CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Chapter Overview - DSpace@UM

eliability estimate. In addition, the factor analysis results obtained from this study wereon average better than the results of the previous study which was conducted by Tracy &McGraw (2004). The cumulative variance of the present study is 66.7% for successionplanning characteristics as compared to the study done by Tracy & McGraw (2004)which scored a cumulative variance of 59.9%.The independent sample t-test shows that there is no significant difference found betweenpractices and approach of succession planning and industrial sector (manufacturing andservices) and firm listing (Hypothesis H1(a) and H1(c) are not supported). This implies thatthere is no difference in terms of organizational system, succession planningcharacteristics, and methods of evaluation of succession candidates between national andmultinational corporations and between listed and unlisted firms. Basically, the practicesand approach of succession planning are similar across the industrial sectors. However,significant difference is found between some of the variables of practices and approach ofsuccession planning (i.e. type/ownership. organizational system and methods ofevaluation) and firm type. Thus, H1(b) is partially supported. These findings are similar tothe study conducted by Huang (2001) and Tracy & McGraw (2004). It stated thatmultinational companies (MNCs) were those most likely to have sophisticated successionplanning system as compared to the national-type organizations.In terms of relationship between the independent, control and dependent variables, thisstudy shows that there is a significant positive correlation between succession planningcharacteristics and organizational outcomes. Both the Pearson’s correlation and multiple90