10.12.2012 Views

Challenges in the Era of Globalization - iaabd

Challenges in the Era of Globalization - iaabd

Challenges in the Era of Globalization - iaabd

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Challenges</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Era</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Globalization</strong><br />

Edited by Emmanuel Obuah<br />

with a total <strong>of</strong> 403 employees <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se units. Three hundred questionnaires were adm<strong>in</strong>istered, 268 were<br />

completed for a return rate <strong>of</strong> 89.3%.<br />

Adm<strong>in</strong>istration Methodology: Five research assistants were employed to adm<strong>in</strong>ister <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>struments. The<br />

data was collected for five months, October 2007 to March 2008. <strong>in</strong> five different locations <strong>in</strong> Lagos<br />

namely: Lagos Island (Idumota, Apongbon and Victoria Island), Lagos ma<strong>in</strong>land I (Yaba and Mush<strong>in</strong>);<br />

Lagos Ma<strong>in</strong>land II (Ilupeju, Oshodi and Mile 2); Lagos Ma<strong>in</strong>land III (Ikorodu Road, Ikeja and Ojota);<br />

Lagos Ma<strong>in</strong>land IV (Bariga, Gbagada and Oworonshoki).<br />

Instrument Development: To develop a valid <strong>in</strong>strument that addressed <strong>the</strong> research questions and<br />

hypo<strong>the</strong>ses, <strong>the</strong> researcher identified <strong>the</strong> five relationship market<strong>in</strong>g variables from a literature search and<br />

developed measurement scales to measure each variable based on constructs obta<strong>in</strong>ed from <strong>the</strong> literature<br />

review. Thus, questions for this study were generated by mak<strong>in</strong>g use <strong>of</strong> variables identified from previous<br />

empirical studies that can be used to measure <strong>the</strong> five relationship market<strong>in</strong>g variables, namely: Trust,<br />

Communication, Relationship Commitment, Internal Market<strong>in</strong>g and Support and Cooperation, as well as<br />

questions to identify <strong>the</strong> respondents’ characteristics or demographics, buyer <strong>in</strong>formation, and familiarity<br />

with relationship market<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>the</strong> Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The <strong>in</strong>strument was pilot tested<br />

twice, once with market<strong>in</strong>g experts and <strong>the</strong>n retested on respondents from each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> identified groups.<br />

The <strong>in</strong>struments were validated through <strong>the</strong> pilot studies by us<strong>in</strong>g experts and a sample <strong>of</strong> respondents for<br />

content validity (Hahn et al. 2000). They were tested for reliability us<strong>in</strong>g Cronbach’s alpha (Dixon 2008)<br />

Computer Programs/Analyses: Data was entered, and descriptive analyses performed <strong>in</strong> SPSS. The<br />

Expert Choice s<strong>of</strong>tware (EC8) was used to analyze <strong>the</strong> relative importance scaled statements (Goh 1997;<br />

Liberatore and Nydick 2003; Liedtka 2005; Timor and Tuzuner 2006).<br />

Results<br />

There were no differences found <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> prioritiz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> components <strong>of</strong> relationship market<strong>in</strong>g, as<br />

def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> this study, among <strong>the</strong> groups: trust, relationship commitment, communication, <strong>in</strong>ternal<br />

market<strong>in</strong>g, and support and cooperation. Rank<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> views <strong>of</strong> use by <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>digenous and <strong>the</strong><br />

mult<strong>in</strong>ational companies did differ slightly but <strong>the</strong> Spearman rank correlation analysis did not show <strong>the</strong>m<br />

to be significantly different, (p>.05). This was as expected, hypo<strong>the</strong>sis 1 was supported.<br />

The results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> variance on <strong>the</strong> perceived use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relationship market<strong>in</strong>g strategies are<br />

presented <strong>in</strong> Table 1. There were significant differences (all significant differences were at p

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!