Abstract
This paper employs organizational learning theory to examine the short-term effect of past export performance, and internal (management) and external (market) forces on marketing strategy adaptation and current export performance. Results from a survey of over 500 export managers indicate that current-period performance improvement (in terms of performance achievement, export intensity, and performance satisfaction in the current year) is influenced by the firm's commitment to exporting. Further, the authors found that while performance satisfaction feeds performance improvement in the following year, both the previous year's export intensity and export performance achievement produce a negative impact on current-period performance improvement. More importantly, the level of development in the export market facilitates marketing strategy adaptation in the short term, as does export intensity in the previous year. However, satisfaction with previous-year performance negatively influences the degree of distribution adaptation. Implications for international business researchers and practitioners are also discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Earlier research on the impact of export market forces on export performance yields mixed findings (cf. Austin, 1990; Beamish, Craig, & McLellan, 1993; Sriram & Manu, 1995). In light of these mixed results, and the lack of strong theory based upon organizational learning to posit such relationships, we do not hypothesize the relationships between the export market forces and performance improvement in the current period.
However, while taking into consideration the comment of an anonymous reviewer, we split the sample into exporters of consumer products (n=416) and exporters of industrial products (n=103). After analyzing the correlation matrices we found some support for H1. An analysis of the correlations revealed that, for industrial exporters, distribution adaptation is significantly correlated with current-period export intensity (r=0.21, p<0.05). This split also indicated that our initial finding, that product adaptation is negatively correlated with performance achievement, is found to be significant only in the case of consumer goods (r=−0.12, p<0.05).
After splitting the sample, we found additional support for H2d because for industrial exporters a firm's commitment to exporting is significantly correlated with distribution adaptation (r=0.21, p<0.05). While taking into consideration the comment of an anonymous reviewer, we used the mean of the past performance factors to divide the sample into exporters with low/high past export intensity (n=265/n=254), low/high past performance achievement (n=240/n=279), and low/high past satisfaction (n=212/n=307). After splitting the sample, we found that commitment is correlated with promotion adaptation when past intensity (r=0.20, p<0.01) and past satisfaction (r=0.14, p<0.05) are high. Moreover, commitment is also correlated with distribution adaptation when both past intensity (r=0.16, p<0.05) and past satisfaction (r=0.12, p<0.05) are high.
Surprisingly, we found that the correlations between commitment and the three dimensions of current performance (intensity, achievement, and satisfaction) are positive only for exporters of consumer goods (r=0.15, p<0.01; r=0.15, p<0.01; r=0.13, p<0.01, respectively). We also found that the relationship between commitment and the three dimensions of current performance is positive only when past intensity is low (r=0.20, p<0.01; r=0.17, p<0.01; r=0.16, p<0.05, respectively), past achievement is low (r=0.24, p<0.01; r=0.19, p<0.01; r=0.19, p<0.01, respectively), and past satisfaction is low (r=0.21, p<0.01; r=0.17, p<0.05; r=0.20, p<0.01, respectively).
However, after dividing the sample we found some support for H3. For exporters of consumer products, experience is significantly correlated with distribution adaptation (r=0.10, p<0.05). Moreover, we also found that when satisfaction with past performance is low there is a positive correlation between experience and distribution adaptation (r=0.17, p<0.05).
After splitting the sample we found partial support for H5. In the case of exporters of consumer products, experience is significantly correlated with current-export intensity (r=0.12, p<0.05), current performance achievement (r=0.16, p<0.01), and current performance satisfaction (r=0.15, p<0.01). Surprisingly, we also found that experience is correlated with the three dimensions of current performance (intensity, achievement and satisfaction) only when past intensity is high (r=0.12, n.s.; r=0.20, p<0.01; r=0.16, p<0.01, respectively), past achievement is low (r=0.18, p<0.01; r=0.17, p<0.01; r=0.17, p<0.01, respectively), and past satisfaction is low (r=0.18, p<0.05; r=0.21, p<0.01; r=0.23, p<0.01, respectively).
After splitting the sample, we found that only in the case of consumer goods is export market development positively correlated to product (r=0.16, p<0.01), promotion (r=0.15, p<0.01) and distribution (r=0.16, p<0.05).
Although we did not hypothesize specific effects between export market forces and current-period performance improvement, we estimated the effects, only to find that export market forces produces no significant effects on current-period export intensity (γ 53=−0.01, n.s. for market development and γ 54=0.06, n.s. for competition), performance achievement (γ 63=−0.02, n.s. for market development and γ 64=0.08, p<0.10 for competition) or current-period performance satisfaction (γ 73=−0.04, n.s. for market development and γ 74=0.01, n.s. for competition).
