International Marketing Review, Volume 20, Number 1, 2003: Export Information Use 0861767829

Citation preview

International Marketing Review

ISSN 0265-1335 Volume 20 Number 1 2003

Export information use Guest Editor Adamantios Diamantopoulos

Access this journal online __________________________

3

Editorial advisory board ___________________________

4

Abstracts and keywords ___________________________

5

French abstracts___________________________________

7

Spanish abstracts __________________________________

9

Japanese abstracts_________________________________

11

Guest editorial ____________________________________

13

Towards an understanding of cross-national similarities and differences in export information utilization: a perceptual mapping approach Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Anne L. Souchon, Geoffrey R. Durden, Catherine N. Axinn and Hartmut H. Holzmu¨ller ______________________

17

Export information use in small and medium-sized industrial companies: an application of Diamantopoulos’ and Souchon’s scale Jasmine E.M. Williams ___________________________________________

Access this journal electronically The current and past volumes of this journal are available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/ft You can access over 100 additional Emerald journals, each with a comprehensive searchable archive of articles (many dating back to 1989), a detailed classification system and links to referenced material. See page following contents for full details of what your access includes.

44

CONTENTS

CONTENTS continued

Symbolic use of export information: a multidisciplinary approach to conceptual development and key consequences Rakhee Vyas and Anne L. Souchon_________________________________

67

Export market information use, organizational knowledge and firm performance: a conceptual framework Kjell Toften and Svein Ottar Olsen _________________________________

95

www.emeraldinsight.com/imr.htm As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant, electronic access to the content of this title. Your access includes a variety of features that increase the value of your journal subscription.

Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual articles This facility can be used for teaching purposes, training courses, meetings or seminars. This only applies to articles of which Emerald owns copyright. For further details visit www.emeraldinsight.com/copyright

How to access this journal electronically To benefit from electronic access to this journal you first need to register on the Internet. Registration is simple and full instructions are available online at www.emeraldinsight.com/register Once completed, your institution will have instant access to the journal content from www.emeraldinsight.com or via the journal homepage www.emeraldinsight.com/imr.htm Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your institution to access your journal electronically, thus making your subscription more cost-effective. Our Web site has been designed to provide you with a comprehensive, simple system that needs only minimum administration. Access is available via IP authentication or username and password.

Key features of Emerald electronic journals Online Publishing and Archiving You can gain access to past volumes as well as new material from this journal on the Internet via Emerald Fulltext. You can browse or search the database for relevant articles. Key Reading This feature provides abstracts of articles chosen by the journal editor on the basis of their subject-matter. These are selected to provide readers with current awareness of interesting articles from other publications within the same field. Reference Linking Direct links are provided from the journal article references to abstracts of the most influential articles cited (where possible this is to the full text of the article). E-mail an Article This facility allows you to e-mail relevant and interesting articles in PDF format to another PC for later use, reference or printing purposes.

Additional Complementary Services Available Your access includes a variety of features that add to the functionality and value of your journal subscription: E-mail Services Emerald’s range of free e-mail alerting services is designed to deliver personal notification of news and features in a number of different interest areas.

Emerald WIRE (World Independent Reviews) Emerald WIRE is a fully searchable, subject-specific database brought to you by Emerald Management Reviews. It provides article reviews from the world’s top management journals. The database is updated monthly and gives users details of how to obtain the full text of original articles. Research Register Located at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister, the Emerald Research Register is an Internet research forum where you and your readers can identify information on research activity world-wide. This feature is invaluable if you are seeking information or wish to disseminate information about your own research. Support Resources Comprehensive librarian and user toolkits have been created to help you get the most from your journal subscription. For further information about what is available visit www.emeraldinsight.com/usertoolkit

Choice of Access Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of channels, enabling end users and libraries to reach the content through their preferred delivery system. The Emerald Fulltext Web site – www.emeraldinsight.com/ft – is the recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully searchable and high value-added access to the complete content of the journal. Subscribers can also access and search the article content of this journal through the following journal delivery services: EBSCOhost EJS journals.ebsco.com Huber E-Journals e-journals.hanshuber.com/english/index.htm Minerva www.minerva.at OCLC Firstsearch Electronic Collections Online www.uk.oclc.org/oclc/menu/eco.htm RoweCom’s Information Quest www.informationquest.com SilverPlatter www.silverplatter.com SwetsBlackwell’s SwetsWise www.swetswise.com

Emerald Customer Support Services For customer service and technical help, contact: E-mail [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278 Fax +44 (0) 1274 785204

IMR 20,1

4

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

EDITORIAL REVIEW PANEL

David Ballantyne Monash University, Australia

Dr Jim Bell Magee College, University of Ulster, UK

Professor Jean J. Boddewyn The City University of New York, USA

Dr Roger Bennett London Guildhall University, UK

Dr Marylyn Carrigan University of Birmingham, UK

Professor Paul Chao University of Northern Iowa, USA

Professor Tevfic Dalgic University of Texas at Dallas, USA Professor Adamantios Diamantopoulos Loughborough University Business School, UK Professor Manucher Farhang Lulea University of Technology, Sweden Professor Krzysztof Fonfara Wielkopolska Business School, Poland Professor Nigel J. Holden Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

Dr Irvine Clark III James Madison University, USA Dr John B. Ford Old Dominion University, Norfolk, USA Dr June Francis Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada Professor George T. Haley University of New Haven, USA Professor E. Kaynak Pennsylvania State University, USA

Professor Constantine S. Katsikeas University of Wales, UK

Professor Leonidas Leonidou University of Cyprus, Cyprus

Sam Okoroafo University of Toledo, USA

Professor Dale Littler UMIST, UK

Professor Stan Paliwoda University of Birmingham, UK

Professor Thomas J. Maronick Towson State University, USA

Professor K.N. Rajendran The University of Northern Iowa, USA

Professor Hans Muhlbacher University of Innsbruck, Austria

Professor Ilkka Ronkainen Georgetown University, USA

Dr Helen Perks UMIST, UK

Professor Saeed Samiee University of Tulsa, USA

Professor C.P. Rao Kuwait University, Kuwait

Professor Bodo B. Schlegelmilch Wirtschaftsuniversita¨t, Wien, Austria

Professor Ronald Savitt University of Vermont, USA

Professor Vern Terpstra University of Michigan, USA

Dr Vivienne Shaw University of Otago, New Zealand

Professor Sandra Vandermerwe Imperial College, University of London, UK

Dr K. Sivakumar Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, USA Dr Chris Styles University of New South Wales, Australia Dr Isabelle Szmigin University of Birmingham, UK Professor Michael J. Thomas University of Strathclyde, UK Dr P.M. Williamson Liverpool John Moores University, UK Professor James E. Wills Jr University of Hawaii, USA

International Marketing Review Vol. 20 No. 1, 2003 p. 4 # MCB UP Limited 0265-1335

Towards an understanding of cross-national similarities and differences in export information utilization: a perceptual mapping approach Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Anne L. Souchon, Geoffrey R. Durden, Catherine N. Axinn and Hartmut H. Holzmu¨ller Keywords Export, Data communications, Information exchange The extent to which and ways in which export information is used can play a significant role in a firm’s level of export performance. Surprisingly, however, little empirical research has been conducted in the area of export information use, and even less attention has been paid to potential cross-national differences in how export information is used. The focus of this study is the examination of export information use practices across different countries. Data from a total sample of 989 exporting companies across Austria, Germany, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA were analyzed using analyses of covariance to control for extraneous, firm-level variables. The results indicate that firms from all countries use information instrumentally/conceptually more often than symbolically; they also tend to use export market intelligence more than other sources of information. Further, examination of the findings revealed that firms from different countries also use information differently. For instance, US exporters are much more symbolic in their use of information than exporters from the other countries, while Austrian exporters tend not to use information symbolically. Implications and limitations are discussed and future research avenues are proposed. Export information use in small and medium-sized industrial companies: an application of Diamantopoulos’ and Soutchon’s scale Jasmine E.M. Williams Keywords Decision making, Export, Information, International marketing, Marketing research, Small- to medium-sized enterprises This study focuses on the use of export marketing information in small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs), an area that has

previously attracted little academic research attention. It reports on the application of scales measuring instrumental/conceptual and symbolic export information use, using a random sample of UK exporters, to SME exporters of engineering and IT products. The results show that the scales are applicable within the specific context of the industrial SMEs surveyed and that levels of symbolic export information use are higher in these SMEs than in UK exporting companies as a whole. The latter is explained as a function of a shortfall in two areas: first, in available export marketing information, leading to greater dependence on “guesswork” and intuition; and second, in specialist marketing information-processing skills on the part of SME export decision makers. The article concludes by appealing for an extension of export support for SMEs, to include the use of export information as well as simply its acquisition. It suggests that the scales tested here could be used both to diagnose the need for such SME support and to measure its effectiveness. Symbolic use of export information: a multidisciplinary approach to conceptual development and key consequences Rakhee Vyas and Anne L. Souchon Keywords Export, Information, Competitive advantage, Business development Using information effectively has become a critical determinant for gaining competitive advantage and enhancing business performance. In this context, the need for further research into export information use is particularly pressing, given the increased recognition that mere export information acquisition is not sufficient to ensure optimal decision-making quality for foreign markets. Information use has been conceptualised in the past as a multi-dimensional construct encompassing instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use, with most studies focusing on the first two dimensions. However, the nature of the export-non-export dichotomy within firms sets the scene for political information-related activity and thus symbolic use of export information. This paper presents a multidimensional conceptualisation of symbolic use of export information, anchored in a cross-disciplinary review of the literature.

Abstracts and keywords

5

International Marketing Review Vol. 20 No. 1, 2003 Abstracts and keywords q MCB UP Limited

IMR 20,1

6

Key propositions regarding the impact of symbolic use of export information on export performance are also proposed. Conclusions are drawn and a future research agenda is outlined. Export market information use, organizational knowledge, and firm performance: a conceptual framework Kjell Toften and Svein Ottar Olsen Keywords Export, Marketing, Information management, Organizational learning, Knowledge management Building on prior research in organizational knowledge, learning, and memory, this

paper suggests that export market knowledge may provide a deeper understanding of the relationships between export market information use and export performance. Specifically, a conceptual model is developed linking different dimensions of information use to different dimensions of organizational knowledge as well as to export performance. This is then used to generate research propositions that provide insights into how export market knowledge integrates with export market information use and affects export performance.

French abstracts Une tentative visant a` comprendre les ressemblances et diffe´rences qui existent, d’une nation a` l’autre, dans l’utilisation des informations sur l’exportation Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Anne L. Souchon, Geoffrey R. Durden, Catherine N. Axinn et Hartmut H. Holzmu¨ller Mots-cle´s Exportation, Communications de donne´es, E´change des informations La mesure dans laquelle les informations sur l’exportation sont utilise´es, ainsi que leurs me´thodes d’utilisation, peuvent fortement influencer le niveau de performance a` l’exportation d’une entreprise. Ce qui est surprenant, cependant, c’est que peu de recherches empiriques ont e´te´ entreprises dans le domaine de l’utilisation des informations sur l’exportation, et qu’encore moins d’attention a e´te´ accorde´e aux diffe´rences que l’on peut rencontrer, d’une nation a` l’autre, dans la manie`re dont les informations sur l’exportation sont utilise´es. L’e´tude que voici a pour but d’examiner les pratiques d’’utilisation des informations sur l’exportation dans diffe´rents pays. Des donne´es provenant d’un e´chantillon total de 989 firmes exportatrices en Autriche, en Allemagne, en Nouvelle-Ze´lande, au Royaume-Uni et aux E´tats-Unis, furent soumises a` des analyses de covariance, afin de controˆler les variables non applicables que l’on rencontre au niveau de la firme. Les re´sultats indiquent que, dans tous les pays, les firmes exportatrices utilisent les informations de manie`re instrumentale/conceptuelle, plus souvent que de manie`re symbolique; elles ont aussi tendance a` utiliser les informations en mercatique des exportations plus que d’autres sources d’information. De plus, l’examen des re´sultats re´ve´la que les firmes de diffe´rents pays utilisent aussi les informations de manie`re diffe´rente. Par exemple, les exportateurs des E´tats-Unis ont une utilisation des informations plus symbolique que les exportateurs des autres pays, tandis que les exportateurs autrichiens ont tendance a` ne pas utiliser les informations de manie`re symbolique. L’article discute les implications et les limitations de ces de´couvertes et propose des voies a` suivre pour les recherches futures.

Utilisation des informations sur l’exportation dans les entreprises industrielles de petite et moyenne envergure Jasmine E.M. Williams Mots-cle´s Prise de de´cisions, Exportation, Informations, Mercatique internationale, Recherche en mercatique, Entreprises de petite et moyenne envergure L’e´tude que voici porte sur l’utilisation des informations sur la mercatique des exportations par les entreprises de petite et moyenne envergure (PME), un domaine qui, auparavant, a attire´ peu d’attention de la part des chercheurs acade´miques. L’e´tude de´crit des graduations permettant de mesurer l’utilisation des informations instrumentales/conceptuelles et symboliques sur l’exportation, au moyen d’un e´chantillon pris au hasard parmi les exportateurs du RoyaumeUni; ces graduations sont applique´es aux PME exportant des produits techniques et informatiques. Les re´sultats indiquent que les graduations sont applicables dans le contexte spe´cifique des PME industrielles examine´es, et que les niveaux d’utilisation symbolique des informations sur l’exportation sont plus e´leve´s dans ces PME que dans les socie´te´s exportatrices du Royaume-Uni, dans leur ensemble. Ce fait s’explique par un de´ficit dans deux domaines: tout d’abord, dans les informations disponibles sur la mercatique des exportations, ce qui veut dire qu’il faut de plus en plus se fier a` la conjecture et a` l’intuition; et deuxie`mement, dans les compe´tences qui sont requises des preneurs de de´cisions sur les exportations, dans les PME, pour traiter les informations de mercatique spe´cialise´es. L’article conclut en demandant un renforcement du soutien donne´ aux PME pour l’exportation, afin d’inclure l’utilisation des informations sur l’exportation, aussi bien que leur acquisition. Il suge`re que les graduations, mises a` l’essai ici, pourraient servir pour diagnostiquer la ne´cessite´ de ce soutien aux PME, mais aussi pour en mesurer l’efficacite´.

French abstracts

7

International Marketing Review Vol. 20 No. 1, 2003 French abstracts # MCB UP Limited 0265-1335

IMR 20,1

8

Utilisation symbolique des informations sur l’exportation Rakhee Vyas et Anne L. Souchon Mots-cle´s Exportation, Informations, Avantage compe´titif, De´veloppement e´conomique L’utilisation efficace des informations est devenu un facteur de´terminant essentiel qui permet d’obtenir un avantage compe´titif et de rehausser la performance e´conomique d’une entreprise. Dans ce contexte, la ne´cessite´ de poursuivre les recherches sur l’utilisation des informations sur l’exportation est particulie`rement urgente, vu que l’on reconnaıˆt de plus en plus que l’acquisition des informations sur l’exportation, a` elle seule, ne suffit pas pour garantir la meilleure qualite´ possible dans la prise de de´cisions pour les marche´s e´trangers. L’utilisation des informations a e´te´ conceptualise´e, autrefois, comme une notion multidimensionnelle qui englobe l’utilisation instrumentale, conceptuelle et symbolique; la plupart des e´tudes se concentrent sur les deux premie`res dimensions. Cependant, la nature de la dichotomie exportation-non exportation qui existe dans les entreprises permet l’activite´ politique ayant trait aux informations et, de`s lors, l’utilisation symbolique des informations sur l’exportation. L’article que voici pre´sente une conceptualisation multidimensionnelle de l’utilisation symbolique des informations sur l’exportation, qui est ancre´e dans un examen des publications existantes, re´alise´ dans le cadre de plusieurs disciplines. L’article offre e´galement des propositions-cle´s concernant l’impact que l’utilisation symbolique des informations sur l’exportation a sur la performance a` l’exportation. Il tire des conclusions et propose un programme de recherche pour l’avenir. Utilisation des informations sur les marche´s d’exportation, connaissance organisationnelle, et performance de l’entreprise une structure conceptuelle Kjell Toften et Svein Ottar Olsen Mots-cle´s Exportations, Mercatique, Gestion des informations, Apprentissage organisationnel, Connaissance L’article que voici se fonde sur des recherches ante´rieures sur la connaissance, l’apprentissage et la me´moire, au niveau de l’organisation, pour sugge´rer que la connaissance des marche´s d’exportation peut fournir une compre´hension approfondie des rapports qui existent entre l’utilisation des informations sur les marche´s d’exportation et la performance a` l’exportation. Plus particulie`rement, il met au point une structure conceptuelle qui relie diffe´rentes dimensions de l’utilisation des informations a` diffe´rentes dimensions de la connaisance organisationnelle, ainsi qu’a` la performance a` l’exportation. Cette structure sert ensuite a` engendrer des propositions de recherche qui donnent un aperc¸u sur la manie`re dont la connaissance des marche´s d’exportation s’inte`gre a` l’utilisation des informations sur les marche´s d’exportation et affecte la performance a` l’exportation.

Spanish abstracts Hacia un entendimiento de las semejanzas y las diferencias transculturales en la utilizacio´n de la informacio´n de exportacio´n Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Anne L. Souchon, Geoffrey R. Durden, Catherine N. Axinn y Hartmut H. Holzmu¨ller Palabras clave Exportacio´n, Comunicaciones de datos, Intercambio de informacio´n El punto y las formas hasta los que la informacio´n sobre exportacio´n se emplean pueden desempen˜ar una funcio´n significativa en el nivel de rendimiento exportador de una empresa. No obstante, resulta sorprendente la poca investigacio´n empı´rica que se ha realizado en el a´rea del uso de la informacio´n sobre exportacio´n, y la au´n menor atencio´n que se ha prestado a las diferencias transculturales en potencia sobre co´mo se emplea la informacio´n sobre exportacio´n. El enfoque de este estudio es el examen de las pra´cticas de uso de la informacio´n sobre exportacio´n a trave´s de diferentes paı´ses. Se analizaron datos procedentes de una muestra total de 989 empresas exportadoras en Austria, Alemania, Nueva Zelanda, el Reino Unido y los EE UU, utilizando ana´lisis de covarianza para controlar variables extran˜as a nivel de empresa. Los resultados indican que empresas de todos los paı´ses emplean la informacio´n instrumentalmente/ conceptualmente ma´s a menudo de lo que la emplean simbo´licamente; tambie´n tienden a utilizar inteligencia sobre los mercados de exportacio´n ma´s que otras fuentes de informacio´n. Adema´s, el examen de los descubrimientos revelo´ que las empresas de diferentes paı´ses tambie´n usan informacio´n de forma diferente. Por ejemplo, los exportadores estadounidenses son mucho ma´s simbo´licos en su empleo de la informacio´n, que los exportadores de otros paı´ses, mientras que los exportadores austriacos tienden a no utilizar la informacio´n simbo´licamente. Se discuten implicaciones y limitaciones, y se proponen avenidas para investigacio´n futura.

Uso de la informacio´n de exportacio´n en empresas industriales de pequen˜a y mediana envergadura Jasmine E.M. Williams Palabras clave Toma de decisiones, Exportacio´n, Informacio´n, Marketing internacional, Investigacio´n de marketing, Pequen˜as y medianas empresas Este estudio se enfoca en el uso de informacio´n de marketing de exportacio´n en pequen˜as y medianas empresas (PYME), un a´rea que anteriormente ha atraı´do poca atencio´n en cuanto a investigacio´n acade´mica. Informa sobre la aplicacio´n de escalas que miden el uso instrumental/ conceptual y simbo´lico de la informacio´n de exportacio´n, empleando una muestra al azar de exportadores brita´nicos, a exportadores PYME de productos de ingenierı´a e informa´tica. Los resultados muestran que las escalas son aplicables dentro del contexto especı´fico de las PYMEs industriales encuestadas, y que los niveles de informacio´n simbo´lica sobre exportacio´n empleados son ma´s altos en estas PYMEs que en las empresas exportadoras brita´nicas en general. El u´ltimo punto se explica como funcio´n de una insuficiencia en dos a´reas: primeramente, en cuanto a informacio´n de marketing de exportacio´n disponible, lo cual conduce a una mayor dependencia de las ‘‘suposiciones’’ y la intuicio´n; y, en segundo lugar, en aptitudes especializadas de procesamiento de informacio´n de marketing por parte de quienes toman las decisiones de exportacio´n de las PYME. El artı´culo concluye pidiendo una ampliacio´n del apoyo en exportacio´n para las PYME, que incluya el uso de la informacio´n de exportacio´n, ası´ como simplemente su adquisicio´n. Sugiere que las escalas ensayadas aquı´ podrı´an utilizarse tanto para diagnosticar la necesidad de dicho apoyo para las PYME, como para medir su eficacia.

Spanish abstracts

9

International Marketing Review Vol. 20 No. 1, 2003 Spanish abstracts # MCB UP Limited 0265-1335

IMR 20,1

10

Uso simbo´lico de la informacio´n de exportacio´n Rakhee Vyas y Anne L. Souchon Palabras clave Exportacio´n, Informacio´n, Ventaja competitiva, Desarrollo de negocio El uso eficaz de informacio´n se ha convertido en un determinante crı´tico para conseguir ventaja competitiva y mejorar el rendimiento del negocio. Dentro de este contexto, la necesidad de mayor investigacio´n sobre el uso de la informacio´n de exportacio´n resulta particularmente apremiante, en vista de un mayor reconocimiento de que la mera adquisicio´n de informacio´n sobre exportacio´n no es suficiente para asegurar una calidad o´ptima en la toma de decisiones sobre los mercados extranjeros. En el pasado, el uso de informacio´n se ha conceptualizado como una construccio´n multidimensional que incluye el uso instrumental, conceptual y simbo´lico, y la mayorı´a de los estudios se han enfocado en las dos primeras dimensiones. No obstante, la naturaleza de la dicotomı´a exportacio´n-no exportacio´n dentro de las empresas prepara el escenario para una actividad polı´tica relacionada con la informacio´n y, por lo tanto, para el empleo simbo´lico de la informacio´n sobre exportacio´n. Este trabajo presenta una conceptualizacio´n multidimensional del uso simbo´lico de la informacio´n de exportacio´n, anclado en una revisio´n de diversas disciplinas de la bibliografı´a. Tambie´n se proponen sugerencias clave relacionadas con el impacto del uso simbo´lico de la informacio´n de exportacio´n sobre el rendimiento de la exportacio´n. Se sacan conclusiones y se perfila un programa de investigacio´n futura. Uso de la informacio´n sobre los mercados de exportacio´n, conocimiento organizacional y el rendimiento de la empresa un marco conceptual Kjell Toften y Svein Ottar Olsen Palabras clave Exportacio´n, Marketing, Gestio´n de informacio´n, Aprendizaje organizacional, Conocimiento Este trabajo, apoya´ndose en investigacio´n previa sobre el conocimiento, aprendizaje y memoria organizacionales, sugiere que el conocimiento sobre los mercados de exportacio´n puede ofrecer un entendimiento ma´s profundo de las relaciones entre el uso de la informacio´n sobre mercados de exportacio´n y el rendimiento exportador. Especı´ficamente, se desarrolla un modelo conceptual que enlaza distintas dimensiones del uso de informacio´n con distintas dimensiones del conocimiento organizacional, ası´ como con el rendimiento de exportacio´n. Seguidamente, esto se emplea para generar propuestas de investigacio´n que ofrecen visiones internas sobre co´mo el conocimiento de los mercados de exportacio´n se integra con el uso de la informacio´n sobre los mercados de exportacio´n, y afecta el rendimiento exportador.

Japanese abstracts

Japanese abstracts

11

International Marketing Review Vol. 20 No. 1, 2003 Japanese abstracts # MCB UP Limited 0265-1335

IMR 20,1

12

Guest editorial About the Guest Editor Professor Adamantios Diamantopoulos (BA, MSc, PhD, FCIM, FBAM) holds the Chair of Marketing and Business Research at Loughborough University Business School, UK. His main research interests are in pricing, sales forecasting, marketing research and international marketing and he is the author of 180 publications in these areas. His work has appeared in, amongst others, the Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of International Business Studies, International Journal of Research in Marketing, International Journal of Forecasting and Journal of Business Research. He has presented his research at 80 international conferences and has been the recipient of several Best Paper Awards, including “Most Outstanding Paper” in the 1999 volume of International Marketing Review. In 2000 he was a co-recipient of the Chartered Institute of Marketings “Award for Meritorious Research”.

