogged down in details while making export decisions’.

New item 8: ‘Getting bogged down in details is not an option when export decisions

have to be made’.

Regarding the construct of export responsiveness, items 1 and 6 did not

demonstrate enough variance as they varied from ‘disagree’ to ‘agree’. The following changes to the wording were introduced.

Item 1: ‘We are able to rapidly adapt to change in our export market (s) when we

need to’.

New Item 1: ‘Our whole export function is very adaptable to change’. Item 6: ‘We can quickly react to export market opportunities’.

New item 6: ‘When export market opportunities arise, we can react extremely

quickly’.

The question on subjective measures of export performance was extended

(additional items were introduced) and divided into two questions. The time frame was also changed from three years to one year as the company’s performance can significantly vary over the three-year period due to the recent events of the global financial crisis (2008-2009). The revised measures are presented below.

Table 5.9: Operationalisation of Export Customer Performance

Variables and Items Source

Export customer satisfaction

Leonidou, Palihawadana and Theodosiou, 2011 Retention of export customers

Acquiring new export customers

Company reputation among export customers

New referrals from existing export customers Hulman, Robson and Katsikeas, 2009

Table 5.10: Operationalisation of Export Financial Performance

Variables and Items Source

Export sales volume (in unit terms)

Leonidou, Palihawadana and Theodosiou, 2011 Overall export profitability

Return on investment made on exports Export market share

Export profit margin Hulman, Robson and

Katsikeas, 2009 Export profit growth

Reaching financial goals

Shilke, Reimann and Thomas, 2009 Absolute export sales revenue

Growth in export sales revenue

A single-item knowledgeability question was added to the questionnaire: ‘To what extent do you possess the knowledge to have answered the above questions adequately?’ (‘Not knowledgeable at all-Little knowledge-Average knowledge-Good knowledge-Very good knowledge’). In case of export decision-making ‘the

information being sought is often so unique to the export function, that there are unlikely to be many people with access to the relevant data… For instance, in SMEs [which represent a majority of the target population, see section 5.4.1] there may only be one person dealing with export operations’ (Sousa, Martinez-Lopez and Coelho, 2008 p.349). As mentioned above (see section 5.4.5) the data for the

current study was collected from a single respondent. However, before any statistical analysis is undertaken, it was necessary to verify respondents’ knowledgeability.

5.7.4.3 Response Format

According to the preliminary results, all items of measurements relating to export performance did not have enough variance. None of the respondents were ‘very dissatisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’ with export performance. The decision was made to introduce a 7-point unbalanced scale (see Cadogan et al., 2001,

Jayawardhena et al., 2007), with 1= ‘dissatisfied’, 2= ‘slightly dissatisfied’, 3= ‘neutral’, 4= ‘slightly satisfied’, 5= ‘satisfied’, 6= ‘very satisfied’, 7= ‘extremely satisfied’, 0= ‘don’t know’.