However, we found some support for H7. When past export intensity is low, competition is correlated with product adaptation (r=0.14, p<0.05).
References
Aaby, N. -E., & Slater, S. F. 1989. Management influences on export performance: A review of the empirical literature 1978–1988. International Marketing Review, 6 (4): 7–26.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3): 396–400.
Atuahene-Gima, K. 2005. Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69 (4): 61–83.
Austin, J. 1990. Managing in developing countries. New York: Free Press.
Bagozzi, R. P. 1980. Causal models in marketing. New York: John Wiley.
Beamish, P. W., Craig, R., & McLellan, L. 1993. The performance characteristics of Canadian vs UK exporters in small and medium sized firms. Management International Review, 33 (2): 121–137.
Bilkey, W. J. 1978. An attempted integration of the literature on the export behavior of firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 9 (1): 33–46.
Bonoma, T. V., & Clark, B. H. 1988. Marketing performance assessment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Buzzell, R. 1968. Can you standardize multinational marketing? Harvard Business Review, 46 (Nov/Dec): 102–113.
Cavusgil, S. T., & Zou, S. 1994. Marketing strategy–performance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing, 58 (1): 1–21.
Cavusgil, S. T., Zou, S., & Naidu, G. M. 1993. Product and promotion adaptation in export ventures: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (3): 479–506.
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. 1985. The impact of export strategy on export sales performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 16 (1): 37–55.
Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 (3): 297–334.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. 1999. An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3): 522–537.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Das, M. 1994. Successful and unsuccessful exporters from developing countries: Some preliminary findings. European Journal of Marketing, 28 (12): 19–33.
Day, G. S. 1994. Continuous learning about markets. California Management Review, 36 (4): 9–31.
Day, G. S., & Nedungadi, P. 1994. Managerial representations of competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 58 (2): 31–44.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Inglis, K. 1988. Identifying differences between high- and low-involvement exporters. International Marketing Review, 5 (2): 52–60.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. 2001. Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2): 269–277.
Dickson, P. R. 1992. Toward a general theory of competitive rationality. Journal of Marketing, 56 (1): 69–83.
Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. 1989. Evolution of global marketings: Scale, scope and synergy. Columbia Journal of World Business, 24 (3): 47–58.
Doyle, P., Saunders, J., & Wong, V. 1986. Japanese marketing strategies in the UK: A comparative study. Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (1): 27–46.
Doyle, P., Saunders, J., & Wong, V. 1992. Competition in global markets: A case study of American and Japanese competition in the British market. Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (3): 419–442.
Duncan, R. B. 1974. Modifications in decision structure in adapting to the environment: Some implications for organizational learning. Decision Sciences, 5 (4): 705–725.
European Commission 2000. External trade. http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/index_en.htm. (DGI).
Ferrier, W. J. 2001. Navigating the competitive landscape: The drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4): 858–877.
Financial Times 2002. Spending cuts tighten to avoid EU sanctions on deficit, In World Report; Portugal, 21 October: i–iv.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. 1985. Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10 (4): 803–813.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1): 39–50.
Greve, H. R. 1998. Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (1): 58–86.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5): 929–964.
Helfat, C. E. 1994. Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Science, 40 (12): 1720–1747.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Nichols, E. L. 2002. An examination of cultural competitiveness and order fulfillment cycle time with supply chains. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (3): 557–586.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. 1993. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57 (3): 53–70.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Katsikeas, C. S., Leonidou, L. C., & Morgan, N. A. 2000. Firm-level export performance assessment: Review, evaluation, and development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (4): 493–511.
Katsikeas, C. S., Piercy, N. F., & Ioannidis, C. 1996. Determinants of export performance in a European context. European Journal of Marketing, 30 (6): 6–35.
Katsikeas, C. S., Samiee, S., & Theodosiou, M. 2006. Strategy fit and performance consequences of international marketing standardization. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (9): 867–890.
Kaynak, E., & Kuan, W. K. -Y. 1993. Environment, strategy, structure, and performance in the context of export activity: An empirical study of Taiwanese manufacturing firms. Journal of Business Research, 27 (1): 33–49.
Koh, A. C. 1991. Relationship among organizational characteristics, marketing strategy and export performance. International Marketing Review, 8 (3): 46–60.
Lages, L. F. 2000. A conceptual framework of the determinants of export performance: Reorganizing key variables and shifting contingencies in export marketing. Journal of Global Marketing, 13 (3): 29–51.