Introduction The importance of information as a key factor influencing a firm’s export behavior has long been acknowledged in the international marketing literature. Indeed, a common feature of empirical studies on such diverse issues as export initiation and expansion, export barriers, export market orientation, utilization of export assistance, and market/country selection and assessment is that they have all highlighted the critical role of information in export decision making (see, for example, Johanson and Vahlne, 1977; Leonidou, 1995; Cadogan et al., 1999; Seringhaus, 1987; Reid, 1984). Despite such interest, however, until relatively recently, the focus of most contributions on the subject has been on issues associated with the acquisition of export information, emphasizing such topics as information availability, awareness of information sources, consultation of different types of information, and problems associated with information quality and quantity (for a review see Souchon and Diamantopoulos (1996). Information utilization, that is the extent and ways in which acquired information is actually used in the export decision-making process by managers, had received much less attention; this is surprising, given the emphasis on information utilization issues in the management literature in general (Beyer and Trice, 1982) and the marketing literature in particular (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). Moreover, studies seeking to address information use issues within an exporting context have largely focused on information from specific sources such as export marketing research (e.g. Diamantopoulos and Horncastle, 1997) or export assistance (e.g. Singer and Czinkota, 1994), thus failing to consider the fact that firms typically employ multiple modes of export information acquisition and base their decision making on a combination of formal and informal information sources (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1999). Perhaps more significantly, there has been an implicit assumption in the literature that all information that is acquired by a firm is actually put to “good” use despite the fact that the knowledge utilization literature has long highlighted potentially dysfunctional uses of information (e.g. O’Reilly, 1978); this has also been identified as a

Guest editorial

13

International Marketing Review Vol. 20 No. 1, 2003 pp. 13-16 q MCB UP Limited 0265-1335

IMR 20,1

14

problem in the marketing literature as well (e.g. Piercy, 1983). Finally, an operational obstacle to the advancement of the study of export information use has been the lack of psychometrically-sound measures to capture different types of use associated with different export information acquisition modes; it was only very recently that such a set of measures became available (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999). Against this background, this Special Issue is a culmination of collaborative efforts by several authors and reviewers on the topic of export information use. All papers included in the Special Issue have undergone a rigorous review process by distinguished experts in the field and were deemed to make a substantial contribution to the study of export information use. As Guest Editor, I would like to extend my grateful thanks to the authors of papers submitted to the Special Issue and the work put in by reviewers to ensure the quality of the contributions. I would also like to thank the IMR Editor, Professor Jeryl Whitelock, for her encouragement and support while I was editing this Issue. Articles This Special Issue contains a total of four articles, two of which are conceptual and two empirical. The authors of the papers are located in different countries, thus lending an international flavor to the Special Issue, consistent with IMR’s international readership. The first article represents a collaborative effort by an international research team and is a direct outcome of participation in the Consortium for International Marketing Research (CIMaR), an international research network coordinated by Dr Catherine Axinn of Ohio University. The paper reports on a five-country study of export information utilization and highlights key similarities and differences in the type of use and mode of information acquisition. Controlling for several extraneous variables, the results indicate that firms from all countries investigated (Austria, Germany, New Zealand, UK, and the USA) use export information instrumentally/conceptually more than they use it symbolically; moreover, export market intelligence is favored relatively to other modes of information acquisition, namely export marketing research and export assistance. At the same time, cross-national differences in export information utilization are also observed. The second article by Jasmine Williams focuses on small and medium-sized UK industrial exporters and seeks to determine to which the export information use scales recently developed by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) are indeed applicable in an SME context. Based on rigorous measure development and validation procedures, the results demonstrate the general suitability of the aforementioned scales in the specific context studied. However, the findings also reveal some peculiarities of SMEs regarding their perception of differences between different export information acquisition modes as well as a greater

reliance on symbolic use of information. Several implications for supporting SME exporters in their information acquisition and utilization efforts are subsequently considered. The third paper by Rakhee Vyas and Anne Souchon focuses specifically on the symbolic use of export information. Based on a comprehensive review of the multidisciplinary literature on information utilization, it distinguishes between eight different types of symbolic use and proceeds to develop specific propositions linking each type to export performance. A novel idea presented in this paper is that symbolic use may not always be dysfunctional and, therefore, it is important to distinguish between different manifestations of symbolic use. In addition, the moderating effect of several important variables on the link between symbolic use and export performance is considered, thus providing a solid platform for future empirical research. The final paper by Kjell Toften and Svein Ottar Olsen draws together the literature on export information use and the literature on organizational knowledge and links both to firm export performance. In particular, a conceptual model is developed linking different dimensions of export information use to different dimensions of organizational knowledge and this is used to generate research propositions regarding how export market knowledge integrates with export market information use and affects export performance. As was the case with the Vyas and Souchon article, the conceptual insights provided by the paper offer a clear navigation chart for future empirical research. Taken collectively, the contributions in this Special Issue of IMR offer researchers both conceptual guidance and operational insights on how to approach the export information use construct. It is very much hoped that future researchers will build on the ideas offered in the Special Issue when embarking on further studies of this important topic.

References Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1982), “The utilization process: a conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 591-622. Cadogan, J.W., Diamantopoulos, A. and de Mortanges, C.P. (1999), “A measure of export market orientation: scale development and cross-cultural validation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 689-707. Diamantopoulos, A. and Horncastle, S. (1997), “Use of export marketing research by industrial firms: an application of Deshpande´ and Zaltman’s model”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 245-70. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A.L. (1999), “Measuring export information use: scale development and validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J. (1977), “Internationalization process of the firm – a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 23-32.

Guest editorial

15

IMR 20,1

16

Leonidou, L.C. (1995), “Empirical research on export barriers: review, assessment, and synthesis”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 29-43. Menon, A. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1992), “A model of marketing knowledge use within firms”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 53-71. O’Reilly, C.A. III (1978), “The intentional distortion of information in organizational communication: a laboratory and field investigation”, Human Relations, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 173-93. Piercy, N. (1983), “A social psychology of marketing information – learning to cope with the corporate battleground”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 103-19. Reid, S.D. (1984), “Information acquisition and export entry decisions in small firms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 12, pp. 141-57. Seringhaus, R.F.H. (1987), “The role of information assistance in small firms’ export involvement”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 26-36. Singer, T.O. and Czinkota, M.R. (1994), “Factors associated with effective use of export assistance”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 53-71. Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), “A conceptual framework of export marketing information use: key issues and research propositions”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 49-71. Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1999), “Export information acquisition modes: measure development and validation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 143-68. Special Issue Referees John Cadogan (Aston University, UK) Michael Czinkota (Georgetown University, USA) Constantine Katsikeas (Cardiff University, UK) Saeed Samiee (University of Tulsa, USA) Bodo Schlegelmilch (Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Austria) Aviv Shoham (University of Haifa, Israel) Chris Styles (University of New South Wales, Australia) Nikolaos Tzokas (University of East Anglia, UK) Jeryl Whitelock (University of Salford, UK) Heidi Winklhofer (Nottingham University, UK)

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

Towards an understanding of cross-national similarities and differences in export information utilization

Export information utilization 17

A perceptual mapping approach Adamantios Diamantopoulos Business School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK

Anne L. Souchon Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK

Geoffrey R. Durden Graduate School of Management, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia

Catherine N. Axinn Department of Marketing, College of Business, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA, and

Hartmut H. Holzmu¨ller Department of Marketing, University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany Keywords Export, Data communications, Information exchange Abstract The extent to which and ways in which export information is used can play a significant role in a firm’s level of export performance. Surprisingly, however, little empirical research has been conducted in the area of export information use, and even less attention has been paid to potential cross-national differences in how export information is used. The focus of this study is the examination of export information use practices across different countries. Data from a total sample of 989 exporting companies across Austria, Germany, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA were analyzed using analyses of covariance to control for extraneous, firm-level variables. The results indicate that firms from all countries use information instrumentally/conceptually more often than symbolically; they also tend to use export market intelligence more than other sources of information. Further, examination of the findings revealed that firms from different countries also use information differently. For instance, US exporters are much more symbolic in their use of information than exporters from the other countries, while Austrian exporters tend not to use information symbolically. Implications and limitations are discussed and future research avenues are proposed.

Introduction Much is made of the fact that, today, businesses find increasing competitive advantage in the internal handling of information. For example, work on market orientation initiated in the early 1990s points to the importance of

International Marketing Review Vol. 20 No. 1, 2003 pp. 17-43 q MCB UP Limited 0265-1335 DOI 10.1108/02651330310462257

IMR 20,1

18

information processing (e.g. generation and dissemination of information, and responsiveness to that information) as a key determinant of organizational performance (e.g. Narver and Slater, 1990; Ruekert, 1992; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). However, possession of information, though still critical to decision makers’ levels of confidence and certainty, is no longer considered to be the only prerequisite for successful decision making. In fact, “essentially the same information is available to competing firms at about the same time. As a consequence, competitive advantage is to be found increasingly in what is done with the information, i.e. how it is used or employed rather than in who does or does not have it” (Zaltman and Moorman, 1988, p. 16). Indeed, mere possession of information does not ensure the information’s ultimate use, since “in organizations there is a difference between information acquisition and utilization (because companies) probably acquire more information than they utilize” (Sinkula and Hampton, 1988, p. 339). Research interest in organizational information use emerged in the field of public policy making nearly three decades ago (e.g. Caplan et al., 1975; Knorr, 1977; Rich, 1977). More recently, however, marketing academia has been concerned with conceptualizing and operationalizing market information utilization, in an attempt to pin down antecedents and outcomes of information use (Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982, 1984, 1987; Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). The most recent developments in the field of market information use have occurred in the context of exporting firms because, in today’s increasingly global business environment, exporting often holds the key to success (Katsikeas, 1994) and is one of the most common forms of international involvement (Bodur and Cavusgil, 1985; Koh, 1991; Hansen et al., 1994). In this context, making export decisions without using information “can be compared with firing a rifle blind. If a duck falls out of the sky, it will be by luck, rather than by judgement” (Fletcher and Wheeler, 1989, p. 30). Indeed, a key objective of information use is the reduction in the uncertainty endemic in the international business environment (Lee et al., 1987). Given the unfamiliarity with the foreign environments which exporting firms face (McAuley, 1993), use of export market information can be seen as a critical determinant to export performance. Thus, much of the export market orientation literature has adopted the information-processing-based approach to market orientation (Cadogan et al., 1999; Rose and Shoham, 2002) and revealed a positive association between information processing and export performance. Most information-related export studies have tended to focus either on a general information-processing construct (market orientation) or on information acquisition issues (e.g. McAuley, 1993). Furthermore, those studies which have specifically looked at export information use (Hart et al., 1994; Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999) have failed to capture possible crossnational differences in the way in which export information is used by decision makers. Most of the work on export information use relies on single-country

studies (Crick et al., 1994), which limits the extent to which the theories developed can be generalized to alternative settings (Holzmu¨ller and Sto¨llnberger, 1994). Indeed, cross-national studies of marketing phenomena are critical if the external validity and international applicability of models are to be established (Samiee and Athanassiou, 1998). In today’s global business environment where firms not only market to, but are also physically present in, a wider variety of countries (Keegan, 1999), organizational decision makers require added awareness of managerial practices adopted abroad. Crossnational studies specifically focusing on export information use would benefit two sets of audiences, as discussed below. First, export information providers would benefit from knowledge on how, and to what extent, export information is actually used by companies worldwide, as this would enable them to better tailor their offerings to different markets. This is especially important in a global trading context, where many service firms (including information services providers) now serve international/foreign clients (Ekeledo and Sivakumar, 1998). While the proportion of people working as information providers has drastically increased in the last few years (Botten and McManus, 1998), the information industry still tends to be dominated by a small number of large multinational corporations (Mendelsohn, 1998). However, for smaller information providers, the key to business survival may lie in internationalizing their operations, rendered easier by the existence of the Internet as an information dissemination tool (Mendelsohn, 1998; Ancel, 1999; Yeoh, 2000). Thus, whether the provider of export information is purely domestic and offering information to exporting companies located on domestic soil only, purely domestic and offering information to international/foreign exporting companies, or finally an international/multinational organization offering information to clients world-wide, acquiring an understanding of export information use practices across cultures is likely to be a crucial determinant of enhanced decision quality and ultimate business success. Second, such a study would also benefit export decision makers themselves. Given that exporting is generally seen as a first step toward further internationalization (Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975), export decision makers may be posted within a host country to head the export function of a new foreign subsidiary. Indeed, international organizations often choose to relocate their production functions in response to, for example, exchange rate fluctuations (Rangan, 1998) and it is common for such new organizational entities to engage in exporting their products (Swamidass and Kotabe, 1993). Knowledge of how the national subordinates use export information, and whether or not their use patterns are similar to or different from their own, would assist managers in avoiding potential departmental conflict arising as a result of differences in the way export information is used. This is especially important, given the negative effect that such conflict has been found to exert

Export information utilization 19

IMR 20,1

20

on firm performance through lowering the firm’s market orientation (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Cadogan et al., 2001). The aim of this study is thus to fill an existing gap in the export information literature by examining export information utilization practices on a crossnational basis. As a first attempt to investigate export information use crossnationally, this study is essentially of an exploratory nature. In the next section, the conceptual background to the research is presented, highlighting past conceptualizations and operationalizations of export information use, and proposing theory-driven hypotheses. A description of the data collection process is then provided. The findings uncovered relating to the extent to which export information is used in different ways across the countries studied are then discussed and their implications considered. Finally, limitations and future research directions are identified. Background In 1994, Hart et al. published a study on export market research which was, to the authors’ best knowledge, the first to explicitly tap the export information use construct. Four statements measured on a Likert scale were used to capture the construct, using single item measures. Subsequently, Diamantopoulos and Horncastle (1997), replicating Deshpande´ and Zaltman’s (1987) study in an export setting, examined instrumental use of export market research findings. They employed a seven-item measure, including the original five items used by Deshpande´ and Zaltman (1982), as well as two items respectively capturing uncertainty reduction (Cavusgil 1984) and decision confidence (Lee et al., 1987). However, the scope of their study was limited to only one type of export information use (i.e. instrumental use of export marketing research information). Third, Souchon and Diamantopoulos (1997) reported on a study of export information use, capturing immediate use, future use and non-use of export information. Their study considered a more comprehensive set of export information acquisition sources (i.e. export marketing research, export assistance and export market intelligence)[1], which were argued to dictate the type of use made of the information. In other words, depending on whether information was collected from export marketing research, export assistance or export market intelligence sources, it was more likely to be used immediately, stored for future use, or ignored. Finally, Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) proposed measures of use of export information, as a two-dimensional construct encompassing instrumental/conceptual use and symbolic use, which were shown to be psychometrically sound. Instrumental/conceptual use of export information was described as a specific and direct form of information application to solve particular problems or address specific issues, either immediately upon receipt of the information, or at any other time in the future. Symbolic use, on the other hand, occurs when export information is used to justify a decision made previously on the basis of, for example, instinct or

intuition (Hart et al. 1994), when information is distorted to support the decision maker’s preconceived ideas in the eyes of subordinates or superiors (Goodman, 1993), or when information is simply used to sustain good working relationships with information providers (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). Their measures were specific to where the export information was initially acquired, and six scales were developed (i.e. instrumental/conceptual use of export marketing research, export assistance, and export market intelligence, and symbolic use of both export market research and export market intelligence). For present purposes, Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) six scales of export information use are used to gauge cross-national similarities and differences. Two sets of such similarities and differences are examined. First, different levels of instrumental/conceptual and symbolic use of export information, across countries, are investigated. Second, different patterns of export information usage (i.e. instrumental/conceptual versus symbolic use of export information) within countries are analyzed. Hypotheses Cross-national research has been repeatedly criticized for often leading only to descriptive results (Bhagat and McQuaid, 1982; Kohn, 1987; van de Vijver and Leung, 1997). As a consequence of the missing theoretical background, it becomes impossible to find explanations for the differences and similarities uncovered (Clark, 1990). Moreover, such an approach does not allow for findings that may also be valid for countries other than the ones included in the particular study at hand (Holzmu¨ller and Sto¨llnberger, 1994). Bearing the above in mind, in the present study, Hofstede’s (1980) national culture dimensions were examined as a platform for conceptual development. This choice was made for several reasons. First, there is “extensive evidence of the validity and reliability of . . . Hofstede’s (1980) national cultural scores” (Morosini et al., 1998, p. 144). Second, the stability of Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions across replications has been repeatedly shown (Sondergaard, 1994). Third, as Hoecklin (1995) and Hennart and Larimo (1998) point out, Hofstede’s (1980) classification of culture has become the best-known model of national culture, a fact illustrated by the use of his dimensions in several recent international marketing studies (Roth, 1995; Steenkamp et al., 1999), including one specifically focusing on information-seeking behavior (Zaheer and Zaheer, 1997). Finally, Hofstede’s dimensions pertain specifically to work-related values and processes (Lenartowicz and Roth, 1999), which is particularly relevant for the current research. In examining Hofstede’s (1980) cultural framework, it becomes quickly apparent that one specific dimension, namely uncertainty avoidance, may be particularly helpful for explaining export information-related behavior across countries (Zaheer and Zaheer, 1997). Uncertainty avoidance reflects a culture’s lack of tolerance for the unpredictable and a need for written and unwritten

Export information utilization 21

IMR 20,1

22

rules (Hofstede, 1997); thus this dimension captures how societies deal with unknown and unexpected aspects of life. Societies scoring low on this dimension are tolerant of various behaviors, and feel relatively secure. In contrast, “societies anxious over the future, actively avoiding risk and devising means, such as technologies, laws, and social plans, to create a sense of control have high uncertainty avoidance” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 165). Thus, in countries where people are able to stand a lot of ambiguity, managers are likely to handle risky export situations in a more relaxed fashion, and be less concerned with information input (Zaheer and Zaheer, 1997). In contrast, export decision makers in high uncertainty avoidance cultures are likely to shun ambiguous situations and leave as little to chance as possible (Hofstede, 1997). They are thus likely to put a great deal of effort into reducing the uncertainty associated with foreign environments (Katsikeas, 1994) and a key way of achieving this is through the acquisition and use of export information (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996). In countries scoring low on the uncertainty avoidance dimension, not only are formal rules disliked, but a common presumption is that problems can be solved without the need for such rules (Hofstede, 1980). As a result, managers are likely to prefer a more informal and intuitive approach to decision making. However, as Feldman and March (1981) point out, organizational decision making in the western world occurs in a political environment where information is a symbol of an individual’s competence and power (see also Huber and Daft (1987)). In this context, decisions are unlikely to be presented based on instinct alone without displaying any kind of information in support of the decision made (Huber, 1982). Thus, managers operating in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, where a formalized decision-making style is least likely to occur, are more likely to use export information symbolically than managers in high uncertainty avoidance countries, where rules would formally hinder such a practice. Therefore, the following hypothesis is advanced: H1. High uncertainty avoidance will lead to greater levels of instrumental/conceptual use and lower levels of symbolic use of export information. An examination of prior work into instrumental/conceptual and symbolic use of export information reveals that the former is generally thought by decision makers to be more legitimate than the latter (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1996). While instrumental/conceptual use pertains to an observable application of received information to assist in the decision-making process (see Rich, 1977; Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982; Moorman, 1995), the symbolic user of information will generally have more covert or hidden intentions underlying the use of information (e.g. to serve an ulterior purpose such as justifying decisions really already made on the basis of, say, a hunch – see, for example, Sabatier (1978)). Symbolic use of information does, then, exist and is, in fact,

becoming more and more acceptable (Parikh, 1994; Burke and Miller, 1999). However, the fact that export decisions involve foreign and therefore often unfamiliar markets necessarily means that the use of such instinct for international decisions will be more risky than in a purely domestic context. It is therefore expected that instrumental/conceptual use of export information will be more widespread than symbolic use of such information. It has also been noted that environmental factors (such as globalization and industry convergence) are responsible for reshaping patterns of information creation, diffusion and use (Deshpande´, 2001). As a result of these trends, patterns of information creation, diffusion and use, within and across countries, are becoming increasingly homogenized. Furthermore, Farley and Lehman (2001) present a compelling argument in support of the view that in international marketing research, where country is used as an independent variable, the magnitude of response parameters will not vary internationally; indeed, the null case for international research should be that specific parameters will be the same across countries. In the light of this, we adopt the view that, a priori, patterns of information use across the countries under study will be the same. Therefore, the following hypothesis is put forward: H2. Instrumental/conceptual use of export information will be more widespread than symbolic use of export information, regardless of the country at hand. Methodology Data collection The marketing research methodology literature suggests that mail surveys are valuable tools for collecting cross-national data (Fahy, 1998). A mail survey approach was thus adopted, targeting export decision makers. The instrument was developed based upon the existing literature on information use and export information use, as well as an initial qualitative study involving 12 in-depth interviews of export decision makers in the UK. The questionnaire was then pretested using peer reviews, protocols and pilot study approaches. After revisions, the questionnaire was translated into German and back-translated into English for the Austrian and German surveys (Brislin, 1986), since this method increases instrumentation equivalence (Nasif et al., 1991). In the context of cross-national research of business organizations, it has been found that sending questionnaires from each country to the sample within each respective country enhanced response rates (Jobber and Saunders, 1988). Thus, the questionnaire was sent from the five different countries to domestic nationals (e.g. the survey of US export marketing decision makers was conducted from the USA). Given the exploratory nature of the research, countries of similar economic environments were selected in order to minimize the risk of construct non-

Export information utilization 23

IMR 20,1

24

equivalence (Craig and Douglas, 2000). Following the differentiation of Ralston et al. (1997) of western vs. eastern nations and capitalism- vs. socialism-based economic systems, Western countries were focused upon, with their attendant capitalist orientation. The concentration on this type of economic environment was intended to cut back the influence of certain contextual forces that were not of core importance, given the current state of knowledge of export information processes. For instance, strikingly different levels of economic development or certain political restrictions (e.g. limitation on foreign travel) could bias the cross-national comparisons in a way which would be unrelated to the topic of interest (van de Vijver and Leung, 1997). At the same time, countries from different continents were sought in order to capture firms exporting to and from a wider variety of locations. Thus, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA were selected. In addition, the collaboration of researchers in the five countries selected, each of whom possessed “the requisite substantive knowledge of his/her respective culture, country” (Cavusgil and Das, 1997, p. 78), minimized the threat to functional equivalence (Craig and Douglas, 2000). The sampling frames used were Dun & Bradstreet company databases for Austria, Germany and the UK, Profile Publishing in New Zealand, and the Harris Directory of Manufacturers in the USA; these sampling frames were deemed to be the best available in the countries concerned. The questionnaires were sent to random samples of exporters in each country. Follow-up procedures were employed to enhance the response rates. More specifically, a second wave of questionnaires was sent to non-respondents one week to ten days after the initial mail-out. This was followed by follow-up telephone calls to random sub-samples of non-respondents. The final response rates obtained after follow-up procedures were 17 per cent in Austria (n ¼ 220), 14 per cent in Germany (n ¼ 172), 46 per cent in New Zealand (n ¼ 239), 24 per cent in the UK (n ¼ 198), and 9 per cent in the USA (n ¼ 163). Given the varying response rates obtained, non-response analysis was undertaken for each sample. It consisted of a telephone follow-up procedure whereby causes non-response were directly sought from the non-respondents, as well as a time-trend analysis whereby early and late respondents were compared on the basis of the main variables of interest in the study (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). Regarding the telephone follow-up, it was found that ineligibility (e.g. companies not exporting) was a common cause of non-response, suggesting minimal non-response bias. The time trend method (in the form of t-tests on key variables) revealed no statistically significant differences between early and late respondents across any of the samples, further suggesting an absence of non-response bias. Diagnosing measurement equivalence As already mentioned, the measures of export information use employed in this study were the six scales developed by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999). The three scales of instrumental/conceptual use (of export marketing research,

export assistance, and export market intelligence information) contained 12 items, while the three scales of symbolic use were made up of 11 items. Since “an essential ingredient in any (cross-national) comparison is a variable that forms a scale with identical or invariant scale properties for the persons or groups to be compared” (Poortinga, 1989, p. 737), and given the lack of crossnational research conducted thus far on export information use, particular attention to measurement equivalence was warranted (Singh, 1995). First, the same five-point Likert scales were employed to capture export information use in each of the five countries surveyed (where use of such scales is common place), since, according to Craig and Douglas (2000), the use of fivepoint scales limits calibration bias. Translation equivalence was sought a priori by translating and back-translating the questionnaires from English into German and vice versa for the Austrian and German samples (see previous section). Finally, threats to metric equivalence were assessed by examining the internal consistency of the scales across the samples (Parameswaran and Yaprak, 1987) and by undertaking a profile analysis (Morris and Pavett, 1992). As Table I shows, the largest difference in the reliabilities of the six scales across all countries was 0.17 for symbolic use of export marketing research; this difference was thought small enough not to raise undue concern as to the scales’ metric equivalence especially in the light of the magnitudes of the coefficients involved. Profile analysis of the export information use items was also conducted to assess metric equivalence; the country-specific means of each individual item composing each export information use scale were calculated and displayed in six profile analysis diagrams (one for each of the six scales of export information use). In each of the diagrams, the five lines obtained (representing each of the five countries’ item means) were found to cross over repeatedly, thus providing further evidence as to the metric equivalence of the six measures of export information use (Mullen, 1995). Finally, in order to assess construct equivalence, a validation exercise was undertaken, not unlike that proposed by Campbell and Fiske (1959). Specifically, convergent and discriminant validity were assessed within each country, using simple correlational procedures (calculating Pearson coefficients with one-tailed significance testing). It was found that the three scales of instrumental/conceptual use strongly and positively correlated with one another, but insignificantly or negatively correlated with the three symbolic use scales. Similarly, the three symbolic use scales were found to be strongly and positively related to one another. These results indicate good construct equivalence within each of the five countries at hand. Cross-national comparisons Given that, when organizational and market conditions differ within each sample, “it is difficult to separate country effects from differing product-market conditions existing in different national environments” (Zaheer and Zaheer,

Export information utilization 25

Table I. Reliabilities of instrumental/ conceptual and symbolic use scales (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients)

Instrumental/ conceptual Symbolic

26

0.69 0.76

0.81 0.84

0.78 0.74

0.78 0.79 0.73 0.67

0.76 0.75

0.73 0.81

0.82 0.72

0.80 0.80 0.75 0.72

0.77 0.75

0.75 0.77

0.76 0.77

0.80 0.81 0.73 0.68

Export marketing research Export assistance Export market intelligence New New New Austria Germany Zealand UK USA Austria Germany Zealand UK USA Austria Germany Zealand UK USA

IMR 20,1

1997, p. 78), the removal of potential confounding effects was warranted. Thus, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was employed in order to compare the reliance on the different types of export information use across the five countries of interest, while controlling for extraneous, non-country-specific influences. In other words, the six export information use measures (two types of use for information collected from three different types of information sources) were compared across Austria, Germany, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA, while controlling for a number of organizational (export-specific) and environmental variables, in order to eliminate potential confounding effects[2]. It has been argued that “any variable which theoretically should correlate with the dependent variable, or variables which have been shown to correlate on similar types of subjects, should be considered as possible covariates” (Stevens, 1986, p. 196). Variables likely to confound the results therefore include export experience (Hart et al., 1994), export dependence (Cavusgil, 1984), export information acquisition (Sinkula, 1994), export information overload (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997), and environmental turbulence (Glazer and Weiss, 1993)[3]. The ANCOVA model assumes a random sample, normality of the dependent variable in each group, homoscedasticity of the dependent variable across groups, independence of observations, linearity between covariates and the dependent variable, absence of covariate measurement error, and parallel regression planes (Stevens, 1986). All ANCOVA assumptions were examined and no cause for concern was raised. Hierarchical decomposition of sum of squares was employed in the analyses of covariance (Wildt and Ahtola, 1978), in order to assess the influences of the covariates first, and the main “country” effect second. The results of the ANCOVA tests are presented in the next section. Results Upon running the ANCOVA, all dimensions of export information use were found to vary with the country under investigation. This signifies that levels of export information utilization vary across countries for reasons over and above those related to internal (i.e. export experience, export dependence, export information acquisition, export information overload), and environmental (i.e. turbulence) factors. This is shown by the significant F-values (at p , 0.05) obtained when inserting the variable “country” into the analysis (see Table II). Also worth pointing out here is the fluctuating sample size when different dependent variables are involved in the analysis. This is due to the fact that some export decision makers tend to use more information from certain export information acquisition modes as opposed to others, and/or use information more in one way than the other. For example, of the total usable sample, 404 exporters use export marketing research information instrumentally/conceptually, but 485 firms use export assistance information in this way. Similarly, while

Export information utilization 27

IMR 20,1

28

Table II. ANCOVA results with decomposition of effects

Dependent variables Instrumental/conceptual use of export marketing research (n ¼ 404) R 2 = 0.14 Instrumental/conceptual use of export assistance (n ¼ 485) R 2 = 0.10 Instrumental/conceptual use of export market intelligence (n ¼ 784) R 2 = 0.15 Symbolic use of export marketing research (n ¼ 400) R 2 = 0.16 Symbolic use of export assistance (n ¼ 487) R 2 = 0.12 Symbolic use of export market intelligence (n ¼ 770) R 2 = 0.09

Effect decomposition

Degrees of freedom

F-value

Significance

Covariates

5

10.080

0.000

Country

4

3.297

0.011

Covariates

5

8.094

0.000

Country

4

3.390

0.009

Covariates

5

12.093

0.000

Country

4

18.075

0.000

Covariates

5

10.873

0.000

Country Covariates

4 5

4.737 10.607

0.001 0.000

Country

4

2.554

0.038

Covariates

5

11.404

0.000

Country

4

5.339

0.000

784 exporters use export market intelligence information instrumentally/conceptually, only 770 export decision makers use information acquired from this mode in a symbolic manner. To compare the extent to which export information is used instrumentally/conceptually and symbolically (in turn), across the five countries at hand, while removing the effects of organizational and environmental factors, new means for the six scales were computed, which were adjusted for the said covariates. These adjusted means are shown in Table III, where the “raw” (unadjusted) means are also displayed as a benchmark. Comparisons of the adjusted means show that the country displaying the highest level of instrumental/conceptual use of export marketing research information is New Zealand, followed by Austria, Germany, the UK, and the USA (in decreasing order of use). As far as instrumental/conceptual use of export assistance is concerned, a different pattern emerges, with the country displaying the highest level of such export information use being New Zealand, followed by Germany, Austria, the USA and the UK. The same schema emerges for instrumental/conceptual use of export market intelligence, with the

Export marketing research Instrumental/conceptual Adjusted instrumental/conceptual Symbolic Adjusted symbolic Export assistance Instrumental/conceptual Adjusted instrumental/conceptual Symbolic Adjusted symbolic Export market intelligence Instrumental/conceptual Adjusted instrumental/conceptual Symbolic Adjusted symbolic

Austria

Germany

New Zealand

UK

USA

3.40 3.42 2.28 2.28

3.35 3.39 2.53 2.47

3.52 3.50 2.57 2.55

3.37 3.36 2.44 2.49

3.28 3.27 2.58 2.61

3.32 3.33 2.39 2.38

3.36 3.35 2.53 2.49

3.35 3.39 2.51 2.51

3.21 3.20 2.43 2.46

3.32 3.27 2.59 2.62

3.49 3.50 2.45 2.45

3.58 3.58 2.58 2.56

3.74 3.74 2.67 2.64

3.43 3.42 2.56 2.58

3.45 3.46 2.69 2.73

country displaying the highest level of such use being New Zealand, followed by Germany, Austria, the USA, and the UK. Where symbolic use of export marketing research information is concerned, US export decision makers are more prone to this type of use than decision makers from New Zealand, the UK, Germany, and Austria (in decreasing order). A slight shift in pattern occurs where symbolic use of export assistance information is concerned, with US decision makers displaying higher levels of this type of export information use, followed by New Zealand, Germany, the UK, and Austria. Finally, export market intelligence information is used symbolically by US export decision makers the most, followed by New Zealand, the UK, Germany and Austria. It is therefore apparent that, while cross-national differences in export information use levels do exist (i.e. are statistically significant), the fact that the ranking of adjusted means across countries does not follow that of Hofstede scores on uncertainty avoidance (see Table IV) signifies that H1 is unsupported by the study’s findings. The above results can also be pictured visually in a bar graph (Figure 1) which shows the adjusted means of instrumental/conceptual use of export marketing research, export assistance, export market intelligence, symbolic use of export marketing research, export assistance, and export market intelligence for the five countries under investigation in this study. The bar graph clearly shows that instrumental/conceptual use of export information is more widespread than symbolic use, across the five countries at hand. It appears, therefore, that H2 is indeed supported by the study’s findings. The relationships among the various types of information use are further revealed in the following perceptual map (Figure 2), which shows the positions of the two dimensions of export information use for each country under investigation.

Export information utilization 29

Table III. Raw and adjusted means for export information use

Austria Germany New Zealand USA UK

Symbolic use adjusted means

Table IV. Hypothesized and actual country rankings UK USA New Zealand Germany Austria 70 65 49 46 35

35 46 49 65 70 Austria Germany UK New Zealand USA

USA UK Germany Austria New Zealand 2.28 2.47 2.49 2.55 2.61

3.27 3.36 3.39 3.42 3.50

Export marketing research Country Ranks

Austria UK Germany New Zealand USA

UK USA Austria Germany New Zealand

2.38 2.46 2.49 2.51 2.62

3.20 3.27 3.33 3.35 3.39

Export assistance Country Ranks

Austria Germany UK New Zealand USA

UK USA Austria Germany New Zealand

2.45 2.56 2.58 2.64 2.73

3.42 3.46 3.50 3.58 3.74

Export market intelligence Country Ranks

30

Instrumental/conceptual use adjusted means

Uncertainty avoidance scores Country Ranks

IMR 20,1

Export information utilization 31

Figure 1. Adjusted means of export information use

Noticeably, horizontal “layers” of countries appear in Figure 2, indicating that symbolic use may be more country-sensitive than instrumental/conceptual use. More specifically, managers in the USA tend to practice symbolic use of information much more than managers in any of the other four countries investigated, regardless of which source of export information is under consideration. Austria, on the other hand, paints a consistently different picture, with much lower symbolic use of export information than any of the other four countries examined here.

Figure 2. Perceptual map of export information use adjusted means

IMR 20,1

32

Another result concerns the role of export market intelligence. For each of the five countries concerned, export market intelligence information is located higher and more to the right compared with each country’s location of export marketing research and export assistance information. This suggests that exporters in all the countries studied (Austria, Germany, New Zealand, the UK and the USA) tend to use more informal information sources both to support decision-making activity and for political purposes. On the other hand, export assistance information is consistently to the left of either export marketing research or export market intelligence use in each of the five countries at hand, signifying lower levels of instrumental/conceptual use of information from this type of source. Based on the insights facilitated by the perceptual mapping and other analyses, the section below discusses the implications for information providers and for export decision makers. Discussion and implications The findings confirm, in a cross-national setting, the overriding importance of informal information collection procedures and the extensive use of information gathered informally, over more formal information sources. Information derived from export market intelligence is used more than other sources both for instrumental/conceptual purposes and for symbolic purposes across all five countries studied. Moreover, firms in all countries tend to make much less instrumental/conceptual use of export assistance information than other types of information. Furthermore, export information tends to be used much more instrumentally/conceptually than symbolically in the five countries studied. The findings also reveal that patterns of export information use vary by country. Firms in the USA clearly have a greater tendency toward symbolic use than firms in other countries, while firms in Austria just as clearly are less inclined toward symbolic use of any kind of export information. Implications for information suppliers The potential for waste of resources in the expensive collection of information, which is ultimately not used much in decision making, is a serious issue in need of consideration, and identification of strategies available to export information providers to promote the use of the information is clearly important. For example, it is essential for market research agencies to provide information to their clients which corresponds to their specific patterns of information handling. Equally, the onus is on marketing research departments within firms to provide their colleagues with information which coincides with their managers’ respective expectations, assessment, and prior experience with export information. In this context, the current study highlights that exporters favor use of more informal sources (possibly because of differing levels of quality or differing levels of recency in the information gathered).

One potential explanation for this result could be the fact that information gathered via personal contacts such as customers and suppliers originates directly from the marketplace, not from mere observers such as multi-industry market research agencies (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1996). Thus, export marketing research and export assistance information providers should perhaps structure their respective organizations to establish “units of specialty” which would possess industry-specific expertise. One way to achieve this would be through the recruitment of “industry players” in order to acquire the necessary knowledge, and the trust of their clients. Such staff would complement existing personnel trained in the ways of data collection. In the USA, export assistance information is mostly used symbolically, perhaps “for good measure”. With more industry-specific, and thus potentially more valuable, information provided through this information source, instrumental/conceptual use is more likely to take place, resulting in enhanced decision quality (Crick et al., 1994). Additionally, information suppliers should be aware of and take into account variations in use across their clients’ countries. The present findings could help information suppliers to segment and fine-tune their product offerings. Exporters in Austria, for example, have a different use profile for market research than exporters in the USA, that is, they tend to use it more instrumentally/conceptually than symbolically. Market research providers might use this knowledge to flag situations where export information users are more prone to symbolic use of information; in such situations, the research report itself might be tailored to “head off” such use. Further, governments might consider why export assistance programs fare relatively poorly on the use dimensions presented. The results suggest that, even in the case of export assistance programs, organizations use information as much for symbolic as for instrumental/conceptual purposes. Perhaps one new area of training provided in export assistance programs should be a description of the different sources of export information and types of export information use, with particular attention to symbolic use.

Implications for exporters Implications from this study can also be drawn for exporting organizations wishing to further develop their international operations. Indeed, it has been argued that exporting is but the first stage of internationalization which ultimately could lead to setting up wholly-owned subsidiaries abroad (Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975). An export manager accustomed to using information in a way that is culturally acceptable in his/her environment could later be posted overseas and expect national subordinates to display the same information use patterns as him/herself. This could cause problems for two reasons.

Export information utilization 33

IMR 20,1

34

First, an export manager originally from, say, Austria could be expatriated to, say, the USA and expect subordinates to display decision-making skills that are as rational (i.e. relying more on instrumental/conceptual information use) as his/her own. This manager may be surprised to discover the more symbolic export information use practices prevalent in the host country. Should the manager attempt to alter these practices based upon his/her own perception that export information should be used in a more instrumental/conceptual manner, this could lead to inter- and/or intra-departmental conflict. In turn, conflict is detrimental to business success through its lowering of market orientation in general (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993) and export market orientation in particular (Cadogan et al., 2001). Second, it is possible that culture moderates the relationship between export information use and export performance. For example, symbolic use of export marketing research may be highly detrimental to export performance in Austria (which may explain why Austrian export decision makers do not tend to use export marketing research in such a way), but not in the USA (where such use is more common). Further research into this area could establish whether this is indeed the case, and should therefore present export decision makers posted in foreign countries with some more specific recommendations as to which use of export information should be made, and in which context (see also section on future research directions).

Implications of relying on export market intelligence An interesting finding of this research is the greater degree of instrumental/ conceptual use of export market intelligence relative to export assistance and export marketing research across all countries. This supports Day’s (2001, p. 14) view that “[o]pen-minded inquiry (necessary for learning about markets) requires an ability and willingness to learn from the experiences of others, including customers, competitors, and channel members”. But it also has implications for the users of this information and for purveyors of other types of export information. Information suppliers as well as users of information may be able to assess what types of information will most directly affect export decision making across countries. This may be useful in forecasting potential effects of varying types of export information. For example, negative publicity surrounding a particular product-market opportunity (export intelligence) might have a more immediate, albeit short-term, effect on market entry strategies. Consider export assistance efforts in a country that is geared toward overcoming negative publicity about that country. The current findings would also suggest that a greater degree of export assistance would be required to overcome negative export market intelligence because of the lower degree of instrumental/conceptual use of export assistance relative to export market intelligence.

The finding that export market intelligence is used to a greater extent for symbolic purposes than information from alternative sources also has important managerial implications. Intelligence, by its very nature, is not scientific and is less objective than export marketing research and export assistance (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1999). Managers can screen intelligence that does not fit with their preconceived notions and agendas. Intelligence is often non-quantitative and subject to the interpretation biases of those involved. Export marketing research and export assistance, by their very nature, are less prone to symbolic use. These findings suggest that managers must question the source of information that those who propose major strategic changes or new initiatives have utilized to bolster their arguments. Export managers who spot colleagues using export market intelligence as their sole source of information for decision making should, perhaps, be wary.

Limitations of the study As is typical for exploratory studies, a very specific rationale was used to select countries. In order to guarantee a high level of conceptual equivalence as a basis for cross-national findings only highly industrialized western countries were included in the study, with a high similarity of the language structure. Cross-national studies including Asian countries and/or other economically less developed countries might lead to quite different results with respect to information use patterns. Such studies may highlight more pronounced differences in export information use across countries than those uncovered here (where differences within countries were greater than across them). Second, the present analysis was based on established and recent literature in the field, on which the selection of covariates was made. While the purpose of the study was not to maximize the percentage of export information use variance explained, the R 2 values resulting from the ANCOVA analyses point to the existence of additional antecedents to export information use dimensions. In other words, additional constructs not currently included in the analysis might contribute to the explanation of variance in a more substantial manner. These may include, for example, human factors such as managerial attitude to exporting, educational background of the export decision maker, or receptivity to surprising information. Third, the variation in the response rates obtained may be noted. The main discrepancy lies in the comparison of US and New Zealand respondents. One reason for this may be that New Zealand exporters are still less researched than their US (or even European) counterparts. In turn, they may feel less reluctance in spending the time to fill in university-sent questionnaires. Another reason may lie in the fact that New Zealand relies heavily on exporting for national economic health, New Zealand being such a small and remote country, relative to the other countries selected for the current study. New Zealand exporters

Export information utilization 35

IMR 20,1

36

may therefore feel more inclined to contributing toward the development of export research and theory, that may ultimately benefit them directly. Finally, it was beyond the scope of the study, and the respective available resources, to collect data on the specific economic background in each of the industries in which the participating companies operate. Also, the cultural variables and country background variables in the study were limited, because the current state of knowledge does not provide sufficient guidance in variable selection to facilitate more complex model building at this time. Future research avenues One critical avenue open to the future researcher is uncovering the determinants which influence the different patterns of export information use in the respective countries. Even though this study showed some similarities in patterns of information use, it also revealed differences in levels of use. Further research is now needed to identify whether patterns of use and levels of use have different determinants. This raises several questions about the nature of the likely determinants. First, it may be that other national cultural characteristics (aside from uncertainty avoidance) act as such antecedents. For example, it could be that Trompenaars’ (1993) scheme may be better able to predict export information use levels. Furthermore, while the current study was concerned with crossnational similarities and differences between countries of comparable economic environments, a further study may benefit from focusing on addressing crosscultural variations in export information use. Having said this, it may be appropriate to measure certain aspects of culture at the firm level rather than the broader national level. In so doing, existing cultural scores (such as those derived by Hofstede (1980)) could be replaced by data collected directly from the respondents at hand. This would have the advantage of increasing the variance in the cultural variables, and therefore the likelihood of detecting relationships between cultural and export information use dimensions. Second, other, non-culturally based variables might influence the level of use of various types of export information. For instance, the level of financial support given by different countries may affect the receptiveness of managers to using export assistance information. Alternatively, the level of education of managers or the nature of their previous experience might influence their propensity to use export market research symbolically. It was beyond the scope of this paper to investigate the complex and multifaceted relations between different types of information use and indicators of export performance (Matthyssens and Pauwels, 1996). However, the theoretical and managerial implications of a study comparing the relationships between export information use and export performance across countries would also be critical, representing another direction for future research. Specifically, the strength and direction of the relationships between

the different dimensions of use of export information acquired via different modes and export performance may vary from country to country. A future researcher involved in the study of these relationships would have to ensure that the measures of export performance are equivalent in all countries. For instance, Styles (1998) revealed that Cavusgil and Zou’s (1994) measure of export performance (developed in the USA) was also valid in the UK and Australia. Along these same lines, it would be useful to assess the impact of export market information use on other indicators shown to be related to market orientation. For example, the impact on esprit de corps, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of employees, as well as on customer satisfaction (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993), could be examined. It could be that, in export organizations which have succeeded in securing employee commitment to the firm, export information will be less likely to be used symbolically. It could also be that, in firms where the propensity is to use export information more instrumentally/conceptually, export customers will tend to be more satisfied. Further, it would be useful and enlightening to examine the relationship between the export task and export information use. Perhaps the manager exporting to a new country market would use information differently from a manager exporting to a new customer in an existing market. The need for instrumental/conceptual (i.e. direct) use of export information in the former instance would be stronger on account of the lack of prior experience in dealing with a new and unfamiliar foreign market. In the second instance, having acquired experience in dealing with a particular market culture, the export decision maker may find it faster to use his/her own experience-based intuition (Leonidou and Adams-Florou, 1999) to make export decisions – increasing symbolic use of information (see also Crossan and Sorrenti (1997)). Finally, the five countries serving as a basis for comparing export information usage cross-nationally are all western cultures and highly industrialized economies. Examination of eastern cultures, as well as economically less developed countries, may further the generalizability of the findings. For instance, Tayeb (1994) states that India and the UK differ on the amount of consultation and delegation of authority, two dimensions which may also impact on the extent to which, and ways in which, export information is used. Future researchers should endeavor to assess export information use across a wider range of countries and cultures. Notes 1. Where export information studies are concerned, sources of export information have been identified (McAuley, 1993) and classified into three categories, namely export marketing research, export market intelligence, and export assistance (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996). While research and intelligence have often been classified separately in the non-export literature (Moorman, 1995), export assistance has generally been the single focus of export

Export information utilization 37

IMR 20,1

38

studies which have chosen to overlook research and intelligence sources of information (Seringhaus, 1987). Clearly, however, a categorization of export information sources which separates export assistance from both export marketing research and export market intelligence is conducive to a cross-national study, given the undeniable national differences in export assistance provision (e.g. Camino, 1991). Export marketing research can best be understood as “the systematic gathering, recording, and analyzing of data about problems relating to the marketing of goods and services” (AMA, 1961), “carried out either in the home market or in foreign markets for the purpose of reducing uncertainty surrounding international marketing decisions” (Cavusgil, 1984, p. 262). The second information collection category, export assistance, refers to information services provided by external non-marketing research bodies, such as embassies, banks, and exporters’ associations (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1998) for the purpose of promoting organizations’ export operations (Diamantopoulos et al., 1993). Lastly, export market intelligence is defined as an informal, non-systematic acquisition of export information from customers, distributors and competitors, through attendance at international trade fairs and shows, and through casually reading trade literature (Saunders and Jones, 1990). It is an ongoing information acquisition mode occurring in the process of day-to-day activities (Jaffe, 1979). 2. The application of a MANOVA procedure on the six scales simultaneously was not feasible since not all firms used all three export information acquisition modes; moreover, information from a given mode was sometimes used only instrumentally/conceptually or symbolically. In other words, there was a fluctuating sample size depending upon the specific combination of type of use and acquisition mode. 3. A discussion on why and how the potential covariates will affect export information use is beyond the scope of this paper. However, for a review, see Souchon and Diamantopoulos (1996).

References American Marketing Association (1961), Report of Definitions Committee of the American Marketing Association, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. Ancel, B. (1999), “Using the Internet: exploring international markets”, International Trade Forum, Vol. 1, pp. 14-16. Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, August, pp. 396-402. Bhagat, B.J. and McQuaid, S.J. (1982), “Role of subjective culture in organizations: a review and directions for future research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 653-85. Bodur, M. and Cavusgil, S.T. (1985), “Export market research orientations of Turkish firms”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 5-16. Botten, N. and McManus, J. (1998), “Competitive strategies for service organisations – the role of information technology in business”, Management Services, October, pp. 16-21. Brislin, R.W. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, in Lonner, W.J. and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Field Methods in Cross-cultural Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 137-64. Burke, L.A. and Miller, M.K. (1999), “Taking the mystery out of intuitive decision making”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 91-9. Cadogan, J.W., Diamantopoulos, A. and de Mortanges, C.P. (1999), “A measure of export market orientation: scale development and cross-cultural validation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 689-707.