Lages, L. F., & Jap, S. 2003. The relationship among past performance, marketing mix adaptation, and current export performance improvement in global marketing relationships. In J. W. C. Arts, S. Banerjee and J. L. G. Binken (Eds), Global marketing, Marketing Science Institute Report No. 03-116: 97–98. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Lages, L. F., & Lages, C. R. 2004. The STEP scale: A measure of short-term export performance improvement. Journal of International Marketing, 12 (1): 36–56.
Lages, L. F., & Montgomery, D. B. 2001. Export assistance, price adaptation to the foreign market, and annual export performance improvement: A structural model examination, Research Paper #1700, Stanford University Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA.
Lages, L. F., & Montgomery, D. B. 2004. Export performance as an antecedent of export commitment and marketing strategy adaptation: Evidence from small and medium sized exporters. European Journal of Marketing, 38 (9/10): 1186–1214.
Lages, L. F., & Montgomery, D. B. 2005. The relationship between export assistance and performance improvement in Portuguese export ventures: An empirical testing of the mediating role of pricing strategy adaptation. European Journal of Marketing, 39 (7/8): 755–784.
Lages, C., Lages, C. R., & Lages, L. F. 2005a. The RELQUAL scale: A measure of relationship quality in export market ventures. Journal of Business Research, 58 (5): 1040–1048.
Lages, L. F., Lages, C., & Lages, C. R. 2005b. Bringing export performance metrics into annual reports: The APEV scale and the PERFEX scorecard. Journal of International Marketing, 13 (3): 79–104.
Lant, T. K. 1992. Aspiration level adaptation: An empirical exploration. Management Science, 38 (5): 623–644.
Lant, T. K., & Hurley, A. E. 1999. A contingency model of response to performance feedback: Escalation of commitment and incremental adaptation in resource investment decisions. Group and Organization Management, 24 (4): 421–437.
Lant, T. K., & Mezias, S. J. 1992. An organizational learning model of convergence and reorientation. Organization Science, 3 (1): 47–71.
Lant, T. K., & Montgomery, D. B. 1987. Learning from strategic success and failure. Journal of Business Research, 15 (6): 503–518.
Lant, T. K., Milliken, F. J., & Batra, B. 1992. The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (8): 585–608.
Lee, C., & Griffith, D. A. 2004. The marketing strategy–performance relationship in an export-driven developing economy: A Korean illustration. International Marketing Review, 21 (3): 321–334.
Leonidou, L. C., Katsikeas, C. S., & Samiee, S. 2002. Marketing strategy determinants of export performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 55 (1): 51–67.
Levinthal, D., & March, J. C. 1981. A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2 (4): 307–333.
Levinthal, D., & March, J. C. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (Special Issue): 95–112.
Levitt, B., & March, J.C 1988. Organizational learning. In B. Bacharach (Ed.), Annual review of psychology, Vol. 14: 319–340. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Lord, M. D., & Ranft, A. L. 2000. Organizational learning about new international markets: Exploring the internal transfer of local market knowledge. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 573–589.
Luo, Y., & Peng, M. W. 1999. Learning to compete in a transition economy: Experience, environment, and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (2): 269–295.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. 2001. Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (2): 115–134.
Madsen, T. K. 1989. Successful export marketing management: Some empirical evidence. International Marketing Review, 6 (4): 41–57.
Madsen, T. K. 1998. Executive insights: Managerial judgment of export performance. Journal of International Marketing, 6 (3): 82–93.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1): 71–87.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Morgan, N. A., Kaleka, A., & Katsikeas, C. S. 2004. Antecedents of export venture performance: A theoretical model and empirical assessment. Journal of Marketing, 68 (1): 90–108.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Özsomer, A., & Gençtürk, E. 2003. A resource-based model of market learning in the subsidiary: The capabilities of exploration and exploitation. Journal of International Marketing, 11 (3): 1–29.
Penrose, E. T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Blackwell.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12 (4): 531–544.
Prietula, M. J., & Watson, H. S. 2000. Extending the Cyert–March duopoly model: Organizational and economic insights. Organization Science, 11 (5): 565–585.
Ryans Jr., J. K., Griffith, D. A., & White, D. S. 2003. Standardization/adaptation of international marketing strategy: Necessary conditions for the advancement of knowledge. International Marketing Review, 20 (6): 588–603.
Samiee, S., & Roth, K. 1992. The influence of global marketing standardization on performance. Journal of Marketing, 56 (2): 1–17.
Seifert, B., & Ford, J. 1989. Are exporting firms modifying their products, pricing and promotion policies? International Marketing Review, 6 (6): 53–68.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. 1992. Mental models. Planning Review, 20 (2): 4–10, 44.
Shoham, A. 1996. Marketing-mix standardization: Determinants of export performance. Journal of Global Marketing, 10 (2): 53–73.
Shoham, A. 1998. Export performance: A conceptualization and empirical assessment. Journal of International Marketing, 6 (3): 59–81.
Shoham, A. 1999. Bounded rationality, planning, standardization of international strategy, and export performance: A structural model examination. Journal of International Marketing, 7 (2): 24–50.
Sinkula, J. 1994. Market information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58 (1): 35–45.
Sinkula, J., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. 1997. A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (4): 305–318.
Skarmeas, D., Katsikeas, C. S., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. 2002. Drivers of commitment and its impact on performance in cross-cultural buyer–seller relationships: The importer's perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (4): 757–783.
Sousa, C. M. S., & Bradley, F. 2006. Cultural distance and psychic distance: Two peas in a pod? Journal of International Marketing, 14 (1): 49–70.
Sriram, V., & Manu, F. A. 1995. Country-of-destination and export marketing strategy: A study of US exporters. Journal of Global Marketing, 8 (3/4): 171–190.
Stata, R. 1992. Management innovation. Executive Excellence, 9 (6): 8–9.
Sullivan, J. J., & Nonaka, I. 1986. The application of organizational learning theory to Japanese and American management. Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (3): 127–147.
Theodosiou, M., & Leonidou, L. C. 2003. Standardization vs adaptation of international marketing strategy: An integrative assessment of the empirical research. International Business Review, 12 (2): 141–171.
Tookey, D. A. 1964. Factors associated with success in exporting. Journal of Management Studies, 1 (1): 48–66.
Tsang, E. W. K. 1997. Organizational learning the learning organization: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50 (1): 73–89.
Ulrich, D., Von Glinow, M. A., & Jick, T. 1993. High impact learning: Building and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22 (2): 52–67.
Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. 1980. Relationships between job, organization, and career commitments and work outcomes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26 (1): 81–96.
Wong, V., Saunders, J., & Doyle, P. 1987. Japanese marketing strategies in the United Kingdom. Long Range Planning, 20 (6): 54–63.
Zou, S., & Stan, S. 1998. The determinants of export performance: A review of the empirical literature between 1987 and 1997. International Marketing Review, 15 (5): 333–356.
Zou, S., Andrus, D. M., & Norvell, D. W. 1997. Standardization of international marketing strategy by firms from a developing country. International Marketing Review, 14 (2): 107–123.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the following research grants to the first author: by FCT-EU (2000–2001) while a Visiting Scholar at MIT Sloan School of Management and Stanford University Graduate School of Business; by NOVA EGIDE (2001–2007) and 6th European Framework Program (2004–2006) while affiliated with Universidade Nova de Lisboa; and by FCT-EU (2006) while a Visiting Scholar at London Business School. The authors acknowledge Tim Ambler, Pedro Pita Barros, James Harris, Jose Mata, David Montgomery, Aviv Shoham, Jose Tavares, JIBS' editors, and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Accepted by Arie Y Lewin, Editor-in-Chief, 20 April 2007. This paper has been with the authors for three revisions.
APPENDIX: SCALE ITEMS AND RELIABILITIES
APPENDIX: SCALE ITEMS AND RELIABILITIES
α=Internal reliability (Cronbach, 1951)
ρ vc(n)=Variance extracted (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
ρ=Composite reliability (Bagozzi, 1980)
Preceding Year's Performance
Performance achievement in preceding year (α=0.92; ρ vc(n) =0.67; ρ=0.91)
Question: How well did your company achieve the following objectives for the main export venture in 1997?
Scale: 1=very badly; 5=very well
-
Export sales volume (unit sales)
-
Export sales revenue
-
Export profitability
-
Market share in the main importing market
-
Overall export performance
Export intensity in preceding year (α=0.96; ρ vc(n)=0.86; ρ=0.95)
Question: With regard to your main export venture in 1997, how do you assess the following?
Scale: 0–9%; 10–29%; 30–59%; 60–84%; 85–100%
-
Percentage of exporting venture to total sales volume (unit sales)
-
Percentage of exporting venture to total sales revenue
-
Percentage of exporting venture to total profitability
Satisfaction with preceding year's performance (α=0.94; ρ vc(n) =0.77; ρ=0.94)
Question: How satisfied are you with the 1997 results of your main export venture?
Scale: 1=not satisfied at all; 5=extremely satisfied
-
Export sales volume (unit sales)
-
Export sales revenue
-
Export profitability
-
Market share in the main importing market
-
Overall export performance
Current Performance Improvement
Performance achievement improvement in current period (α=0.95; ρ vc (n)=0.79; ρ=0.95)
Question: How well did your company achieve the following objectives for the main export venture from 1997 to 1998?