Cadogan, J.W., Paul, N.J., Salminen, R.T., Puumalainen, K. and Sundqvist, S. (2001), “Key antecedents to ‘export’ market-oriented behaviors: a cross-national empirical examination”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 261-82. Camino, D. (1991), “Export promotion policies in Spain and other EEC countries: systems and performance”, in Seringhaus, F.M.R. and Rosson, P.J. (Eds), Export Development and Promotion: The Role of Public Organizations, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp. 119-43. Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959), “Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 81-105. Caplan, N., Morrison, A. and Stambaugh, R.J. (1975), The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. Cavusgil, S.T. (1984), “International marketing research: insights into company practices”, Research in Marketing, Vol. 7, pp. 261-88. Cavusgil, S.T. and Das, A. (1997), “Methodological issues in empirical cross-cultural research: a survey of the management literature and a framework”, Management International Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 71-96. Cavusgil, S.T. and Zou, S. (1994), “Marketing strategy-performance relationship: an investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 1-21. Clark, T. (1990), “International marketing and national character: a review and proposal for an integrative theory”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 66-79. Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2000), International Marketing Research, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Crick, D., Jones, M. and Hart, S. (1994), “International marketing research activities of UK exporters: an exploratory study”, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 7-26. Crossan, M. and Sorrenti, M. (1997), “Making sense of improvisation”, in Walsh, J.P. and Huffs, A.S. (Eds), Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 14, pp. 155-80. Day, G. (2001), “Learning about markets”, in Deshpande´, R. (Ed.), Using Market Knowledge, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 9-29. Deshpande´, R. (2001), “From market research use to market knowledge management”, in Deshpande´, R. (Ed.), Using Market Knowledge, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-8. Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (1982), “Factors affecting the use of market research information: a path analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 14-31. Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (1984), “A comparison of factors affecting researcher and manager perceptions of market research use”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, pp. 32-8. Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (1987), “A comparison of factors affecting use of marketing information in consumer and industrial firms”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 114-18. Diamantopoulos, A. and Horncastle, S. (1997), “Use of export marketing research by industrial firms: an application of Deshpande´ and Zaltman’s model”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 245-70. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A.L. (1996), “Instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use of export information: an exploratory study of UK firms”, in Cavusgil, S.T. (Ed.), Advances in International Marketing, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 117-44. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A.L. (1998), “Information utilisation by exporting firms: conceptualisation, measurement, and impact on export performance”, in Urban, S. and

Export information utilization 39

IMR 20,1

40

Nanopoulos, C. (Eds), Information and Management: Utilization of Technology – Structural and Cultural Impact, Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 111-40. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A.L. (1999), “Measuring export information use: scale development and validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, p. 1-14. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Tse, K.Y.K. (1993), “Understanding the role of export marketing assistance: empirical evidence and research needs”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 5-18. Ekeledo, I. and Sivakumar, K. (1998), “Foreign market entry mode choice of service firms: a contingency perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 274-92. Fahy, J. (1998), “Improving response rates in cross-cultural mail surveys”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 27, pp. 459-67. Farley, J.U. and Lehman, D.R. (2001), “The important role of meta-analysis in international research in marketing”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 70-9. Feldman, M.S. and March, J.G. (1981), “Information in organizations as signal and symbol”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 171-86. Fletcher, K. and Wheeler, C. (1989), “Market intelligence for international markets”, Marketing Intelligence & and Planning, Vol. 7 No. 5/6, pp. 30-4. Glazer, R. and Weiss, A.M. (1993), “Marketing in turbulent environments: decision processes and the time-sensitivity of information”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, pp. 509-21. Goodman, S.K. (1993), “Information needs for management decision making”, Records Management Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 12-23. Hansen, N., Gillespie, K. and Gencturk, E. (1994), “SMEs and export involvement: market responsiveness, technology and alliances”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 7-27. Hart, S., Webb, J.R. and Jones, M.V. (1994), “Export marketing research and the effect of export experience in industrial SMEs”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 4-22. Hennart, J-F. and Larimo, J. (1998), “The impact of culture on the strategy of multinational enterprises: does national origin affect ownership decisions?”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 515-38. Hoecklin, L. (1995), Managing Cultural Differences, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Holzmu¨ller, H.H. and Sto¨llnberger, B. (1994), “A conceptual framework for country selection in cross-national export studies”, in Cavusgil, S.T. (Ed.), Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3-24. Huber, G.P. (1982), “Organizational information systems: determinants of their performance and behavior”, Management Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 138-55. Huber, G.P. and Daft, R.L. (1987), “The information environment of organizations”, in Jablin, F., Putnam, L., Roberts, K. and Porter, L. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Communication, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 130-64. Jaffe, E.D. (1979), “Multinational marketing intelligence: an information requirements model”, Management International Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 53-60. Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 53-70.

Jobber, D. and Saunders, J. (1988), “An experimental investigation into cross-national mail survey response rates”, Journal of International Business Studies., Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 483-9. Johanson, J. and Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975), “The internationalization of the firm: four Swedish cases”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 305-22. Katsikeas, C.S. (1994), “Perceived export problems and export involvement: the case of Greek exporting manufacturers”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 29-57. Keegan, W.J. (1999), Global Marketing Management, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Knorr, K.D. (1977), “Policymakers’ use of social science knowledge: symbolic or instrumental?”, in Weiss, C.H. (Ed.), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA. Koh, A.C. (1991), “An evaluation of international marketing research planning in United States export firms”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 7-25. Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18. Kohn, M.L. (1987), “Cross-national research as an analytical strategy”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 52, pp. 713-31. Lee, H., Acito, F. and Day, R.L. (1987), “Evaluation and use of marketing research by decision makers: a behavioral simulation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 187-96. Lenartowicz, T. and Roth, K. (1999), “A framework for culture assessment”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 781-98. Leonidou, L.C. and Adams-Florou, A.S. (1999), “Types and sources of export information: insights from small business”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 30-48. McAuley, A. (1993), “The perceived usefulness of export information sources”, European Journal of Marketing, pp. 52-64. Matthyssens, P. and Pauwels, P. (1996), “Assessing export performance measurement”, in Cavusgil, S.T. (Ed.), Advances in International Marketing, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 85-114. Mendelsohn, S. (1998), “Online information 98”, Information World Review, October, pp. 12-13. Menon, A. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1992), “A model of marketing knowledge use within firms”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 53-71. Moorman, C. (1995), “Organizational market information processes: cultural antecedents and new product outcomes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, August, pp. 318-35. Morosini, P., Shane, S. and Singh, H. (1998), “National cultural distance and cross-border acquisition performance”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 137-58. Morris, T. and Pavett, C.M. (1992), “Management style and productivity in two cultures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 169-79. Mullen, M.R. (1995), “Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 573-96. Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, October, pp. 20-35. Nasif, E.G., Al-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B. and Thibodeaux, M.S. (1991), “Methodological problems in cross-cultural research: an updated review”, Management International Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 79-91.

Export information utilization 41

IMR 20,1

Parameswaran, R. and Yaprak, A. (1987), “A cross-national comparison of consumer research measures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 35-49. Parikh, J. (1994), Intuition: The New Frontier of Management, Blackwell Business, Oxford. Poortinga, Y.H. (1989), “Equivalence of cross-cultural data: an overview of basic issues”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 737-56.

42

Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997), “The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 177-207. Rangan, S. (1998), “Do multinationals operate flexibly? Theory and evidence”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 217-37. Rich, R.F. (1977), “Uses of social science information by federal bureaucrats: knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding”, in Weiss, C.H. (Ed.), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, D. C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA. Rose, G. and Shoham, A. (2002), “Export performance and market orientation – establishing an empirical link”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 217-25. Roth, M.S. (1995), “The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of global brand image strategies”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, May, pp. 163-75. Ruekert, R.W. (1992), “Developing a market orientation: an organizational strategy perspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-45. Sabatier, P. (1978), “The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 396-417. Samiee, S. and Athanassiou, N. (1998), “International strategy research: cross-cultural methodology implications”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 79-96. Saunders, C. and Jones, J.W. (1990), “Temporal sequences in information acquisition for decision making: a focus on source and medium”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 29-46. Seringhaus, R.F.H. (1987), “The role of information assistance in small firms’ export involvement”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 26-36. Singh, J. (1995), “Measurement issues in cross-cultural research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 597-619. Sinkula, J.M. (1994), “Market information processing and organizational learning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 35-45. Sinkula, J.M. and Hampton, R.D. (1988), “Centralization and information acquisition by in-house market research departments”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 16, pp. 337-49. Sondergaard, M. (1994), “Research note: Hofstede’s consequences: a study of reviews, citations and replications”, Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 447-56. Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), “A conceptual framework of export marketing information use: key issues and research propositions”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 49-71. Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1997), “Use and non-use of export information: some preliminary insights into antecedents and impact on export performance”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 135-51. Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1999), “Export information acquisition modes: measure development and validation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 143-68.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. (1999), “A cross-national investigation into the individual and national-cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, April, pp. 55-69. Stevens, J. (1986), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Styles, C. (1998), “An examination of the cross-cultural validity of export performance measures in Australia and the United Kingdom”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 12-36. Swamidass, P.M. and Kotabe, M. (1993), “Component sourcing strategies of multinationals: an empirical study of European and Japanese multinationals”, Journal of International Business Studies, 1st Quarter, pp. 81-98. Tayeb, M. (1994), “Organizations and national culture: methodology considered”, Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 429-46. Trompenaars, F. (1993), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, Brealey, London. van de Vijver, F. and Leung, K. (1997), Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-cultural Research, Sage, London. Wildt, A.R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1978), Analysis of Covariance, Sage Publications, London. Yeoh, P-L. (2000), “Information acquisition activities: a study of global start-up exporting companies”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, London and Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 6-60. Zaheer, S. and Zaheer, A. (1997), “Country effects on information seeking in global electronic networks”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 77-100. Zaltman, G. and Moorman, C. (1988), “The importance of personal trust in the use of research”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 16-24.

Export information utilization 43

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

IMR 20,1

44

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

Export information use in small and medium-sized industrial companies An application of Diamantopoulos’ and Souchon’s scale Jasmine E.M. Williams University of Plymouth Business School, Plymouth, UK Keywords Decision making, Export, Information, International marketing, Marketing research, Small to medium-sized enterprises Abstract This study focuses on the use of export marketing information in small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs), an area that has previously attracted little academic research attention. It reports on the application of scales measuring instrumental/conceptual and symbolic export information use, using a random sample of UK exporters, to SME exporters of engineering and IT products. The results show that the scales are applicable within the specific context of the industrial SMEs surveyed and that levels of symbolic export information use are higher in these SMEs than in UK exporting companies as a whole. The latter is explained as a function of a shortfall in two areas: first, in available export marketing information, leading to greater dependence on “guesswork” and intuition; and second, in specialist marketing informationprocessing skills on the part of SME export decision makers. The article concludes by appealing for an extension of export support for SMEs, to include the use of export information as well as simply its acquisition. It suggests that the scales tested here could be used both to diagnose the need for such SME support and to measure its effectiveness.

International Marketing Review Vol. 20 No. 1, 2003 pp. 44-66 q MCB UP Limited 0265-1335 DOI 10.1108/02651330310462266

Introduction It is generally recognised that an organisation’s understanding of its markets assists in the creation of superior customer value (Narver and Slater, 1990). Hence marketing information processes are seen as important prerequisites for organisational effectiveness (Barabba and Zaltman, 1991). Marketing information has been seen as both a source of potential added value (Fletcher and Wheeler, 1989) and a power source that can be used politically (Piercy, 1985). Given that much of the same information is available to competing firms at the same time, it is likely that a key source of competitive advantage lies in how this information is used (Zaltman and Moorman, 1988). A number of studies have explored information utilisation, or its adoption into decision making, within a domestic setting. However, as Hart et al. (1994) and Souchon and Diamantopoulos (1996) have pointed out, the majority of studies of information within an export context have focused on the acquisition of such information rather than its use. Recent research (e.g. Diamantopoulos and Horncastle, 1997; Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997; Diamantopoulos

and Souchon, 1998, 1999) has attempted to redress this imbalance by investigating export information use in UK companies as a whole. The study discussed here builds on this work, within the specific context of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), an area that has hitherto been neglected. SMEs are defined here as companies with fewer than 250 employees. They represent 99 per cent of all UK companies, and account for almost three-fifths of employment (ESOMAR, 1998). The importance of the SME contribution to the UK economy in general, and export earnings in particular, is therefore clear. However, it has been estimated that as many as two-thirds of SMEs go out of business within ten years (Burns and Dewhurst, 1996). In the struggle for survival against these odds, growth is clearly an important element (Storey, 1994), and exporting is one of the most important forms of such growth (Lu and Beamish, 2001). Hence, the need for SMEs to create and use export marketing information effectively has been identified as a key survival factor (Scott et al., 1986). As the following literature review reveals, it would be a mistake to treat SMEs as scaled-down versions of large firms (Storey et al., 1987). Though they are by no means homogeneous (Burns and Dewhurst, 1996), there are important differences in company cultures as well as organisational structures between these and large firms (Rothwell and Zegveld, 1982). The broad aim of this study is therefore to enhance understanding of the construct of export information use within an SME context; to do this, it is necessary to explore the extent to which such use is similar to, and/or differs from, that of exporters generally (Flynn and Piercy, 2001). In the pursuit of this aim, the work of Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) proved central. Building on academic investigations into the nature of information use in a domestic context (Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982; Dunn, 1986; Menon and Varadarajan, 1992), and the relatively few prior investigations into information use in an export marketing context (Hart et al., 1994; Diamantopoulos and Horncastle, 1997), Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) identified two dimensions of information use – instrumental/conceptual and symbolic (further discussed in the next section). Additionally, they distinguished between three sources of export information acquisition. The first was defined as export market intelligence, comprising the informal, ongoing methods by which companies acquire information (Denis and Depelteau, 1985). The second was export marketing research, referring to the formal, systematic application of “scientific method” to the acquisition of more objective and purposeful export marketing information (Seringhaus, 1993; Schlegelmilch et al., 1993; Sinkula, 1994). The third source, export assistance, refers to the help and information for exporters provided by, for example, government departments or their agencies. Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) then

Export information use

45

IMR 20,1

46

developed and tested six multi-item scales, using both dimensions of use, related to each of the three acquisition modes. Against this background, the specific objectives of the present study are to: . examine whether the dimensions of export information use identified by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) are relevant to SMEs; and . test the applicability of the scales within a specific SME/industrial company context. The study findings seek to make a dual contribution. First, to help build a coherent empirical foundation in this important and under-researched area of export marketing (Axinn, 1994); and second, to clarify current understanding of the role of export information use within an SME context. This article continues with a more detailed review of the literature relating to information acquisition and use (especially export marketing information use) leading up to the Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) publication. It then highlights key differences in export market information processing and use in SMEs as opposed to larger enterprises. Next, it reports on a study of industrial SMEs in the UK, focusing on an application of Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) export marketing information use scales with analyses of dimensionality, reliability and validity. The article concludes with some suggestions for future government support, as well as for further academic research in this important area. Information acquisition and use In any discussion on information, it is useful to begin by considering the relationship between its acquisition and its use. Information acquisition refers to the processes by which information is obtained, the various sources used in its collection, and the flow of information generated from provider to user (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997). It usually encompasses the role of research, including marketing research (Crick et al., 1994). Information use, on the other hand, has been defined in a marketing context, as “the extent to which research influences users’ decision making” (Moorman et al., 1992). This has been conceptualised as both unidimensional and multidimensional, with academic research focusing on the extent of such use, and its context (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992), as well as on types of knowledge use (Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982; John and Martin, 1984). Three general types of use can be distinguished: instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic. Caplan et al. (1975) define instrumental information use as the direct application of research findings to solving policy problems. Though instrumental use can be rare (Weiss, 1980), it has traditionally been considered the “right” kind of use for research (Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1980). Conceptual use of information, on the other hand, is not directly applicable to a

particular problem or situation, but provides for general enlightenment, which may develop the managerial knowledge base, and affect thinking processes, or orientation. However, instrumental and conceptual information use should not be seen as being juxtaposed (Dunn, 1986). Indeed, Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1998, 1999) have demonstrated that they are part of the same construct in the context of export marketing information, in that they both constitute specific forms of information application to address particular problems or issues. The only real difference between instrumental and conceptual use appears to be temporal, in that conceptual use refers more to planned use in the future, whilst instrumental use is more immediate (Rich, 1977). Symbolic information use has been contrasted with instrumental and conceptual use in that it involves the use of partial or distorted information for essentially political purposes, such as justifying actions already taken on the basis of instinct or intuition, or legitimising views already held. As such it is generally considered dysfunctional and potentially dangerous (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). The relationship between the acquisition of information and its use is not clear-cut. The collection of information per se is no guarantee that it will be used effectively, if indeed it is used at all (O’Reilly, 1980; Glazer et al. 1992). Information non-use in itself, however, is not necessarily dysfunctional (Larsen, 1980). The quality of information use outcomes (including decisions) will depend on management’s ability to distinguish between that information which is useful and relevant, and that which is not: in other words, the processing skills of information users (Barabba and Zaltman, 1991; Smith and Fletcher, 1999). In addition, Zaltman (1986) has indicated that the characteristics of the firm enhance or inhibit information use. Therefore, the quality of outcomes is dependent on the quality of the information users and their organisational context, not just on that of the information. This has particular implications in the context of SMEs, where such skills and specialisms are likely to be in shorter supply than in large organisations (Walters, 1983). This skills shortfall is compounded when companies export, in that greater experience and expertise in both information acquisition and processing are needed than for domestic markets (Cavusgil, 1985; Onkvisit and Shaw, 1993; Belich and Dubinsky, 1995). Ironically, however, export marketing information is less accessible, less developed and less sophisticated than domestic marketing information (Cavusgil, 1984a; Hart et al. 1994; Craig and Douglas, 2000; Usunier, 2000). It has been suggested that this shortfall may be compensated for by more intuitive decision making later (Calof, 1994; Crick and Czinkota, 1995). It has also been argued that, if the use of information, rather than intuition, is the corner-stone of effective decision making and export marketing strategy development, such a shortfall could potentially create major difficulties for exporting companies (Katsikeas and Morgan, 1994).

Export information use

47

IMR 20,1

48

Export market information acquisition and SMEs Export marketing information sources often overlap (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999) and definitions of “marketing research” and “market intelligence” can include all aspects of information gathering (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). One reason for this may be that a significant proportion of all companies ignore marketing research completely (Hooley and West, 1984; Schlegelmilch et al. 1986; Schlegelmilch and Therevil, 1988). Its lack of use is most noticeable in smaller companies (Hart and Diamantopoulos, 1993; Crick et al., 1994), where the potential for confusion between market intelligence and marketing research is most marked (Cavusgil, 1984b; Hart et al., 1994). Informally gathered information is not only preferred to other information sources by these companies, but is actually referred to and used in the same way as marketing research (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977; Reid, 1984; Seringhaus, 1993; Crick and Katsikeas, 1995). Indeed, it has been argued that SME managers confuse actual business experience with organised marketing research, and use the former as a substitute for the latter (Cavusgil, 1984b; Burns and Dewhurst, 1996). This can cause particular confusion when, for cost reasons, SME managers conduct in-house “export marketing research” (Schlegelmilch et al. 1986; Walters and Samiee, 1990), particularly as these are the very companies which most lack the specialist expertise to conduct such investigations effectively (Douglas and Craig, 1982; Bodur and Cavusgil, 1985; Cavusgil, 1985). This marked preference for informal, direct and personal “experiential” (Seringhaus, 1993) information sources on the part of SMEs is well documented, and is perhaps the most distinctive feature of the SME approach to (export) marketing information acquisition and use (Cunningham and Spigel, 1971; Reid, 1981; Davidson, 1983; Joynt and Welch, 1985; Amine and Cavusgil, 1986; Diamantopoulos et al., 1990; McAuley, 1993; Bonaccorsi, 1993; Hart et al., 1994; Leonidou and Adams-Florou, 1999; Gilmore et al., 2001). Far from being systematic and scientific, SME managers tend to be “haphazard” in their approach to export information acquisition and use (Scase and Goffee, 1980; Milne and Thompson, 1986; Koh, 1991; Walters, 1993). Owner-managers often rely on small, inexpensive, loosely structured and “coincidental” networks for their information (Gilmore et al., 2001; Curran and Blackburn, 1994; Liesch and Knight, 1999). Therefore, though Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) distinctions between export market intelligence and export marketing research as information sources are useful when applied to exporting companies generally, the evidence above suggests that these distinctions may not be clearly understood by managers responsible for exporting decisions in SMEs. At the same time, export assistance, though often aimed at SMEs, frequently suffers, ironically, from lack of use by these very companies (Reid, 1984; Samiee and Walters, 1991). Indeed, levels of

accessibility (Crick et al., 1994) and awareness (Crick and Czinkota, 1995; Chaudhry and Crick, 1998) are often low. We can, therefore, conclude that the boundaries between export market intelligence, export marketing research and export assistance are likely to be less distinct, and less well understood, in SMEs than in larger companies. This being the case, a study focusing on SME use of export marketing information in general, irrespective of its source, may provide an illuminating start to a new line of research. Export market information use and SMEs Sinkula (1994) defined market information processing as a function of what organisations have learned about their markets, and about their own particular ways of acquiring, distributing, interpreting and storing information. This goes a long way to explaining why search routines that yield higher levels of knowledge are the prerogative of larger, more experienced organisations (Belich and Dubinsky, 1995). In contrast, key decisions in smaller, internationally inexperienced companies tend to be more subjective in nature, often concentrated in one person, frequently the owner-manager (Rothwell and Zegveld, 1982; Joynt and Welch, 1985). Moorman (1995) has argued that information processing is particularly important in smaller entrepreneurial organisations, and that failure to enter markets can be traced back to executives not establishing adequate information-processing provision. To this end Cavusgil (1984a) has appealed for help for SME managers with sifting and selecting the most useful information. Walters (1983) identified SMEs as having problems evaluating foreign market data in particular, and advocated interaction between the users of such data and those qualified in their interpretation. If the quality of SME export outcomes is to be enhanced, giving these companies a greater chance of survival and expansion, there is a need for greater understanding of their export information processes. The present study attempts to contribute to such understanding, by applying Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) scales to a sample of SME exporting companies. Methodology Table I summarises the procedures used in the present study compared with Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) original work. Exploratory research In order to explore the nature of export market information use within the specific context of SMEs, the first stage of this research consisted of 24 in-depth interviews, focusing on the engineering and IT sectors. The literature indicates that understanding export marketing information and its use is particularly challenging in a business-to-business context (Greenberg

Export information use

49

IMR 20,1

50

SME study

Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) study

Sample: SME B-2-B exporters

Sample: Cross-sectional in terms of industries and company size

Exploratory research: Exploratory research: In-depth interviews: In-depth interviews 25 export decision makers 12 export decision-makers Five EMR suppliers + four sources of SME export assistance Pre-test: One mailed pilot study with personal debriefing

Pre-test: Two mailed pilot studies

Main survey: 376 respondents Items applied for generic export information use

Main survey: 198 respondents Items applied separately for export assistance, export marketing research and export intelligence information use

Analysis and validation: Common factor analysis (principal axis with VARIMAX rotation) a 11 items on purified instrumental/conceptual scale a Seven items on purified symbolic scale b Discriminant validity: Pearson’s correlation coefficients Confirmatory factor analysis (AMOS) Nomological validity scales correlated with: Export information overload

Table I. Comparison of methodologies

Analysis and validation: Common factor analysis (principal axis with VARIMAX rotation) a 12 items on purified instrumental/conceptual scale a 11 items on purified symbolic scale Convergent and discriminant validity: Pearson’s correlation coefficients Confirmatory factor analysis (LISREL) Nomological validity scales correlated with: Export information overload Immediate, future and non-use of information Scale comparisons Scale comparisons Paired sample t-test of mean differences Paired sample t-test of mean differences between instrumental/conceptual and symbolic between instrumental/conceptual and symbolic use use b Friedman two-way ANOVA across three modes of export information acquisition

Notes: a See Appendix for details. b Convergent validity and relative usage could not be tested in these ways as only one set of SME scales was developed

et al., 1977; Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1985; Smith, 2002). Engineering and IT represent between them over 60 per cent of all UK manufacturing companies, and the same proportion of SMEs (Office of National Statistics, 2000); their activities, products and markets are wide-ranging (D&B Europa, 1999). As the Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) scales at the centre of this study warrant replication in a wide variety of organisational contexts, it was decided to focus on this business-to-business sector in this study.

All manufacturing companies were selected from Sell’s Directory of Exporters. Those of appropriate size (ten to 250 employees) and level of exporting experience were also identified with the help of the University of Plymouth’s Department of Business Development, which works closely with a number of small and medium-sized businesses, particularly in the South West of England. All manufacturing companies interviewed were based along the South Coast and the South West of the UK. The initial interviews consisted of a sample of eight such SMEs involved in exporting. After analysing the transcripts of these interviews, seven further interviews were conducted. At this stage sampling became more purposeful, with main export decision makers in all the companies selected categorising themselves as at least “experimental exporters” (Diamantopoulos et al., 1990). In other words, these companies were involved in and committed to exporting, over and above merely reacting to unsolicited orders or considering entering export markets for the first time. In addition, alternative views on the issue of export marketing information use by SMEs (Strauss, 1987; Maxwell, 1996) were gained from five interviews with the most senior executives responsible for SME export marketing research commissions in companies identified from the Market Research Society Yearbook. Finally, to complete the circle of perspectives, four interviews were conducted with key representatives from organisations offering export assistance to SMEs, e.g. Business Link Advisor, Export Market Research Scheme (EMRS). Respondents were initially encouraged to define the construct of export information use in their own terms. Then the items used to measure export information use developed by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) were introduced for discussion. This stage of the research identified all but three of these items as being appropriate within the context of SMEs (see Appendix for details of items used). Pilot study A draft questionnaire, comprising the items defined by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) as measuring instrumental/conceptual and symbolic information use, was piloted using SME export marketing decision makers. This pilot study was restricted to the Plymouth/Exeter area, to allow for personal de-briefing of each respondent by the researcher. Though the Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) scales have the virtue of recent development and validation, the findings of the qualitative fieldwork and pilot stage of this current study indicated that an exact replication of their methodology would not be appropriate in an SME context. In particular, confusion between what constituted export assistance, export marketing research and export intelligence made it impossible for SME respondents to differentiate meaningfully between the use of information derived from each.

Export information use

51

IMR 20,1

52

The reasons for this are consistent with the literature summarised earlier. Widespread inability to clearly articulate information needs was associated with lack of awareness of the sources available, and – on the part of those respondents with some awareness – a lack of understanding of the exact nature of these sources. It should be borne in mind that many respondents, although identified as the key export decision makers within their companies, had been formally trained in engineering and IT. There was a lack of functional (marketing/exporting) expertise, particularly in the smaller companies interviewed, which suffered from a lack of resources generally. This exacerbated the perceived overlap between sources (noted by Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999), making distinctions “fuzzy”, and even the more experienced respondents were reluctant to distinguish between them. “Does the use of information gained from market research supported by the EMRS count as marketing research or export assistance? Or both?”, asked one respondent during the pilot survey. “If I try to make a judgement call as to whether what we used was mainly from [government] reports or from talking to our contacts, I can’t . . . without distorting one thing or the other”, said another. This lack of awareness and inability to differentiate between export information sources can be largely explained by the finding that most respondents used no export assistance, and/or no export marketing research (Samiee and Walters, 1991; Crick et al., 1994). The qualitative study suggested that this situation was particularly prevalent among smaller SMEs. Finally, SME interviewees often had unclear definitions as to the differences between export marketing research and export market intelligence (Cavusgil, 1984a). The informal and personal nature of marketing research in these companies made such distinctions difficult (Schlegelmilch et al., 1986), with respondents consistently using the terms interchangeably. Mail survey In the light of information obtained at the earlier stages of this study, two scales only, rather than Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) original six, were applied. These measured instrumental/conceptual, and symbolic use of a generic export information construct. Specifically, “export marketing information” was defined here as any information on current or potential export markets obtained by SMEs (irrespective of whether these were obtained through export assistance, formal marketing research, or informal intelligence gathering). Particular attention was paid to the applicability of individual scale items to the experiences of SME respondents. Phrasing of some items was therefore modified, to maximise their relevance in an SME context, whilst retaining their original meaning. In most cases this was restricted to replacing the active voice of the sentence with the passive voice, or vice versa. The rationale here was

that SME managers identify with their companies’ export-related outcomes at a strong personal level. In addition, they have less opportunity to project responsibility for “dubious” behaviour (e.g. symbolic use of information) on to others in the organisation. Some perceived duplications, noted by respondents during the pilot study, were also eliminated (see Appendix). Finally, care was taken to ensure that the order of negatively and positively scored items, as well as those used to tap instrumental, conceptual and symbolic use of export marketing information, was evenly interspersed as possible (Bailey, 1994). A random sample of 2,000 SME (ten to 250 employees) exporters of industrial engineering, IT and related goods was extracted from the Dun & Bradstreet database of UK manufacturing companies. Consistent with advice from the literature, as well as from the EMRS, contact names of managing directors/chief executives were extracted simultaneously, as being the most likely export decision makers, particularly in companies of up to 50 employees (Hart et al., 1994). The questionnaire itself contained an initial filter question confirming that the company was still involved in exporting, as well as a short preamble requesting that those who did not have primary responsibility for export decisions, forward it to the individual within their company who did. A total of 376 usable questionnaires were returned. Taking account of nondeliveries, returns from companies no longer exporting, and unusable or incomplete returns (a total of 183), this yielded an overall response rate of 21 per cent, considered reasonable for an industrial survey (Jobber and Bleasdale, 1987), and comparing favourably with similar studies of exporters (Diamantopoulos et al., 1990; Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999), including SME exporters (Hart et al., 1994). Responses were analysed to establish the existence of non-response bias, by testing for significant differences between companies responding in the first instance, versus those responding to a follow-up letter two weeks later (later waves of response are generally expected to be similar to non-respondents – see Armstrong and Overton (1977). Chi-square tests conducted on the basis of industrial sector and geographic location indicated no significant differences between those responding initially and those responding to the reminder. In addition, t-test results indicated no significant differences in means, based on company size (measured by number of full-time employees) or companies’ export experience (measured in years). Dimensionality and reliability The same analytical procedures as used by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999), i.e. common factor analysis (principal axis factoring with VARIMAX rotation), were used to test the dimensionality of the scales (Kline, 2000). The scales were also examined for reliability (deVellis, 1991; Spector, 1992) using Cronbach’s (1951) alpha and inter-item and item-to-total correlations to explore their internal consistency (Peter, 1979).

Export information use

53

IMR 20,1

54

Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) concluded that, for their stratified random sample of exporters, instrumental and conceptual use were best treated as a single dimension. The first procedure in this current study therefore examined the possibility that this might be the case within SMEs. Initially, common factor analysis produced a two-factor solution. However, one of these factors accounted for by far the greatest proportion of common variance (36.26 per cent); and a scree plot indicated a distinct “elbow” after this factor, supporting the notion of a single underlying dimension (Hair et al., 1998; Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999). One item included in the original scale was found to have a negative item-to-total correlation, and a large number of negative inter-item correlations. When this item was removed, a one-factor solution was obtained. This purified scale achieved an alpha coefficient of 0.84, generally agreed to be an indicator of very good scale reliability (deVellis, 1991; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; George and Mallery, 1999). Common factor analysis of the initial nine-item scale for symbolic use of export marketing information initially produced a four-factor solution. As with the scale comprising instrumental/conceptual use, however, the first factor accounted for a large proportion of common variance (29.16 per cent), with the other three factors having eigenvalues of less than 1.0. In addition, at this stage there appeared to be no real interpretable features which distinguished between the factors (Hair et al. 1998), and a scree plot indicated a significant “elbow” after the first factor, supporting the existence of one underlying dimension. Therefore, and again following the method adopted by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999), the internal consistency of this scale was evaluated using all the items, rather than their factor groupings. Two negative item-to-total correlations appeared, with these items also achieving low or negative interitem correlations. When these were removed, the alpha value for the remaining seven items was 0.64. While alpha scores of .0.60 are considered by a number of experts to be acceptable for exploratory research (Finkelstein, 1992; MacDougall and Robinson, 1990), this result was rather disappointing (deVellis, 1991) when compared with Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s study (1999). Here, coefficient alphas of 0.73 for symbolic use were achieved when applied to export market research and export marketing intelligence, and 0.75 for export assistance. However, the lower alpha in this case may partly be explained by the fewer items in the final scale[1]. Validity Content validity, as a measure of the representativeness of a scale, is an important, if subjective, process (Carmines and Zeller, 1979; Peter, 1981; Peter and Churchill, 1986; Bohrnstedt, 1971). However, given the a priori assumptions about export marketing information use in the literature, the consistency of the above results with those of Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) study, and the fact that both the present and the prior studies were

preceded by qualitative explorations from which substantively similar items emerged, the above scale appears to have sufficient content validity. To test nomological validity, Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) correlated their scales to information overload, to determine if relationships identified from previous theory/research were supported (Hair et al. 1998). The rationale here is that information overload leads to some dysfunctional use of information. Hence, the relationship between instrumental/conceptual use of information and overload was expected to be weak, whereas symbolic use and information overload were expected to be positively related (Sinkula, 1994; Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997; Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999). The effect of information overload on management information use and decision making was raised frequently in the qualitative phase of the current study. Consistent with Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) therefore, responses to the single item measure “Export decision making becomes difficult as a result of possessing too much information” were recorded during the quantitative survey. These were correlated with both types of export marketing information use (Table II). Significant relationships can be observed between both instrumental/conceptual and symbolic use of information, and information overload. However, contrary to the results achieved by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999), instrumental/conceptual use of export marketing information correlated positively with the statement on information overload, whereas symbolic information use and information overload were negatively related. This pattern tends, if anything, to confirm the supposition that there are differences in the nature of export marketing information use within SMEs. These differences may relate at least partly to the lesser amounts of information available to smaller companies, as well as to the dearth of expertise amongst decision makers. Specifically, if SME respondents are aware of the role of information in decision making, they may be more likely to use such information in a positive way, even when this makes decision making difficult. In this regard, it is worth noting that one of the items used by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) to measure instrumental/conceptual use (“The majority of information is not used”) did not appear in the purified SME scale (see Appendix). On the other hand, symbolic (possibly dysfunctional) information use may occur in situations where respondents are not conscious of information overload. This may be due, again, to an overall lack of relevant information, Export decision making becomes difficult as a result of possessing too much information Instrumental/conceptual use Symbolic use Note: * p , 0.001 (one-tailed)

Export information use

55

Correlation 0.211* –0.264*

Table II. Nomological validity

IMR 20,1

56

leading respondents to compensate by using the information that is available in a symbolic fashion. Note here the inclusion of the item “Instinct/intuition is often combined with information when making decisions” in the SME symbolic use scale, though it was removed from the original Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) scale after purification (see Appendix). Second, respondents themselves may be generally less aware of the nature and benefits of incorporating information in decision making: therefore symbolic information use may thrive more in an environment where the challenges of processing information, up to and including the point of overload, are not recognised or understood. Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) tested discriminant validity by demonstrating that their instrumental/conceptual use scales correlated negatively or insignificantly with their symbolic use scales. The correlation between the two scales derived from this current research was weak (0.08) rather than negative. However, the results were not significant ( p . 0.10) and, therefore, discriminant validity is supported (Campbell and Fiske, 1971; Peter, 1981). Paired sample t-tests were conducted to assess the mean differences between the two types of use. The mean value for instrumental/conceptual use (3.32) was higher than for symbolic use (2.99). This was in line with Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) findings, though the mean differences they recorded between instrumental/conceptual and symbolic use of export market research (1.13), export assistance (0.95) and export market intelligence (1.07) were much greater than that recorded here for SMEs. It seems, therefore, that SME exporters of engineering and IT are less reluctant to use information symbolically than UK exporters as a whole (Table III). Confirmatory factor analysis As part of their evidence of convergent/discriminant validity, Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) estimated the fit of competing models using confirmatory factor analysis model (CFA), as implemented in the LISREL program. In order to attempt to replicate their results, two models were estimated here, using the AMOS program (Arbuckle, 1997)[2]. A random sample of 60 per cent of cases was selected (n ¼ 227) for this purpose[3]. A correlated two-factor model was hypothesized, consisting of separate factors for instrumental/conceptual, and symbolic, use of export marketing information. Also in line with Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) approach, a single-factor model was tested, to check whether all 18 items identified as

Table III. Paired-sample t-test

Instr/conc.-symbolic

Number of pairs

Mean difference

t-value

Significance

362

0.33

9.080

0.000

measuring SME export market information use would load on to one undifferentiated construct. For the correlated two-factor model the following results were obtained: x 2 ¼ 339.67; df ¼ 134; x 2/df ¼ 2.53; GFI ¼ 0.86; CFI ¼ 0.78. The correlation between the factors was very low (0.08) and non-significant ( p . 0.10). For the single factor model the results obtained were: x 2 ¼ 472.42; df ¼ 135; x 2/df ¼ 3.5; GFI ¼ 0.79; CFI ¼ 0.64. The difference between the x 2 value for the two-factor and single-factor models was not significant ( p . 0.10). Though neither model achieved the recommended values of x 2/df # 2.0 and GFI $ 0.90, the combined evidence from the absolute and relative indices of fit suggests that the two-factor model achieved a better fit than the single-factor solution. In addition, the RMSEA was computed (for which Browne and Cudeck (1993), suggest that a value of 0.08 or less indicates a reasonable error of estimation). The value of the RMSEA parameter for the two-factor model achieved this minimum value (RMSEA ¼ 0.08), whilst for the single-factor model the RMSEA was in excess of the minimum (RMSEA ¼ 0.11). On balance, therefore, the two-factor solution was accepted in preference to the single undifferentiated factor model. When Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) specified a two-factor structure, their model produced a very good fit (GFI ¼ 0.98), supporting their supposition that, in companies of all sizes, instrumental/conceptual and symbolic use of export marketing information are likely to be distinct. The results of this present study support this in-so-far as they suggest that the two dimensions are not likely to be part of the same construct in SMEs, though the evidence here is less clear-cut. Conclusions Results from the qualitative stage of this research support the findings of previous studies into SME export information accessibility and acquisition, in that distinctions between export market intelligence, export marketing research, and export assistance were not recognised or understood by SME managers. This appeared to be a function of lack of awareness and understanding of the information sources available. A dearth of resources generally, and marketing expertise in particular, especially inside smaller companies, led to very limited experience of using export marketing research and export assistance. Consequently there was little ability to evaluate and understand the information generated (Gibb and Scott, 1986). Hence greater emphasis was placed on ad hoc, informal, often hasty information gathering, and greater “intuitive” use of information (Calof, 1994). Much has been written about the distinctive experiential and intuitive nature of SME information acquisition and use. This research indicates, however, that the items used by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) to tap instrumental/conceptual use of export marketing information are effective measures in the specific context

Export information use

57

IMR 20,1

58

of industrial SMEs; though the use of export marketing information to support decisions made for other reasons may also be a function of instrumental/conceptual information use in these companies. More specifically, it is possible that symbolic information use in SMEs lacks the distinctive dysfunctional meaning attributed to it in the context of larger companies. There may well be a core of “true” symbolic information use applicable to SMEs which is unambiguously negative, in that it relates to information manipulation or misuse for reasons unrelated to decision outcomes (e.g. to maintain good relationships with information suppliers; to justify the cost of its acquisition; or to justify decisions already made, possibly on the basis of instinct). However, the use of intuition, based on experience, is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly when export marketing information is difficult to obtain. The finding that instrumental/conceptual information use is more frequent than symbolic use is, nevertheless, encouraging, assuming that the former type of use is more likely to lead to better export performance. In this context, a study of SME export success factors (Williams, 2001), related to the work reported here, found that export performance was linked directly, both to information acquisition and types of export decisions made; and that instrumental/conceptual information use was also linked to these two factors. Hence level of instrumental/conceptual use may be indirectly, if not directly, related to performance. On the other hand, no links, either direct or indirect, were discerned between export performance and symbolic information use as currently defined (Williams, 2001). Thus the greater level of symbolic information use in SMEs may give cause for concern, when one considers the importance of growth to their survival. The relationships between information overload and the two main uses of export marketing information were contrary to Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) findings. In contrast to the situation in larger organisations, it may be the under-supply of useful and relevant export marketing information that creates problems for SMEs, rather than its over-supply. This finding is important when one considers that the balance between information supply and its use is considered critical to successful decision outcomes (O’Reilly, 1980). Overall, the research presented here suggests that, in conjunction with information acquisition, assistance with their use of export marketing information might facilitate greater instrumental/conceptual information use in SMEs. The qualitative stage of the research indicated that the EMRS currently discourages its consultants from assisting SMEs with the processing of the information they obtain. If symbolic export information use is more prevalent in SMEs than exporters as a whole, and its consequences unrelated to performance, this policy may be worthy of review. In addition, there is a distinct need for export agencies to address the lack of awareness and usage of the different sources of export marketing information available to SMEs. In this

context, the scales examined here provide a practical instrument to measure the extent of different modes of export information use within SMEs. As such, they could be used to help diagnose the need for assistance with export information processing; and/or as follow-up instruments to measure the ultimate effectiveness of any support provided for export information use. The present study has taken recent work on the nature of export marketing information use a step further, and in so doing has shed some light on its nature in industrial SMEs, by exploring, for the first time, the specific dimensions of information use in these companies. Future research could usefully investigate the relationships between such export information use and SME performance. In addition, further applications and replications of Diamantopoulos and Souchon’s (1999) scales, in a variety of contexts, are warranted. In particular, a cross-sectoral application amongst SMEs would indicate the extent to which the above findings may have been affected by the engineering and IT sectors surveyed here. The possibility that there may be some differences in the nature of the construct of export information use in SMEs compared with exporters as a whole is certainly worthy of further exploration. Specifically, investigation of the structure of symbolic information use, and the role of instinctive/intuitive export decision making, may well produce rewarding insights into this hitherto neglected area of research. Notes 1. The author thanks the anonymous reviewer who pointed this out. 2. The author thanks her colleague Professor Eugene Sadler-Smith for his help with this. 3. The issue of optimum sample size has been hotly debated in the literature on structural equation modeling, as absolute indices of fit are prone to the influence of sample size. In particular, larger samples (n . 400) may lead to a satisfactory model appearing a “poor fit” on the basis of trivial discrepancies (Hair et al., 1998; Anderson and West, 1998). One method for overcoming this problem is to always test a model using n ¼ c.200, irrespective of the original sample size (Hoelter, 1983). This is the approach adopted here. References Amine, L. and Cavusgil, S.T. (1986), “Export marketing strategies in the British clothing industry”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 21-32. Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1998), “Measuring climate for work group innovation; development and validation of the team climate inventory”, Journal of Organizational Behavor, Vol. 19, pp. 235-58. Arbuckle, J.L. (1997), AMOS User’s Guide, Version 3.6. Small Waters, IL. Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, pp. 396-402. Axinn, C.N. (1994), “Introduction: international perspectives on export marketing”, in Cavusgil, S.T. and Axinn, C.N. (Eds), Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. xi-xvi. Bailey, K.D. (1994), Methods of Social Research, Free Press, New York, NY.

Export information use

59

IMR 20,1

60

Barabba, V.P. and Zaltman, G. (1991), “Competitive advantage through creative use of marketing information”, Hearing the Voice of the Market, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Belich, T.J. and Dubinsky, A.J. (1995), “Factors related to information acquisition in exporting organisations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 33, pp. 1-11. Bodur, M. and Cavusgil, S.T. (1985), “Export market research orientations of Turkish firms”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 5-15. Bohrnstedt, G.W. (1971), “Reliability and validity assessment in attitude measurement”, in Summers, G. F. (Ed.), Attitude Measurement, Rand McNally & Company, Chicago, IL. Bonaccorsi, A. (1993), “What do we know about exporting by small Italian manufacturing firms?”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 49-75. Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Bollen et al. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136-62. Burns, P. and Dewhurst, J. (1996), Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Macmillan, London. Calof, J.L. (1994), “The relationship between firm size and export behavior revisited”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 367-87. Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1971), “Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait, multi-method matrix”, in Summers, G. F. (Ed.), Attitude Measurement, Rand McNally & Co., Chicago, IL. Caplan, N., Morrison, A. and Stambaugh, R.J. (1975), The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage, London. Cavusgil, S.T. (1984a), “Differences among exporting firms based on their degree of internationalisation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 195-208. Cavusgil, S.T. (1984b), “International marketing research: insights into company practices”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 12, pp. 195-208. Cavusgil, S.T. (1985), “Guidelines for export market research”, Business Horizons, November/December, pp. 27-33. Chaudhry, S. and Crick, D. (1998), “Export information providers; are they meeting the needs of SMEs?”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 141-7. Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2000), International Marketing Research, Wiley, Chichester. Crick, D. and Czinkota, M.R. (1995), “Export assistance: another look at whether we are supporting the best programmes”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 61-72. Crick, D. and Katsikeas, C.S. (1995), “Export practices in the UK clothing and knitwear industry”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 13-22. Crick, D., Jones, M. and Hart, S. (1994), “International marketing research activities of UK exporters: an explanatory study”, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 7-26. Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334. Cunningham, M.T. and Spigel, R.I. (1971), “A study in successful exporting”, British Journal of Marketing, Vol. 5, Spring, pp. 2-12. Curran, J. and Blackburn, R. (1994), Small Firms and Local Economic Networks, PCP, London. D&B Europa (1999), Vol. 4, Dun & Bradstreet, High Wycombe. Davidson, W.H. (1983), “Market similarity and market selection: implications for international marketing strategy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 11, pp. 439-56.

Denis, J-E. and Depelteau, D. (1985), “Market knowledge, diversification, and export expansion”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 77-89. Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (1982), “Factors affecting the use of market research information: a path analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, February, pp. 14-38. Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (1985), “The use of market research in industrial qrganisations”, in Spekman, R. et al. (Eds), Strategic Business Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 58-66. deVellis, R.F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage, London. Diamantopoulos, A. and Horncastle, S. (1997), “Use of export marketing research by industrial firms: an application and extension of Deshpande´ and Zaltman’s model”, International Business Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 245-70. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A.L. (1998), “Information utilisation by exporting firms: conceptualisation, measurement, and impact on export performance”, in Urban, S. et al. (Eds), Information and Management: Utilization of Technology – Structural and Cultural Impact, Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 112-35. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A.L. (1999), “Measuring export information use: scale development and validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Allpress, C. (1990), “Export marketing research in practice: a comparison of users and non-users”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 257-74. Douglas, S.P. and Craig, C.S. (1982), “Marketing research in the international environment”, in Walter, I. et al. (Eds), Handbook of International Business, Part 5, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, p. 29. Dunn, W.N. (1986), “Conceptualising knowledge use”, in Beal, G. et al. (Eds), Knowledge Generation, Exchange and Utilization, Praeger, Boulder, CO. ESOMAR (1998), NewsBrief, Vol. 6, pp. 15-17. Finkelstein, S. (1992), “Power in top management teams: dimensions, measurement and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 505-39. Fletcher, K. and Wheeler, C. (1989), “Marketing intelligence for international markets”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 7 No. 5/6, pp. 30-4. Flynn, L.R. and Piercy, D. (2001), “Four subtle sins in scale development: some suggestions for strengthening the current paradigm”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 409-23. George, D. and Mallery, P. (1999), SPSS for Windows: Step by Step, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Gibb, A. and Scott, M. (1986), “Understanding small firms’ growth”, in Scott, M., Gibb, A., Lewis, J. and Faulkner, T. (Eds), Small Firms’ Growth and Development, Gower, Brookfield, VT. Gilmore, A., Carson, D. and Grant, K. (2001), “SME marketing in practice”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 6-11. Glazer, R., Stickel, J.H. and Winer, R.S. (1992), “Locally rational decision making: the distracting effect of information on managerial performance”, Management Science, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 212-26. Greenberg, B.A., Goldstucker, J.L. and Bellenger, D.N. (1977), “What techniques are used by marketing research in business?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 4, pp. 62-8. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Export information use

61

IMR 20,1

62

Hart, S.J. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1993), “Marketing research activity and company performance: evidence from manufacturing industry”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 54-72. Hart, S.J., Webb, J.R. and Jones, M.V. (1994), “Export marketing research and the effect of export experience in industrial SMEs”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 4-22. Hoelter, J.W. (1983), “The analysis of covariance structures: goodness-of-fit indices”, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 11, pp. 325-44. Hooley, G.J. and West, C.J. (1984), “The untapped market for marketing research”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 335-52. Jobber, D. and Bleasdale, M. (1987), “Interviewing in industrial marketing research: the state of the art”, Quarterly Review of Marketing. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J-E. (1977), “The internationalisation process of the firm – a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-32. John, G. and Martin, J. (1984), “Effects of organizational structure of marketing planning on credibility and utilization output”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, pp. 170-83. Joynt, P. and Welch, L. (1985), “A strategy for small business internationalisation”, International Marketing Review, Autumn, pp. 64-73. Katsikeas, C.S. and Morgan, R.E. (1994), “Differences in perceptions of exporting problems based on firm size and market experience”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 17-35. Kline, P. (2000), An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, Routledge, London. Koh, A.C. (1991), “An evaluation of international marketing research planning in United States export firms”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 7-25. Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Marketing orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 1-18. Larsen, J.K. (1980), “Knowledge utilization: what is it?”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 1, March, pp. 421-42. Leonidou, L.C. and Adams-Florou, A.S. (1999), “Types and sources of export information: insights from small business”, International Small Business Journal,, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 30-48. Liesch, P.W. and Knight, G.A. (1999), “Information internalization and hurdle rates in small and medium enterprise internationalization”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 383-94. Lu, J.W. and Beamish, P.W. (2001), “The internationalization and performance of SMEs”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 565-86. McAuley, A. (1993), “The perceived usefulness of export information sources”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 52-64. MacDougall, P. and Robinson, R. (1990), “New venture strategies: an empirical identification of eight ‘archetypes’ of competitive strategies for entry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 447-67. Maxwell, J.A. (1996), Qualitative Research Design, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Menon, A. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1992), “A model of marketing use within firms”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, October pp. 53-71. Milne, T. and Thompson, M. (1986), “The infant business development process”, in Scott et al. (Eds), Small Firms Growth and Development, Gower, Brookfield, VT.