Scale: 1=much worse in 1998 than in 1997; 5=much better in 1998 than in 1997
-
Export sales volume (unit sales)
-
Export sales revenue
-
Export profitability
-
Market share in the main importing market
-
Overall export performance
Export intensity improvement in current period (α=0.96; ρ vc(n)=0.87; ρ=0.95)
Question: With regard to your main export venture, to what extent did the following change from 1997 to 1998?
Scale: 1=large decrease from 1997 to 1998; 5=large increase from 1997 to 1998
-
Percentage of exporting venture to total sales volume (unit sales)
-
Percentage of exporting venture to total sales revenue
-
Percentage of exporting venture to total profitability
Satisfaction with performance improvement in current period (α=0.97; ρ vc(n)=0.84; ρ=0.96)
Question: How satisfied are you with the results of your main export venture from 1997 to 1998?
Scale: 1=much less satisfied in 1998 than in 1997; 5=much more satisfied in 1998 than in 1997
-
Export sales volume (unit sales)
-
Export sales revenue
-
Export profitability
-
Market share in the main importing market
-
Overall export performance
Adaptation of the Marketing Mix
Question: Consider the main export venture over the past year (1998). To what extent do the following aspects differ in comparing the main export market to the domestic market?
Scale: 1=no adaptation; 5=extensive adaptation
Product adaptation (α=0.81; ρ vc(n) =0.52; ρ=0.81)
-
Product brand name
-
Product design
-
Product labeling
-
Variety of the main exporting product line
Promotion adaptation (α=0.89; ρ vc(n)=0.62; ρ=0.89)
-
Advertising theme
-
Media channels for advertising
-
Promotion objectives
-
Budget for promotion
-
Direct marketing
Pricing adaptation (α=0.85; ρ vc(n)=0.59; ρ=0.85)
-
Determination of pricing strategy
-
Concession of credit
-
Price discounts policy
-
Margins
Distribution adaptation (α=0.87; ρ vc(n)=0.63; ρ=0.87)
-
Criteria for selection
-
Transportation strategy
-
Distribution budget
-
Distribution network
Internal (Management) Forces
Firm's commitment to exporting (α=0.81; ρ vc( n ) =0.53; ρ=0.82)
Question: Consider the main export venture over the past year (1998). To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Scale: 1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree
-
There was substantial planning for this export venture
-
There was a significant amount of human resources involved in the exporting activity
-
There was a significant degree of management commitment to exporting
-
There were more financial resources for exporting than those used for the domestic market
Management international experience (α=0.75; ρ vc( n ) =0.45; ρ=0.76)
Question: Consider the people involved in your main export venture during the past year (1998). How would you classify their:
Scale: 1=None; 5=Substantial
-
Degree of professional exporting experience
-
Degree of overseas experience–live/work abroad
-
Degree of training in international business, for example, attended formal courses and export seminars
-
Ability to follow up on trade leads in the main importing market
External (Market) Forces
Export market development (α=0.77; ρ vc(n) =0.63; ρ=0.77)
Question: Considering the main export venture over the past year (1998), how would you characterize the following aspects of the export market?
Scale: 1=none; 5=substantial
-
Degree of country's development
-
Level of consumer education in the importing country
Export market competition (α=0.79; ρ vc( n ) =0.56; ρ=0.79)
Question: Considering the main export venture over the past year (1998), how would you characterize the following aspects of the export market?
Scale: 1=none; 5=substantial
-
Extent of price competition in the industry
-
Competition in the accomplishment of delivery deadlines
-
Competition in the industry
Covariates
Size of the firm
Question: What was the total number of full-time employees working in your firm last year (1998)?
Scale: 1–9; 10–19; 20–49; 50–99; 100–499; ⩾500
Distance of export market to Portugal
Question: Please indicate which was, in 1998, your company's main importing country of your main exporting product (or group of products): _______ (please indicate one country only)
Scale: The distance in kms was computed as the difference between Lisbon (Portugal) and the capital of the country.
Number of markets
Question: Last year (1998), how many countries imported your main exporting product?
Scale: 1; 2–4; 5–9; 10–25; >25
Export sales value
Question: What was your company's total export sales for last year (1998)?
Scale: ⩽€100,000; €100,001–350,000; €350,001–1.5m; €1.5m–3.5m; €3.5m–5m; €5m–35m; €35m–145M; ⩾€145M
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lages, L., Jap, S. & Griffith, D. The role of past performance in export ventures: a short-term reactive approach. J Int Bus Stud 39, 304–325 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400339
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400339