Moorman, C. (1995), “Organizational market information processes: cultural antecedents and new product outcomes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, August, pp. 318-35. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande´, R. (1992), “Relationships between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organisations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, August, pp. 314-28. Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”, Journal of Marketing, October, pp. 20-35. Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, London. Office of National Statistics (2000), StatBase, Office of National Statistics, London. Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J.J. (1993), International Marketing: Analysis and Strategy, Macmillan, New York, NY. O’Reilly, C.A. (1980), “Individuals and information overload in organizations: is more necessarily better?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 684-96. Peter, J.P. (1979), “Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 6-16. Peter, J.P. (1981), “Construct validity: a review of basic issues and marketing practices”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, May, pp. 133-45. Peter, J.P. and Churchill, G.A. (1986), “Relationships among research design choices and psychometric properties of rating scales: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, pp. 1-10. Piercy, N. (1985), Marketing Organisation: An Analysis of Information Processing, Power and Politics, Allen & Unwin, London. Reid, S.D. (1981), “The decision-maker and export entry and expansion”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 101-12. Reid, S.D. (1984), “Information acquisition and export entry decisions in small firms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 141-57. Rich, R.F. (1977), “Uses of social science information by federal bureaucrats: knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding”, in Weiss, C.H. (Ed.), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Rothwell, R. and Zegveld, W. (1982), Innovation and the Small and Medium-sized Firm, Pinter, London. Samiee, S. and Walters, P.G.P. (1991), “Segmenting corporate exporting activities: sporadic versus regular exporters”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 93-104. Scase, R. and Goffee, R. (1980), The Real World of the Business Owner, Croom Helm, London. Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Therevil, S. (1988), “The use of marketing research in engineering companies: empirical evidence from the USA and the UK”, in Woodside, A.G. (Ed.), Advances in Business Marketing, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 249-91. Schlegelmilch, B.B., Boyle, K. and Therevil, S. (1986), “Marketing research in medium-sized UK and US firms”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 177-82. Schlegelmilch, B.B., Diamantopoulos, A. and Tse, K.Y. (1993), “Determinants of export market research usage: testing some hypotheses on UK exporters”, in Baker, M.J. (Ed.), Perspectives on Marketing Management, Vol. 3, Wiley, Chichester. Scott, M., Gibb, A., Lewis, J. and Faulkner, T. (Eds) (1986), Small Firms’ Growth and Development, Gower, Brookfield, VT.

Export information use

63

IMR 20,1

64

Seringhaus, F.H.R. (1993), “A comparison of export marketing behavior of Canadian and Austrian high-tech firms”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 49-69. Sinkula, J.M. (1994), “Marketing information processing and organisational learning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 35-54. Smith, D. (2002), “Guest editorial”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-5. Smith, D. and Fletcher, J. (1999), “Going the extra mile: putting market researchers in decision makers’ shoes”, Proceedings of the Market Research Society Conference, Birmingham. Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), “A conceptual framework of export marketing information use: key issues and research propositions”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 49-71. Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1997), “Use and non-use of export information: some preliminary insights into antecedents and impact on export performance”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 135-51. Spector, P.E. (1992), “Summated rating scale construction: an introduction”, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series 01-082, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Storey, D.J. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Thomson Business Press, London. Storey, D., Keasey, K., Watson, R. and Wynarczyk, P. (1987), The Performance of Small Firms: Profits, Jobs and Failure, Croom Helm, Beckenham. Strauss, A.L. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. Usunier, J-C. (2000), Marketing across Cultures, Prentice-Hall, Harlow. Walters, P.G.P. (1983), “Export information sources: a study of their usage and utility”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 1, Winter, pp. 34-43. Walters, P.G.P. (1993), “Patterns of formal planning and performance in US exporting”, Management International Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 43-54. Walters, P.G.P. and Samiee, S. (1990), “A model for assessing performance in small US exporting firms”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 33-50. Weiss, C.H. (1980), “Knowledge creep and decision accretion”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 1, March, pp. 381-404. Weiss, C.H. and Bucuvalas, M.J. (1980), “Truth tests and utility tests: decision makers’ frames of reference for social science research”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 45, pp. 302-13. Williams, J. (2001), “The role and uses of market research in small and medium-sized exporting companies”, unpublished PhD. thesis, University of Plymouth, Plymouth. Zaltman, G. (1986), “Knowledge utilization as planned social change”, in Beal, G. et al. (Eds), Knowledge Generation, Exchange and Utilization, Praeger, Boulder, CO, pp. 433-62. Zaltman, G. and Moorman, C. (1988), “The role of personal trust in the use of research”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 28, pp. 16-24.

Appendix Respondents in the present study had great difficulty with statements designed to tap symbolic use of information. Three such statements, included in the original Diamantopoulos and Souchon scale, were excluded entirely from the present study in the light of findings from the qualitative and pilot stages of this research, namely: . “Information used to justify export decisions is often collected/interpreted after the decision has been made” was excluded after repeated objections that its meaning was

.

.

identical to the statement “EM information is often collected to justify a decision already made”. The meaning of “Information is often used to reinforce expectations” was repeatedly confused with “EM information frequently supports decisions made for other reasons”. “Information is often used to back up hunches, prior to the implementation of an export decision” was seen as having the same meaning as “Instinct/intuition is often combined with EM information when making decisions”.

Export information use

65

After considerable deliberation, it was decided to risk sacrificing a degree of dimensionality in the light of the genuine problems experienced by respondents in differentiating between these statements.

SME scale Instrumental/conceptual use: We actively seek out particular export marketing (EM) information for specific decisions We store EM information so that it can be used by others at a later date

Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) scalea Information is actively sought out in response to a specific decision to hand

Information is preserved, so that it can be used by individuals other than the person who collected it EM information is translated into significant Information is translated into significant practical action practical action in this company The same piece of EM information is often used The same piece of information is often used for for more than one decision more than one decision EM information is often used specifically to Information is often used specifically to make a make a particular export decision particular export decision EM information often has little relevance to our Information often has little decision relevance decisions Our confidence in making export decisions is Our confidence in making export decisions is increased as a result of marketing information increased as a result of information Decisions based on EM information are more Decisions based on information are more accurate than wholly intuitive ones accurate than wholly intuitive ones Marketing information greatly reduces the Our uncertainty associated with export activity uncertainty associated with our export is greatly reduced by information activities Without EM information, the decisions we Without information, decisions made would be make would be very different very different No export decision would be taken in this No export decision would be made without company without detailed marketing information information The majority of information is not used The majority of information acquired by the company is not used Symbolic use: EM information frequently supports decisions made for other reasons EM information is sometimes manipulated, to justify company decisions really made on the basis of instinct

Information frequently supports decisions made on other grounds Information is sometimes manipulated in order to justify decisions really made on the basis of instinct (continued)

Table AI. Scale item comparisons

IMR 20,1

66

Table AI.

SME scale

Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999) scalea

We sometimes take account of EM information, to justify the cost of having acquired it EM information is often collected to justify a decision already made EM information is often gathered to maintain good relationships with information suppliers If EM information is difficult to obtain, guesses are made instead Instinct/intuition is often combined with EM information when making decisions Key executives often distort EM information in passing it on EM information is often not considered in the making of decisions for which it was originally requested

Information is sometimes taken into account to justify the cost of having acquired it Information is often collected to justify a decision already made Information is often gathered to maintain good relationships with information suppliers If information is difficult to obtain, guesses are made instead Instinct/intuition is often combined with information when making decisions Key executives often distort information in passing it on Information is often not considered in the making of decisions for which it was originally requested

Notes: Italic type ¼ excluded from this dimension after scale purification. a As explained by the authors, “information” in each of these statements read “export intelligence information”, “export marketing research information” or “export assistance information”, depending on the scale to which it was being applied

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

Symbolic use of export information A multidisciplinary approach to conceptual development and key consequences

Symbolic use of export information 67

Rakhee Vyas and Anne L. Souchon Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK Keywords Export, Information, Competitive advantage, Business development Abstract Using information effectively has become a critical determinant for gaining competitive advantage and enhancing business performance. In this context, the need for further research into export information use is particularly pressing, given the increased recognition that mere export information acquisition is not sufficient to ensure optimal decision-making quality for foreign markets. Information use has been conceptualised in the past as a multi-dimensional construct encompassing instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use, with most studies focusing on the first two dimensions. However, the nature of the export-non-export dichotomy within firms sets the scene for political information-related activity and thus symbolic use of export information. This paper presents a multidimensional conceptualisation of symbolic use of export information, anchored in a cross-disciplinary review of the literature. Key propositions regarding the impact of symbolic use of export information on export performance are also proposed. Conclusions are drawn and a future research agenda is outlined.

Introduction Exporting tends to be the most common form of internationalisation (Leonidou and Adams-Florou, 1999), as it provides the firm with high levels of flexibility and a cost-effective way of penetrating new foreign markets quickly (Leonidou, 1995). Export performance is also becoming the key to overall organisational success, and academic export research is gaining momentum (e.g. Hart et al., 1994; Katsikeas, 1994; Yeoh, 2000; Cadogan et al., 2001). However, doing business in a potentially unfamiliar foreign environment increases decisionmaking uncertainty, which export information can help reduce (Walters, 1983; Belich and Dubinsky, 1995). Export information may also act as a key determinant to export market entry and expansion (Denis and Depelteau, 1985), and is an essential prerequisite to making successful business decisions (Leonidou and Katsikeas, 1997). Further, there is evidence of the positive relationship between export market orientation (traditionally conceptualised and operationalised as an information-specific construct entailing the generation and dissemination of, and responsiveness to, export information) and export performance (e.g. Cadogan et al., 1999). However, organisations may acquire and disseminate information but, unless this information is also put to use, very little is accomplished (Kohli and

International Marketing Review Vol. 20 No. 1, 2003 pp. 67-94 q MCB UP Limited 0265-1335 DOI 10.1108/02651330310462275

IMR 20,1

68

Jaworski, 1990). What is more likely to influence export success, therefore, is the extent to which, and ways in which, information is used, rather than acquired (e.g. Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1998). Export information use research is warranted for a number of reasons. First, as pointed out by Belich and Dubinsky (1999), the resources associated with conducting foreign trade are generally considerable and, at the same time, many exporters suffer from limited financial power. Thus, it becomes critical to identify ways in which information-processing capabilities can be optimised to ensure rational dispersion of resources and limit the risks associated with export operations. Second, information use is especially critical for exporting firms whose foreign trade environment is marked by greater environmental diversity and turbulence (e.g. Leonidou and Katsikeas, 1997). In turn, when faced with greater levels of uncertainty arising from such a business arena, exporters will experience a heightened need to compensate for this by using more export information (Belich and Dubinsky, 1999). Third, the exporter is constrained in his/her opportunity for using information, as export information acquisition – a determinant of export information use (see Souchon and Diamantopoulos (1996), is generally less comprehensive, sophisticated and systematic, as well as more difficult and costly (Guynes et al., 1990; Moseley, 1996) than domestic information acquisition (Cavusgil, 1984). As a result, finding ways to facilitate the export information use process has strong managerial implications for export managers wishing to improve on export performance. It has been claimed that symbolic use may be the most prevalent form of information use within organisations (Beyer and Trice, 1982). Symbolic information use has been defined as information used for appearance’s sake rather than for any intrinsic value it may have (Strieter et al., 1999; Menon and Wilcox, 2001). It can also be described as using information politically while responding to a hidden personal agenda – e.g. self-promotion (Brown, 1994; Mamman and Saffu, 1998). A myriad conceptual articles guard against using information in a manner which could be described as symbolic (e.g. Kotler, 1966; Feldman and March, 1981; Connolly and Thorn, 1987; Goodman, 1993) and advocate a more systematic and objective use of information (e.g. Schoemaker and Russo, 1993). Nevertheless, empirical studies reporting on the outcomes of symbolic use of export information are rare. It is likely, however, that symbolic use of information will be common in an export context (Hart et al., 1994) for the following reasons. First, McAuley (1993, p. 53) stresses that “many companies begin exporting without much rational analysis or deliberate planning”. Second, the dynamics of the export/non-export-specific functions’ interaction within firms may prove conducive to possible conflict arising from divergent objectives (Cadogan et al., 2001). Unless the export activities of the firm are recognised as an integral part of the business and all organisational functions fully committed to export success (Samiee and Walters, 1999), export decisions may be taken within a politically-charged internal environment. In

turn, the likelihood of export information being used symbolically (for example, to increase the power of the export function) would increase (Raven and Kruglanski, 1970). Given the importance of information use to export success (Leonidou and Katsikeas, 1997), examination and analysis of a type of use which is not readily or intuitively associated with a potential increase but rather a decrease in this success have an intrinsic appeal. Specifically, export decision makers would benefit from: . clear guidelines on which types of export information use to encourage; and . information on the types of use which are potentially harmful to the success of the export function. With this knowledge, conscious efforts can be made to avoid the more detrimental types of symbolic use and, instead, apply export information in symbolic ways that are more benign or even beneficial. The objectives of this study, therefore, are twofold. The first aim is to conceptualise symbolic use of export information as a multi-dimensional construct, drawing from a multi-disciplinary review of the relevant literature. The second aim is to develop a conceptual framework linking these key dimensions of symbolic use of export information to export performance. In the next section, a background to symbolic use research is presented. This is followed by an identification of eight literature-drawn dimensions of symbolic use of export information and a network of propositions linking these key dimensions to export performance. After proposing a formal conceptual framework of symbolic use of export information, the paper is then concluded by implications and a future research agenda. Background Information use has been defined as taking research findings into account (Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1977), the conversion of data into ultimate actions (Barabba, 1983), or the extent to which interpreted data influence the user’s decision making (Moorman et al., 1992). However, the focus of information use research should in fact be wider than a strict application to direct decision making. More specifically, Weiss (1981, p. 25) explains that such a narrow perspective “takes for granted a rational theory of organizational behavior” which, as will later be seen, is not always appropriate. As a result, a more general, and therefore more useful, interpretation of what information use should encompass includes not only straightforward problem solving but also more general information-behaviours not directly intrinsic in decision making (Dunn, 1986b; Hu and Toh, 1995). In this context, Beyer and Trice (1982) identified information use behaviours in terms not only of actions and choices (which decision making entails), but also of cognitions and feelings. As Weiss (1981) states, it is only by adopting a broad-gauge view of information use that

Symbolic use of export information 69

IMR 20,1

70

a deeper understanding of this construct can actually be achieved. As a result, the current paper is concerned with the overall nature of symbolic information use behaviour undertaken by export marketing managers (including decision making), as opposed to its limited problem-solving intentions. The type of information examined is export-specific information (see Reid, 1984). Three main dimensions of information use have been identified within the literature, and are now sometimes discussed alongside one another (e.g. Beyer and Trice, 1982; Menon and Varadarajan, 1992; Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996). First, instrumental use of information occurs when a manager uses information directly to solve a specific problem (Caplan et al., 1975). Second, conceptual use of export information refers to information used indirectly to expand the managerial knowledge base and provide general “enlightenment”, as opposed to addressing any one specific issue (Moorman, 1995). A third type of information use, the purpose of which does not readily appear to be to the benefit of the organisation at hand but which aims to serve the needs of the individual user (Strieter et al., 1999), was first coined by Knorr (1977) who labelled it symbolic use. Most of the marketing literature to date has tended to concentrate on instrumental and/or conceptual use of information (e.g. Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982; Moorman, 1995). In the words of Rich (1991, p. 333), “few researchers have moved beyond the rather primitive distinction between instrumental and conceptual types of utilization”. Despite the importance of “rational” information utilisation to ultimate business and marketing success (Feldman and March, 1981), information is not always used specifically for the purpose of planning for optimal performance (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). In fact, as Deshpande´ (2001, p. 1) explains, “common-sense, intuition-based knowledge influences all decisions”. Export managers have bounded rather than perfect knowledge and, as a result, the rationality of their approach to decision making will also be bounded (McAuley, 1993). De Solla Price (1975, p. 186) even goes so far as stating that information utilisation “is an anathema. It is an invention of Victorian or early idealists that research is used to make or accomplish useful things”. An increasing number of authors also point to the shortcomings of the rational view of decision making (e.g. Tadepalli and Avila, 1999). As explained by Rosenbaum (1996, p. 152), the context of information use “is no longer stable; this world lacks objectivity, stability, continuity, and order”. Larsen (1980, p. 421) also claims that “the study of knowledge utilization leads away from the tightly ordered and circumscribed discipline of traditional research and into the world of political pressure, historical tradition, hunches, and the like”. She further argues that ignoring these factors is indicative of a simplistic perspective on information use, especially when one is concerned with use occurring within an environment made up of distinct (and sometimes conflicting) interest groups and individuals. Feldman and March

(1981, p. 171) further explain that “the use of information is embedded in social norms that make it highly symbolic”. Symbolic use emerged as a study area in the public policy literature in the mid-1970s (e.g. Caplan et al., 1975), and slowly permeated other disciplines such as organisational behaviour (Brown, 1994) and marketing (Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982). As a result, the key to successful information use theory development still lies in a cross-disciplinary approach (Deshpande´, 1979). Though the literature on symbolic use of information remains rather disjointed, a cross-disciplinary review and synthesis/integration of this literature paint a clear picture of symbolic use and its various dimensions, all of which are relevant to export marketing activities. These dimensions of symbolic export information use can be related to export performance outcomes. Symbolic use of export information is related to export performance, but the direction of the relationship has been found to vary with the source of the export information used (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1998). The varying direction of the symbolic use-export performance relationship, however, may also lie in the fact that symbolic use is a multi-faceted construct (Larsen, 1980). For example, it can occur through managers using information in order to justify the decisions really made on the basis of intuition (Knorr, 1977), as well as when information is distorted beyond its original meaning to support opinions (Goodman, 1993). As a result, the uni-dimensional operationalisation of this construct used in the past (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999) could have obscured the impact of the different dimensions of symbolic use on export performance. Although the construct of information use is seen here from an individual rather than an organisational perspective (see Strieter et al., 1999), export performance (i.e. a functional rather than organisational or individual outcome criterion) is selected in the development of the propositions presented below. The reason for this is first anchored in the nature of the export business. Use of an organisational unit of analysis (e.g. overall business performance as the dependent variable) may obscure any export-specific outcomes of symbolic information use (such as export profitability). Furthermore, research has already found that export managers are generally prone to particular types of information use. More specifically, Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1996) revealed that their sample of export decision makers were predisposed to using export information either instrumentally/conceptually, or symbolically, but that both types of use within the same individual were a rare occurrence. In this context, tracing the effect of symbolic export information use on any one particular decision (Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982) may miss the global picture that is the longer-term effect on export performance in general. Pioneers of information utilisation research such as Larsen (1980) and Weiss (1981) also contend that examining use by monitoring the effect of information on specific decisions is not only difficult but also often unwarranted, since information is

Symbolic use of export information 71

IMR 20,1

72

Table I. Dimensions of export information use

not solely used for the purpose of direct decision making (Rich, 1981; Dunn, 1986a). In the words of Rich (1991, pp. 332), “given the ill-structured nature of the utilization process, it will always be difficult to establish causal links between using information and solving specific problems which lead to action or inaction”. The following section proposes links between the key dimensions of symbolic use identified and export performance, in the spirit intended by Larsen (1980, p. 426) : “a model of utilization, described in terms of specific components, is postulated, along with the prediction of multiple types of outcome”. In other words, different relationships are expected between export performance and the different types of symbolic use proposed, since some types of symbolic use seem relatively benign, while others clearly do not (Beyer and Trice, 1982; Menon and Wilcox, 2001). The eight key dimensions of symbolic use of export information identified in the cross-disciplinary literature review are social, power-seeking, affective, legitimating, self-promoting use, symbolic non-use, haphazard use, and information distortion, as defined in Table I. These are now described in turn, and their likely relationships with export performance discussed. Dimensions

Illustrative sources

Definitions

Social use

Menon and Varadarajan (1992)

Visible use of export information to consolidate relationships with information providers

Power-seeking use

Beyer and Trice (1982) Use of export information to obtain, maintain, or enhance the power of the decision maker or that of the export function

Affective use

Menon and Wilcox (2001)

Use of export information to bolster levels of confidence in the decisions to be made

Legitimating use

Sabatier (1978)

Use of export information to justify decisions made on the basis of intuition or preconceptions prior to objective analysis

Self-promoting use

Feldman and March (1981)

Use of export information to visibly portray knowledge and competence to others in the firm

Symbolic non-use

Souchon and Lack of export information use owing to either Diamantopoulos (1997) lack of information availability or avoidance of information that is readily available

Haphazard use

Glazer et al. (1992)

Information distortion Bettis-Outland (1999)

Use of export information on the basis of its availability or accessibility rather than its relevance Conscious modification of export information that contradicts existing preconceptions

Dimensionality and conceptual framework Social use of export information Cultural differences between information providers and users sometimes lead their exchanges and relationships to be fraught with misunderstandings (e.g. Dunn, 1980). The cultural differences and potential conflicts which arise between information provider and user are often anchored in the fact that these two types of professionals represent two distinct communities (Dunn, 1980). Hu and Toh (1995) claim that marketing managers (i.e. information users) perceive themselves to be action-oriented and will often make decisions based on limited information. Although this type of decision making may be warranted if decisions need to be implemented quickly (Rich, 1991), the information providers may construe this reduced extent of information use as a lack of trust in either themselves or the information they provide, or both (Moorman et al., 1992). It stands to reason, therefore, that visibly using information for the social purpose of consolidating better relationships with information providers can have a number of benefits which may outweigh the effort-cost of using information that is not really needed for the making of a particular decision. With increased trust from the information provider in the information user, these benefits may include, for example, being provided with better quality information (that is, perhaps, more up-to-date and relevant to decision-making needs) that would not normally be passed on, and gaining access to valuable information before competitors. Existing literature on information provideruser relationships has tended to examine the impact of those relationships on the extent to which information is used (e.g. Zaltman and Moorman, 1988; Hu and Toh, 1995). However, managerial use of information as a means of securing better manager-provider relationships which ultimately ensure a smoother access to information appears to have been an area of study lacking in academic attention so far. Nevertheless, the fact that such use of information does, in fact, exist becomes difficult to ignore when managers claim that they use information to maintain regular contact and secure ongoing relationships with information providers or to keep these providers happy (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). In an export context, given the importance of information acquisition to uncertainty reduction (Cavusgil, 1984), and the difficulties associated with acquiring export information (Guynes et al., 1990), the benefits of social information use outlined above are likely to be particularly useful in terms of ensuring that export opportunities are not missed (Craig and Douglas, 2000), and optimising the actual decisions made through use of topical export information (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997). In turn, an organisation which is able to react quickly to new opportunities and make relevant export decisions would perform better than its less knowledgeable counterparts. Therefore, it can be proposed that: P1. Social use of export information will be positively related to export performance.

Symbolic use of export information 73

IMR 20,1

74

Power-seeking use of export information The distribution of power within organisations sets the scene for political activity (Allen et al., 1979; Piercy, 1983). For example, Cyert and March (1963, p. 70) argue that company goals are not set in a rational objective informationinspired way, but as a result of coalitions within the organisation, and that “strategy formulation and implementation are a subjectively political phenomenon resulting from the use of power”. Thus, information can be used to gain power and/or in order to shift or consolidate the balance of power within the organisation (Brown, 1994), with little or no regard for the information’s real meaning (Beyer and Trice, 1982). While this may not be conducive to optimal decision making per se, or work to the advantage of a particular decision’s effectiveness, one must remember the broader purpose of information use (Weiss, 1981). Using export information to gain or increase the power of the export function or the export decision maker may have longerterm effects than those directly related to decision optimality. It has been argued that functional power is extremely effective in terms of reducing the likelihood of conflict and increasing longer-lasting persuasion within firms (Raven and Kruglanski, 1970). Given the detrimental effect that potential export-non-export conflict can have upon a firm’s market orientation levels and ultimate export performance (Cadogan et al., 2001), a means of reducing such conflict is likely to bring more advantages than drawbacks to the firm as a whole, and more particularly to the export side of the business. For example, given the export-non-export dichotomy that often exists within exporting firms (Samiee and Walters, 1990), this type of symbolic use may secure financial cooperation for adapting the product mix to foreign demand (and thereby serving export customer needs better). Thus, a powerful exporting function may more easily obtain the cooperation of other functional areas within the firm to optimise its product or service offering to foreign markets. As a result of being better equipped to serve its markets, this export function may enjoy increased levels of customer satisfaction and ensuing export performance. It is therefore expected that: P2. Power-seeking use of export information will be positively related to export performance. Affective use of export information Menon and Varadarajan (1992) identified affective use of information, tied to the “feel good” factor arising from using information to make decisions (see also Menon and Wilcox, 2001, p. 62). These authors argued that, rather than using information for its intrinsic and direct value to the decision at hand, information was used to increase the confidence in the decisions made. In their own words, “information from research results can be used to lower any cognitive dissonance effects that can occur with decisions not yet taken and

thereby increase overall satisfaction with the decisions when they are made, or they can be used to feel more comfortable with a decision made prior to the conclusion of a study”. In an export context where levels of unfamiliarity with the environment and sometimes internationalisation practices themselves are likely to be high and to increase decision-making uncertainty (e.g. Katsikeas, 1994), “fear of failure” and its subsequent increase in affective information use (Strieter et al., 1999) may be particularly at issue. However, while fear of failure could be construed as a logical antecedent to affective use of export information, the fact that it is often linked to higher stress levels which inhibit performance (Strieter et al., 1999) may in fact render this construct a moderator to the affective use-performance relationship. More specifically, while the intrinsic purpose of affective use of export information may lie elsewhere than in pure decision making (Hu and Toh, 1995), its implementation is unlikely to be too dissimilar from instrumental use of export information (see earlier definition). In turn, such direct use has often been argued to lead to enhanced decision-making quality and performance (Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982). On the other hand, when combined with increased levels of anxiety-induced stress, symptomatic of greater fear of failure, affective use of export information may be less thought-through and rational. For example, the export decision maker’s trust may be placed in information simply because it is available, and the relief associated with the mere existence of information that is difficult to acquire (see Cavusgil, 1984) may obliterate the information user’s need to be selective in the information used (Glazer et al., 1992). As a result, it is proposed that: P3. The direction of the relationship between affective use of export information and export performance will depend upon the extent of the manager’s fear of failure. Under conditions of low fear of failure the relationship will be positive but under conditions of high fear of failure the relationship will be negative. Legitimating use of export information In the words of Sabatier (1978, p. 396), “information is often – and, perhaps, primarily – used to legitimate decisions reached on other grounds, that is, prior to an adequate analysis”. These grounds can include prior managerial assumptions (Barabba, 1983) and their related intuition (Knorr, 1977). As shown in the psychology literature, individual judgement is not always solely based on factual information; instead, many judgements are formed by simple emotion or past experience (Zanna and Rempel, 1988). The prevalence of this type of decision making is exemplified in Parikh’s (1994) contention that the speed of environmental change and the uncertainty associated with this change warrant new patterns of thinking which include increased reliance on intuition. Leonidou and Katsikeas (1997) explain that the export environment is more turbulent, complex, and dynamic than a purely domestic context, raising added

Symbolic use of export information 75

IMR 20,1

76

uncertainty. In turn, export decision-making activities necessarily have to be swift and proactive, a fact which is likely to accentuate the need for, and occurrence of, intuitive decision making (Crossan and Sorrenti, 1997). In today’s turbulent business environment, using intuition is becoming an acceptable method of making decisions (Burke and Miller, 1999). In fact, “we are finding an increasing number of top-level managers, including CEOs, more and more openly admitting the use of ‘gut feeling’ or intuition in their decisionmaking” (Parikh, 1994, p. 6). However, more often than not, boards of directors will warrant that the decisions made are also supported by information, rather than resting merely on the decision makers’ sense of intuition (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1996). Intuition is often derived from extended business experience. Leonidou and Adams-Florou (1999) claim that experience (and the instinct that flows from it) is still often preferred by export decision makers in lieu of more formal export information. Seringhaus (1988) argues that marketing knowledge is primarily derived from practical experience, as opposed to objective information, and that its importance lies in its strong association with enhanced export management skills. Indeed, it has also been suggested that experience itself can be a powerful source of information (e.g. Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1977; Grønhaug and Graham, 1987), leading to an increase in the reliance on intuitive decisionmaking (Schoemaker and Russo, 1993). The relationship this type of symbolic use may have with export performance is a thorny issue to resolve. First, Jaworski et al. (2000) advocate implementing, not only a market-driven business philosophy, but also a “driving-markets” approach to marketing, if the firm is to be competitive. In this context, emphasis is placed, not on responding to information on customer needs or competitive moves, but on anticipating latent needs. In turn, therefore, specific market experience may provide the decision maker with the internal ability to second-guess what this market will require, before needs are actually voiced by customers (an ability which may be akin to being intuitive as far as this market is concerned). In fact, Johanson and Vahlne (1977, p. 26) describe experiential knowledge as “the critical kind of knowledge [. . .] because it cannot be so easily acquired as objective knowledge. [Furthermore], on the basis of objective market knowledge it is possible to formulate only theoretical opportunities, experiential knowledge makes it possible to perceive ‘concrete’ opportunities – to have a ‘feeling’ about how they fit into the present and future activities”. Bearing this in mind, using export information to legitimate decisions already made on the strength of experience-induced intuition may provide an opportunity to react quickly to, or even anticipate, market changes and needs. In this context, using information to support this intuition will legitimate the decision in the eyes of superiors and subordinates, increasing the latters’ confidence in the decision made. In turn, this may well contribute to an enhanced sense of shared vision and commitment, reducing inter-functional

conflict and enhancing organisational coordination, all determinants to increased export market orientation and performance (Cadogan et al., 2001). Weiss (1981) actually argues that, although using information merely to support decisions that would have been made anyway may “look bad”, the reality is such that the merger of managerial experience with information collected is usually a highly effective way of making decisions. However, Feldman (1986) claims that learning from experience is easy, and may, in fact, be difficult to achieve. In an exporting context, one reason for this may be that specific experiential knowledge is not transferable across different foreign markets (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977). In fact, Wood and Goolsby (1987) found marked differences in the type of information needed to make accurate decisions in different industries, rendering market-specific experience less than useful when decisions entail penetrating or expanding into new foreign markets. Therefore, in the absence of market-specific experience, indiscriminate reliance on intuition will be less reliable than careful information-based preparation. Indeed, intuition resting on shaky grounds (i.e. the absence of relevant experience) will render any preconceptions that the exporter may have about the market likely to be invalid. In turn, information may be sought that supports the invalid assumptions, as “attentional biases direct attention to expectationconfirming events when disconfirming information is also available” (Feldman, 1986, p. 273). While directors’ and subordinates’ confidence in the decisions made may be heightened in the short term (prior to the outcome feedback of implementation), the long-term effects are more likely to entail decision failure, and subsequent decrease in export performance. As a result, it is expected that: P4. The direction of the relationship between legitimating use of export information and export performance will depend upon the level of managers’ export experience. Under conditions of low export experience the relationship will be negative but under conditions of high experience levels the relationship will be positive. Self-promoting use of export information It has also been suggested that information in today’s business environment is used as a symbol of how competent an individual is (Goodman, 1993). Feldman and March (1981, p. 175) further suggest that “decision makers and organizations establish their legitimacy by their use of information . . . these symbols of competence are simultaneously symbols of social efficacy”. In fact, McAuley (1993) argues that the ability of the manager to realise the full potential of the information will vary from individual to individual. Therefore scope exists for personal advancement by means of increasing the visibility of one’s own information use ability. However, the desire to use information with intent to appear competent in the workplace may override the desire to achieve higher export performance levels, as explained below.

Symbolic use of export information 77

IMR 20,1

78

Exporting organisations can be characterised by: . the extent of export commitment reflected in the resources deployed to serve export markets (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977); and . the structure of the export function reflected in the presence or absence of a separate export-specific department (also labelled export specificity – Samiee and Walters (1990). In firms characterised by low export commitment and no export specificity, the personnel dealing with export matters will also be dealing with domestic issues (Samiee and Walters, 1990). The result may be that these staff members experience increased role conflict (Singh, 1998) associated with serving two separate functional areas. In an environment of low export commitment, these two functional areas may, in turn, serve opposing objectives and/or may compete for the organisation’s financial and human resources. In this type of environment, the individual seeking self-promotion may have more to gain by using only the information which reflects what top management wants to hear (Larsen, 1980) – which may not be the information that works to the advantage of the export “function”. Furthermore, in this environment, if an export decision maker is driven by personal ambition rather than functional or organisational ambition (Pfeffer, 1981), self-promotion is more likely to be sought by making light of export information, reducing chances of export success (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997). On the other hand, in a situation of high export commitment and export specificity, the self-promoting individual export decision maker may have more to gain, personally, from use of export information, which itself would serve the best interests of the export function. This type of direct use of objective export information may be nothing short of highly visible instrumental use (see earlier definition), albeit with a hidden intent not directly related to the enhancement of decision-making quality. In turn, instrumental use of information has often been argued to lead to higher returns (e.g. Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982). It is therefore proposed that: P5a,b. The direction of the relationship between self-promoting use of export information and export performance will depend upon the export specificity (P5a) and the level of export commitment (P5b) of the firm. Under conditions of no export specificity and low export commitment the relationship will be negative, but under conditions of export specificity and high export commitment the relationship will be positive. Symbolic non-use of export information Export research has indicated that exporters will, on occasion, ignore information altogether (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997). Much of the past

research on information use has tended to assume that use was always desirable and non-use undesirable (Larsen, 1980). However, there is a difference between ignoring information that is readily available (Zaltman, 1986) and not using information because it is not there to be used in the first place (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977). In the latter instance, and as explained by Bettis-Outland (1999, p. 252), “lack of access to potentially relevant information [. . .] could have a significant effect on organizational responsiveness”. Several reasons exist for the unavailability of export information. First, information may not be accessible because other staff members are deliberately withholding it from the decision maker – also known as knowledge disavowal (see Deshpande´ and Kohli (1989). Second, Johanson and Vahlne (1977) argue that the increased psychic distance between home and foreign host country hinders the flow of information between the two markets at hand, which acts as a natural barrier to export information acquisition, integration and use. Third, Belich and Dubinsky (1995, p. 2) explain that, in the context of exporting, “owing to the relative paucity of resources available, management in small firms must estimate the likelihood that the costs of integrating unique market-gathering activities will be recovered before a transaction is completed”. In addition to being situational (through lack of export information availability), non-use of export information can also be deliberate, as the following discussion demonstrates. Information non-use can occur: . when a vast amount of data exists and managers are faced with information overload (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997); . under conditions of severe time-constraints to make a decision (Rich, 1991); and . when the information acquired lacks sufficient detail and precision to be useful (Reid, 1984). Deliberate non-use of information can also occur when information contradicts what the manager believes (Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982; Zaltman, 1986). In fact, decision makers can select to use only the information which supports the decisions already made, and ignore all other information which does not. As Larsen (1980, p. 434) explains, “knowledge utilization can be threatening to entrenched systems that are satisfied with the way things are going”. In addition, it has been argued that information users “tend to look for supportive evidence and to ignore or resist negative evidence”, and later “people will like and support research that appears likely to benefit them and will dislike and resist research that appears likely to discredit or otherwise harm them” (Beyer and Trice, 1982, pp. 613, 617). From a more personal perspective, Strieter et al. (1999, pp. 19-20) argue that “in the current environment of downsizing and rapidly changing competitive structures, negative emotional arousal might be a major factor affecting effective information use if members of organizations

Symbolic use of export information 79

IMR 20,1

80

Figure 1. Symbolic non-use instances

consider their jobs at risk or if they perceive that using or disseminating information might increase their vulnerability to unfavorable consequences”. A summary of the various instances in which non-use of export information can occur is presented in Figure 1. The implicit assumption that use is good and non-use is bad is “troublesome” (Weiss, 1981). Caplan (1980, p. 5), states that “not all utilization is good and not all non-utilization is bad”. As Weiss (1981) explains, the information itself, for example, may be tinged by the biases of the information provider and may not, therefore, constitute a solid base on which to make valid decisions. In this instance, information non-use may be a rational and deliberate way of avoiding being side-tracked by available information into making decisions that are not of primary priority to the organisation (Glazer et al., 1992). Similarly, the non-use of information would be dictated by the lack of fit between the information at hand and the perceived type of information need (Larsen, 1985). Furthermore, as Rich (1981, p. 35) explains, “it is important to distinguish information utilization that is inappropriate for a specific problem-solving activity – such as negotiations – from information that is recognized as ‘relevant’ but deliberately not utilized”. Thus, Burke and Miller (1999) found that there is the potential for negative outcomes to emerge when decisions are made at the expense of information collection and analysis. In other words, if decision makers do not have accurate data to support their intuition, not only do they run the risk of making the wrong decision, but also they will have difficulties justifying their decision to management if questioned (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1996). Further, use of instinct to make decisions can be associated with a lack of a clear strategic orientation, lower confidence levels in the decisions made (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1996), and lower overall export performance (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997).

It becomes clear that the relationship between non-use of export information and export performance is context-dependent. To the extent that situational non-use (see Figure 1) is not dictated by any specific motive but by the lack of information availability, the scope for examining the usefulness of the information is not present. This creates a situation where important information may be missed and export opportunities passed over as a result (Craig and Douglas, 2000). However, as discussed above, not using available information may be a deliberate choice on the part of the decision maker. This choice can be made on rational, instrumental grounds (i.e. after having assessed the intrinsic usefulness of the information and finding it lacking) or on political, symbolic grounds unrelated to the information usefulness (e.g. because it disconfirms pre-established beliefs). Therefore, it is proposed that: P6a,b. The direction of the relationship between symbolic non-use of export information and export performance will depend upon the availability (P6a) and usefulness (P6b) of the information. Under conditions of low information availability the relationship will be negative. Under conditions of high availability and high usefulness the relationship will also be negative, while under conditions of high availability and low usefulness the relationship will be positive. Haphazard use of export information Export decision makers may sometimes use information in a way which can be described as non-systematic or even haphazard. More specifically, managers often do not have the time to make well-informed decisions by digesting the vast amounts of information that may be available to them (Rich, 1991). As Feldman and March (1981, p. 174) explain, “most organizations and individuals often collect more information than they use or can reasonably expect to use”. In turn, a situation of high information overload is likely to result in confusion and poor decision-making activities (Sivaramakrishnan and Perkins, 1992), because, as Douglas and Craig (1982, p. 29) point out, “the human mind has a limited capacity to handle, organize, and interpret information”. For example, the mere availability of information surplus can distract managers into making decisions, the nature of which is guided by available information irrespective of the urgency of other decisions to be addressed; indeed, “the presence of additional information has a ‘seductive’ or distracting effect that leads managers to focus more on those decision-making components addressed by the information. If these are not the components that are also most closely tied to success, overall performance may suffer” (Glazer et al., 1992, p. 214). However, when it comes to exporting, a detailed knowledge of all the factors likely to affect a firm’s ability to be successful is required (Belich and Dubinsky, 1995). Combined with this, knowing which export information piece or document will be the more useful, credible, and relevant may very well pose

Symbolic use of export information 81

IMR 20,1

82

a challenge for exporters who are new to conducting business in particular foreign markets. As a result, information may be selected for use on the wrong grounds (e.g. simple availability). Using information haphazardly increases the potential for firms to miss crucial information about the environment of the country to which they are exporting (Usunier, 2000). In turn, missing out on opportunities or failing to respond to the demands of the market through a lack of attention to information relevance and urgency would, in the long term, adversely affect the export function’s ability to perform well in its export markets. Therefore, it can be suggested that: P7. Haphazard use of export information will be negatively related to export performance. Distortion of export information A final type of symbolic use can be identified when a decision maker distorts information in order to support decisions made on other grounds (e.g. Allen et al., 1979; Goodman, 1993). As Larsen (1980, p. 428) states, “a considerable degree of adaptation, reinvention, or modification may take place in the utilization process. Users may adapt the knowledge to fit their own needs”. Distortion can be defined as “the incorrect reproduction of objectively correct information and can result from either conscious or deliberate alteration or unconscious manipulation” (O’Reilly, 1978, p. 175). Information can be distorted by managers who have already pre-determined their decision, and therefore distort the data to portray to superiors that the decision has been made on well-informed grounds (Knorr, 1977). Bettis-Outland (1999) also suggests that information can be distorted as a result of market uncertainty and intra-firm politics, and that the distortion of information “to save face” is not an uncommon organisational occurrence. Furthermore, given that “as more information becomes available, it is increasingly easier to ‘prove’ what one wishes” (Hogarth and Makridakis, 1981, p. 557), it is very difficult for management to identify that this type of information use is actually occurring. Most of the past research on information distortion has tended to focus on the information sender as the unit of analysis, rather than on the information receiver or user (Bettis-Outland, 1999). However, it has long been argued that the information user should be at the centre of information use theory (Rosenbaum, 1996). Even Bettis-Outland’s recent (1999) article on marketing information distortion, while focusing on the information receiver, assumes that the “distorter” of the information is still the information sender (the angle resting on how the receiver then deals with the distorted information received). As a result, information distortion is viewed as an antecedent to information use. The current concern, however, is with distortion as an intrinsic component of the information use process. When considering information distortion as a dimension of information use, the receiver becomes the critical acting player.

Contrasting the two perspectives, it becomes evident that, while, in the context of the information sender, information distortion can be well-meaning and even helpful to the information user – by simplifying the information sent to the user (see Procter et al., 2000), the user distorting information will primarily tend to do so for more malicious purposes (Knorr, 1977). Indeed, given the fact that information use has been likened to organisational responsiveness to market changes (e.g. Bettis-Outland, 1999), information use plays an intrinsic part in decision making (Weiss and Bucuvalas, 1977; Moorman et al., 1992), although it is not strictly limited to decision-making activities (see Dunn (1986b), for example). Thus, the decision maker would in fact be at one with the information receiver or user, and both decision making and information use would occur simultaneously. In this context, information is unlikely to be distorted to aid the decision-making process in any way which could qualify as legitimate. In fact, Menon and Varadarajan (1992) and Strieter et al. (1999) label the distortion undertaken by decision makers themselves as incongruous. This has been confirmed by Beyer and Trice (1982, p. 601) who suggest “selecting and distorting results to justify or legitimate certain activities is not so benign”. In fact, information distortion can act to the detriment of organisational learning (Sinkula et al., 1997). If an organisation is said to be learning when, “through its processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors has changed” (Huber, 1991, p. 89), information distortion represents the opposite, so that organisational or personal assumptions do not have to alter. It is perhaps perceived to be a safer gamble (or at the very least a more comfortable psychology) to question the information received rather than any preconceptions held (Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982; Lee et al., 1987). In fact, “as time passes, mental models may no longer hold true. They will, however, limit us to familiar ways of thinking and acting unless we are open-minded enough to surface, confront, and question them” (Baker and Sinkula, 1999, p. 413). In turn, organisational learning is increasingly branded a key to organisational performance (Hult et al., 2000). As a result, the avoidance of learning which has the potential to occur from information acquisition and use (Sinkula et al., 1997) would in turn be reflected in lower performance outcomes. Given the existence of this type of use in exporting (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999) and its detrimental effects on decision making (Beyer and Trice, 1992), it is suggested that: P8. Distortion of export information will be negatively related to export performance. Figure 2 summarises the above discussion by depicting a model of symbolic use of export information and the relationships likely to exist between the key dimensions of symbolic use identified, and export performance. More specifically, the Figure shows that social use and power-seeking use (respectively P1 and P2) are likely to be directly and positively related to

Symbolic use of export information 83

IMR 20,1

84

Figure 2. A model of symbolic use of export information

export performance. The relationships between affective (P3) and legitimating (P4) use are proposed to be moderated by fear of failure and export experience respectively. Self-promoting use is expected to have a relationship with export performance that is moderated by both export specificity (P5a) and export commitment (P5b). Similarly, the relationship between symbolic non-use and export performance is likely to be moderated by two variables, namely information availability (P6a) and information usefulness (P6b). Finally, both haphazard use and information distortion are predicted to be directly and negatively related to export performance (P7 and P8 respectively). Conclusion and future research agenda Acquiring information on which to base export marketing decisions is undoubtedly a critical step towards achieving higher export performance levels (Yeoh, 2000). However, unless such information is actually put to use, little will in fact have been accomplished (Fletcher and Wheeler, 1989). Increasingly, though, the focus of information use studies should lie in examining not the extent of use but the different ways in which information can be and is used (Hu and Toh, 1995). This paper has focused on a particular type of information use, namely symbolic use, and presented a framework of the different ways in which symbolic use of export information can be related to export performance, in an attempt to develop preliminary guidelines for export managers. Given the prevalence of this potentially dangerous type of export information use in

exporting circles (Hart et al., 1994), and given the lack of research conducted in this area, the necessity for a clear delineation of symbolic use was necessary. It was suggested that, while some dimensions of symbolic use of export information are likely to be beneficial to export performance (e.g. social use), others are more likely to be so detrimental as to warrant avoidance (e.g. distortion of export information). It was also suggested that the performance outcomes of some types of symbolic use of export information will depend upon moderating variables (such as export experience and export commitment). Managerial implications exist here for export managers in terms of both their decision-making activities and their management of the export function. First, export performance will benefit from a number of symbolic uses of information. Good working relationships with human export information providers are essential to ensure that relevant and up-to-date information is obtained. These information providers may include export customers, foreign suppliers, export distributors/agents, chamber of commerce personnel, government export promotion staff, foreign commercials/attache´s, market research agencies’ consultants (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1999; Yeoh, 2000). As such, they should be developed and maintained both by the export manager and by his/her team of export salespeople. The reason for this is that managers and salespeople may well have access to different and complementary export information sources. For example, while managers may regularly be in contact with export agents, it is more likely to be the salespeople’s primary responsibility to engage export customers. Overtly applying the export information obtained from human export information sources implies trust in that information and in its source. In turn, with a heightened sense of self-worth and usefulness, the information suppliers may sustain the effort of distributing quality export information (which may ultimately benefit the quality of decision making directly). Much has also been written about the power-enhancing role of information (e.g. Piercy, 1983). Used to secure or increase the power of the export function, information can help improve export performance through guiding the organisation as a whole towards achieving export-specific objectives. For example, if export managers share important export information with other functional areas (such as the finance department), they may be more likely to obtain, say, the necessary financial resources to respond to this information. In this way, export managers can use the information at hand as a persuasive mechanism to acquire what is needed for the export function. Second, some types of symbolic use of export information are recommended only under certain conditions. Inexperienced or uncertain export decision makers may use information primarily to increase their confidence in the decisions they make. When this is the case, the temptation may be to apply whatever piece of information is at hand to solve a particular problem, rather

Symbolic use of export information 85

IMR 20,1

86

than to be selective in the information used. Thus, when using export information in an “affective” manner, care must be taken that the information used can be safely relied upon. Fear of failure should not be a motive for engaging in “panicked” decision making which overlooks crucial export information. Occasionally, export information may also be used to justify decisions which have already been made on the basis of the decision maker’s intuition. Again, this type of symbolic use should only be used in given situations, namely if it is combined with solid experience of the specific export market(s) for which the decision is being made. Thus, export decision makers who have already developed an experience-based understanding of a particular export market may be safe in relying on their own instinct over and above acquiring export information to help them make a decision concerning that market. This would result in faster decision making, which may be necessary if the export function wants to retain “first mover advantage” over the competition. Without this experience, however, export decision makers are at risk of making wrong decisions anchored in erroneous preconceptions. Using export information for self-promotion can also result in different export performance outcomes. In this context, possession and use of information can be a visible sign of an individual’s professional competence. In organisations characterised by higher export commitment and the presence of a separate export department, an individual would have much to gain, personally, from using export information competently to derive successful decisions. When exporting is considered less important (i.e. in firms with low export commitment, and no specific export department), self-promotion is perhaps more likely to be gained by not using export information effectively (given that export personnel would also be involved in non-export activities which may take precedence over the smaller export function), or even making export information out to be less important than it actually is. In order, however, for the export function to be sustainable and thrive in organisations characterised by low export commitment and no export specificity, selfpromoting use of export information would have to be avoided since it could not, by definition, entail benefiting the export side of the business. Similarly, non-use of export information may be both advantageous and detrimental to export performance. One way to avoid detrimental non-use of export information is to ensure that all relevant and necessary information is at hand to make a particular export decision, so that no important export opportunities are missed. A proactive export information acquisition strategy should be in place to increase the likelihood of this occurring (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1999). A second way of avoiding detrimental non-use of export information is to consider all relevant export information, even that which may contradict prior established beliefs. If the information is rejected because, after verification, it happens to be inaccurate, decisions will not be

based upon faulty data. However, if the contradicting and yet accurate export information is ignored in favour of maintained erroneous preconceptions, ultimate export performance will suffer through inadequate decision making. Thus, export decision makers are cautioned against automatic export information non-use. Finally, there are two instances of symbolic use of export information which export decision makers should avoid altogether, namely haphazard use and information distortion. Haphazard use suggests lack of care for systematic export information acquisition and use. While the speed at which export decisions are made using information haphazardly will certainly increase, a more systematic appraisal of the information needed may ultimately reduce the likelihood of: . missing out on important and as yet uncollected export information; . using the wrong export information for a given decision to make; and . using available export information to make decisions irrespective of whether these are the most urgent and important types of decisions to be made. Finally, export information distortion occurs when export decision makers have placed their faith in less reputable information sources or their own intuition to make decisions. Either way, the more reputable but contradictory information would be distorted to support the decisions made. This type of export information use may have longer-term effects that are more severe than those related to the making of one suboptimal decision, owing to the lack of learning that it implies (i.e. when export decision makers would misuse erroneous information rather than challenge their beliefs). The present paper opens numerous future research avenues into the area of symbolic use of export information. First, the model in Figure 2 warrants testing on a sample of exporters, in order to assess the empirical validity of the proposed dimensions and relationships. The sensitivity of the data required to test the model, however, would place a constraint on the way in which these data would be gathered. Lack of face-to-face contact with respondents and use of self-reported measures (associated with assurances of anonymity and confidentiality) may circumvent such a difficulty. However, while measures already exist for some of the symbolic use dimensions identified (for example, see Menon and Wilcox (2001)), for affective use: . these scales would need adaptation to an export marketing context; and . many symbolic use dimensions would require a full-scale measure development approach (e.g. haphazard use of export information). One obvious source of item pools is export managers themselves. In order to lessen interviewee reluctance to discuss sensitive issues related to symbolic use of export information or indeed the possibility of obtaining only socially

Symbolic use of export information 87

IMR 20,1

88

desirable answers, questions could be angled at “what other people can do”, rather than what the respondent does, in order to obtain a richer item pool. Second, a further study into the influences on symbolic use should provide valuable insights into what causes exporters to use information in symbolic ways. Examples of antecedents to symbolic use of export information could include organisational and/or environmental variables which facilitate or hinder such use (e.g. interfunctional coordination (Cadogan et al., 2001); environmental turbulence (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996); or variables which generally increase the individual propensity for such use (e.g. the intrinsic motivations of the decision maker (Strieter et al., 1999). Again, a multi-disciplinary approach to the conceptual development of a framework of symbolic use antecedents would enhance the explanatory power of the proposed model. For instance, the psychology literature provides a rich body of knowledge on how direct and indirect experience affects the different ways in which individuals process information (Regan and Totten, 1975; Fazio et al., 1978). Such a study would provide a refined diagnostic instrument to guide recommendations to export decision makers on how information should be used or which types of export information use should be avoided in particular internal and external circumstances. Third, the inter-relationships between the key types of symbolic use identified here also warrant further study. Indeed, far from occurring in a vacuum and independently of one another, different types of symbolic use may be displayed by the same information user. Close inspection of symbolic use dimensions reveals that these may be classified according to their level of ethicality (whether the particular type of use is ethical or not), visibility (whether the decision makers consciously set out to expose the type of export information use made of export information), purpose (whether export information was used to make a specific decision or whether it was used with a more general agenda in mind), and planning (whether the way in which export information was used was intentional or unconscious). For example, an ethical decision maker may regularly make social and affective use of export information, two dimensions of symbolic use which are arguably not challenged by ethics. Similarly, a less than competent and/or inexperienced decision maker may accidentally use export information haphazardly and overlook important export information (situational non-use). A future study investigating symbolic use of export information could seek to ascertain exactly how the eight dimensions of symbolic use of export information are interrelated, and what, if any, are the cumulative effects of using information symbolically in different ways. Such cumulative effects could potentially be disastrous for the export function. For example, a decision maker may use distorted export information to legitimise a decision, seek power, and for self-promotion, all of which may be

categorised as less ethical types of symbolic use (and therefore displayed by the same individual). But, while power-seeking and self-promotion are highly visible uses, legitimating decisions is more likely to be covert (i.e. the decision maker would “pretend” to his/her colleagues that the decision was reached based on the export information reported). In this situation, should the fact that the export information used to seek power and self-promotion has been distorted come to light, the fact that the same distorted information has also been used to “make” decisions may be brought into the open. Thus, the credibility of the export decision maker would suffer, as would the standing of the export function within the organisation. References Allen, R.W., Madison, D.L., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A. and Mayes, B.T. (1979), “Organizational politics – tactics and characteristics of its actors”, California Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 77-84. Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999), “The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 411-27. Barabba, V.P. (1983), “Making use of methodologies developed in academia: lessons from one practitioner’s experience”, in Kilmann, R. et al. (Eds), Producing Useful Knowledge for Organizations, Praeger Publishers, New York, NY. Belich, T.J. and Dubinsky, A.J. (1995), “Factors related to information acquisition in exporting organizations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 33, pp. 1-11. Belich, T.J. and Dubinsky, A.J. (1999), “Information processing among exporters: an empirical examination of small firms”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 45-59. Bettis-Outland, H. (1999), “The impact of information distortion within the context of implementing and sustaining a market orientation”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 7, pp. 251-63. Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1982), “The utilization process: a conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 591-622. Brown, A.D. (1994), “Politics, symbolic action and myth making in pursuit of legitimacy”, Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No. 6, p. 861. Burke, L.A. and Miller, M.K. (1999), “Taking the mystery out of intuitive decision making”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 91-9. Cadogan, J.W., Diamantopoulos, A. and de Mortanges, C.P. (1999), “A measure of export market orientation: scale development and cross-cultural validation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 689-707. Cadogan, J.W., Paul, N.J., Salminen, R.T., Puumalainen, K. and Sundqvist, S. (2001), “Key antecedents to ‘export’ market-oriented behaviors: a cross-national empirical examination”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 261-82. Caplan, N. (1980), “What do we know about knowledge utilization?”, New Directions for Program Evaluation, Vol. 5, pp. 1-10. Caplan, N., Morrison, A. and Stambaugh, R.J. (1975), The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI.

Symbolic use of export information 89

IMR 20,1

90

Cavusgil, S.T. (1984), “Differences among exporting firms based on their degree of internationalization”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 12, pp. 195-208. Connolly, T. and Thorn, B. (1987), “Predecisional information acquisition: effects of task variables on suboptimal search strategies”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 39, pp. 397-417. Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2000), International Marketing Research, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New York, NY. Crossan, M. and Sorrenti, M. (1997), “Making sense of improvisation”, in Walsh, J.P. and Huffs, A.S. (Eds), Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 14, pp. 155-80. Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. de Solla Price, D. (1975), “Some aspects of ‘World Brain’ notions”, in Kochen, M. (Ed.), Information for Action, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 177-92. Denis, J.E. and Depelteau, D. (1985), “Market knowledge, diversification and export expansion”, Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, pp. 77-89. Deshpande´, R. (1979), “The use, non-use, and abuse of social science knowledge: a review essay”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 164-76. Deshpande´, R. (2001), “From market research use to market knowledge management”, in Deshpande´, R. (Ed.), Using Market Knowledge, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-8. Deshpande´, R. and Kohli, A.K. (1989), “Knowledge disavowal: structural determinants of information-processing breakdown in organizations”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 155-69. Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (1982), “Factors affecting the use of market research information: a path analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 14-32. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A.L. (1996), “Instrumental, conceptual and symbolic use of export information: an exploratory study of UK firms”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 8, pp. 117-44. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A.L. (1998), “Information utilization by exporting firms: conceptualisation, measurement, and impact on export performance”, in Urban, S. and Nanopoulos, C. (Eds), Information Utilization of Technology – Structural and Cultural Impact, Gabler, Weisbaden, pp. 111-40. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A.L. (1999), “Measuring export information use: scale development and validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Douglas, S.P. and Craig, C.S. (1982), “Information for international marketing decisions”, in Walter and Murray (Eds), Handbook of International Business, Wiley, New York, NY, Ch. 30. Dunn, W.N. (1980), “The two-communities metaphor and models of knowledge use: an exploratory case survey”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 515-36. Dunn, W.N. (1986a), “Conceptualizing knowledge use”, in Beal, G.M. et al. (Eds), Knowledge Generation, Exchange, and Utilization, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Dunn, W.N. (1986b), “Studying knowledge use: a profile of procedures and issues”, in Beal, G.M. et al. (Eds), Knowledge Generation, Exchange, and Utilization, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Fazio, R.H., Zanna, M.P. and Cooper, J. (1978), “Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency: an information-processing analysis”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 48-51. Feldman, J. (1986), “On the difficulty of learning from experience”, in Simms, H.P. Jr et al. (Eds), The Thinking Organization, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 263-92. Feldman, M.S. and March, J.G. (1981), “Information in organizations as signal and symbol”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 171-86. Fletcher, K. and Wheeler, C. (1989), “Market intelligence for international markets”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 7 No. 5/6, pp. 30-4. Glazer, R., Steckel, J.H. and Winer, R.S. (1992), “Locally rational decision making: the distracting effect of information on managerial performance”, Management Science, Vol. 38, pp. 212-26. Goodman, S.K. (1993), “Information needs for management decision making”, Records Management Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 12-23. Grønhaug, K. and Graham, J.L. (1987), “International marketing research revisited”, in Cavusgil, S.T. (Ed.), Advances in International Marketing, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Guynes, J.L., Guynes, C.S. and Thorn, R.G. (1990), “Conquering international boundaries that restrict the flow of data”, Information Strategy: Executives’ Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 27-32. Hart, S., Webb, J.R. and Jones, M.V. (1994), “Export marketing research and the effect of export experience in industrial SMEs”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 4-22. Hogarth, R.H. and Makridakis, S. (1981), “Forecasting and planning an evaluation”, Management Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 115-38. Hu, M.Y. and Toh, R.S. (1995), “An experimental study of marketing information utilization: the manager-researcher dichotomy”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 53-62. Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”, Organization Science, Vol. 2, pp. 88-115. Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F., Giunipero, L.C. and Nichols, E.L. Jr (2000), “Organizational learning in global purchasing: a model and test of internal users and corporate buyers”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 293-325. Jaworski, B., Kohli, A.K. and Sahay, A. (2000), “Market-driven versus driving markets”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 45-54. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1977), “Internationalization process of the firm – a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 23-32. Katsikeas, C.S. (1994), “Perceived export problems and export involvement: the case of Greek export manufacturers”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 29-57. Knorr, K.D. (1977), “Policy makers’ use of social science knowledge: symbolic or instrumental?”, in Weiss, C.H. (Ed.), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Kohli, A.J. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18. Kotler, P. (1966), “A design for the firm’s marketing nerve center”, Business Horizons, Vol. 9, pp. 63-74. Larsen, J.K. (1980), “Knowledge utilization: what is it?”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 421-42.

Symbolic use of export information 91

IMR 20,1

92

Larsen, J.K. (1985), “Effect of time on information utilization”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 143-59. Lee, H., Acito, F. and Day, R. (1987), “Evaluation and use of marketing research by decision makers: a behavioral simulation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 187-96. Leonidou, L.C. (1995), “Export barriers: non-exporters’ perceptions”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 4-25. Leonidou, L.C. and Adams-Florou, A.S. (1999), “Types and sources of export information: insights from small business”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 30-48. Leonidou, L.C. and Katsikeas, C.S. (1997), “Export information sources: the role of organizational and internationalization influences”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 65-87. McAuley, A. (1993), “The perceived usefulness of export information sources”, European Journal of Marketing, pp. 52-64. Mamman, A. and Saffu, K. (1998), “Short-termism, control, quick-fix and bottom-line: toward explaining the western approach to management”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 5/6, pp. 291-308. Menon, A. and Varadarajan, R. (1992), “A model of marketing knowledge use within firms”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 53-71. Menon, A. and Wilcox, J.B. (2001), “USER – a scale to measure use of market research”, in Deshpande´, R. (Ed.), Using Market Knowledge, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 243-72. Moorman, C. (1995), “Organizational market information processes: cultural antecedents and new product outcomes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 314-28. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande´, R. (1992), “Relationships between providers and users of market research”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 314-29. Moseley, D. (1996), “Information needs for market entry”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 13-18. O’Reilly, C.A. (1978), “The intentional distortion of information in organizational communication: a laboratory and field investigation”, Human Relations, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 173-93. Parikh, J. (1994), Intuition: The New Frontier of Management, Blackwell Business, Oxford. Pfeffer, J. (1981), “Management in symbolic action: the creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Piercy, N. (1983), “A social psychology of marketing information – learning to cope with the corporate battleground”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 103-19. Procter, D.B., Souchon, A.L. and Cadogan, J.W. (2000), “Enhancing the quality of market-oriented behaviours: understanding the characteristics of the information environments of marketoriented firms”, Academy of Marketing Conference Proceedings, 4-7 July, Derby. Raven, B. and Kruglanski, A. (1970), “Conflict and power”, in Swingle, P. (Ed.), The Structure of Conflict, Academic, New York, NY. Regan, D.T. and Totten, J. (1975), “Empathy and attribution: turning observers into actors”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 850-6. Reid, S.D. (1984), “Information acquisition and export entry decisions in small firms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 12, pp. 141-57. Rich, R.F. (1981), “The knowledge in society”, in Rich, R.F. (Ed.), Knowledge Cycle, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Rich, R.F. (1991), “Knowledge creation, diffusion and utilization”, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion and Utilization, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 319-37. Rosenbaum, H. (1996), “Structure and action: a new concept of the information use environment”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 33, pp. 152-6. Sabatier, P. (1978), “The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 396-417. Samiee, S. and Walters, P.G.P. (1990), “Influence of firm size on export planning and performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 2, pp. 235-48. Samiee, S. and Walters, P.G.P. (1999), “Determinants of structured export knowledge acquisition”, International Business Review, Vol. 8, pp. 373-97. Schoemaker, P.J.H. and Russo, J.E. (1993), “A pyramid of decision approaches”, California Management Review, Fall, pp. 9-31. Seringhaus, R.F.H. (1988), “Export knowledge, strategy and performance”, Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. 10, pp. 97-101. Singh, J. (1998), “Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: an investigation of some unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of salespeople”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 69-86. Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E. and Noordewier, T. (1997), “A framework for market-based organizational learning: linking values, knowledge and behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 305-18. Sivaramakrishnan, S. and Perkins, W.S. (1992), “Too much of a good thing? An empirical investigation of information overload in predicting marketing outcomes”, in “Enhancing knowledge development in marketing”, Proceedings of the Annual AMA Conference, pp. 377-84. Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), “A conceptual framework of export marketing information use: key issues and research propositions”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 49-71. Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1997), “Use and non-use of export information: some preliminary insights into antecedents and impact on export performance”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 135-51. Souchon, A.L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1999), “Export information acquisition modes: measure development and validation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 143-68. Strieter, J.C., Celuch, K.G. and Kasouf, C.J. (1999), “Market-oriented behaviors within organizations: an individual-level perspective”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 16-27. Tadepalli, R. and Avila, R.A. (1999), “Market orientation and the marketing strategy process”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 69-82. Usunier, J-C. (2000), Marketing across Cultures, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, London. Walters, P.G. (1983), “Export information sources – a study of their usage and utility”, International Marketing Review, Winter, pp. 34-43. Weiss, C.H. (1981), “Measuring the use of evaluation”, in Ciarlo, J. (Ed.), Utilizing Evaluation: Concepts and Measurement Techniques, Sage Publications Inc., Beverly Hills, CA. Weiss, C.H. and Bucuvalas, M.J. (1977), “The challenge of social research to decision making”, in Weiss, C.H. (Ed.), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Symbolic use of export information 93

IMR 20,1

94

Wood, V. and Goolsby, J. (1987), “Foreign market information preferences of established US exporters”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 43-52. Yeoh, P-L. (2000), “Information acquisition activities: a study of global start-up exporting companies”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 36-60. Zaltman, G. (1986), “Knowledge utilization as planned social change”, in Beal, G. et al. (Eds), Knowledge Generation, Exchange and Utilization, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 433-62. Zaltman, G. and Moorman, C. (1988), “The importance of personal trust in the use of research”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 16-24. Zanna, M.P. and Rempel, J.K. (1988), “Attitudes: a new look at an old concept”, in Kruglanski, B.T. (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 315-34.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

Export market information use, organizational knowledge, and firm performance

Export market information

95

A conceptual framework Kjell Toften and Svein Ottar Olsen University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway Keywords Export, Marketing, Information management, Organizational learning, Knowledge management Abstract Building on prior research in organizational knowledge, learning, and memory, this paper suggests that export market knowledge may provide a deeper understanding of the relationships between export market information use and export performance. Specifically, a conceptual model is developed linking different dimensions of information use to different dimensions of organizational knowledge as well as to export performance. This is then used to generate research propositions that provide insights into how export market knowledge integrates with export market information use and affects export performance.

Introduction Increased globalization of trade and sales activities, as well as the internationalization of firms, have steadily accentuated the importance of export market information use, resulting in a number of research contributions relating to this topic. Such contributions have mainly focused on sources of export information (Leonidou and Katsikeas, 1997; Seringhaus, 1993) and possible antecedents of use of information (Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982, 1984; Menon and Varadarajan, 1992; Low and Mohr, 2001). Recent research has further extended the study of market information use to export settings, such as export information acquisition modes (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996, 1999), dimensions and measures of use of export information (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1996, 1999), and impact of information use on export performance (e.g. Katsikeas et al., 2000; Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997). Although research on general market or export market information use has been widely conducted over the last few years, there are still issues in need of further investigation. Management research has presented extensive work on organizational learning (Argyris and Scho¨n, 1978; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Huber, 1991) and organizational knowledge (Kogut and Zander, 1993; Nonaka, 1994; Bertels and Savage, 1998; Gupta et al., 2000; Takeuchi, 2001). The knowledge This article has greatly benefited from the many helpful suggestions and guidance provided by the Guest Editor of IMR, Professor A. Diamantopoulos. The authors would like to thank Professor Diamantopoulos and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

International Marketing Review Vol. 20 No. 1, 2003 pp. 95-110 q MCB UP Limited 0265-1335 DOI 10.1108/02651330310462284

IMR 20,1

96

construct is highly relevant to generating information in organizations (e.g. Kohli and Jaworski, 1990), its use and utilization (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Menon and Varadarajan, 1992; Moorman et al., 2001), its interpretation (e.g. Baker and Sinkula, 1999), and its dissemination (e.g. Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Nonaka et al., 2001). For example, Lam (2000, p. 487) claims that “knowledge is increasingly regarded as the critical resource of firms and economies”; this claim is reinforced by Nonaka (1991, p. 96), who states that “in an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge”. One way of developing organizational knowledge, although admittedly not the only one, is when information outside the company is acted on, that is, when information is incorporated and integrated into the organization (Probst et al., 1998). An important question, then, is why and how organizational knowledge may improve our understanding of how organizations utilize export market information to improve their performance? The main objective of this paper is to extend our understanding of the relationship between information use and firm performance by introducing organizational knowledge as an important mediator between these two concepts. Integration of market information use and organizational performance is important from both a conceptual and a substantive perspective. Regarding the former, the conceptual distinction between market information use and organizational knowledge needs to be articulated. Regarding the latter, the links between market information use, export market knowledge, and export performance need to be discussed. One important question in this respect is: does export market information use have a direct impact on export performance, rather than an indirect effect through organizational knowledge? A second question is: does organizational knowledge also function as an antecedent of export market information use, and not (solely) as an outcome construct? Answers to such questions should provide a deeper understanding of export market information use and its antecedents and consequences, as well as improve our knowledge of how firms should manage export information to enhance their firm’s performance. Following a brief overview of the concept of export market information use, the concept of organizational knowledge is discussed in some depth, followed by a consideration of the export performance construct. Next, conceptual relationships among these three concepts are considered and relevant propositions suggested. The paper concludes with an agenda for future research. Conceptual model The proposed conceptual framework, shown in Figure 1, integrates theories of export market information use (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996; Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999) with theories of organizational knowledge (e.g. Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al.,

Export market information

97 Figure 1. Conceptual model

2001) and links them to export performance (e.g. Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997; Katsikeas et al., 2000). The overall sequence of suggested effects includes the direct and positive effect that export market information use has on both organizational knowledge and firm export performance, as well as the indirect positive effect of use via organizational knowledge on export performance. Previous research has suggested that export market information use (Diamantopoluos and Souchon, 1996; 1999), organizational knowledge (e.g. Lam, 2000; Gupta et al., 2000), and export performance (e.g. Styles, 1998; Katsikeas et al., 2000) are multidimensional constructs. To give a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships among the main constructs in Figure 1, specific dimensions of the constructs are included in the section on research propositions; this is because different dimensions of export market information use and organizational knowledge may have different influences on different aspects of export performance. Information use and its dimensions The role of information use has been examined within several disciplines. These disciplines include social science research and evaluation (e.g. Weiss, 1981), organizational behavior (e.g. Kilman et al., 1983), social policy decision making (e.g. Caplan et al.,1975; Knorr, 1977; Weiss, 1977), management (e.g. Boisot, 1998), and marketing (Sinkula, 1990; Moorman et al., 1993; Deshpande´ and Zaltman, 1982, 1984, 1987; Menon and Varadarajan, 1992), including export marketing (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1999; Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996, 1997, 1999). These wide and very different disciplinary backgrounds have resulted in different conceptual and operational definitions of information and information use. Bentley (1986) defines information as data that are meaningful and useful to the user, and which should be accurate, applicable, timely and available. Nonaka (1994, p. 15) defines information as “a flow of messages”, while Boisot (1998) describes information as data that have been filtered through perceptual and conceptual filters, organized accordingly, and thereby transformed into information.

IMR 20,1

98

With particular emphasis on marketing, Glazer (1991, p. 2) defines market information as “data that have been organized or given structure – that is, placed in context – and endowed with meaning”. Moorman (1995, p. 319) builds on this latter definition by defining market information as “data concerned with a firm’s current and potential external stakeholders”. By defining market information in this way, Moorman (1995) implies that information can come from a variety of sources. Further, her definition incorporates a dynamic perspective because it includes potential stakeholders as well as current ones. Also, by using the term “market” instead of “marketing”, emphasis is placed on external information that cuts across all functional areas of the firm rather than information that applies only to marketing departments (Moorman, 1995). Information use has been treated both as a unidimensional (e.g. Larsen, 1982) and a multidimensional construct (e.g. Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). In recent literature on export market information use (Diamantopoulos and Souchon, 1996; Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996), three dimensions – instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic use – have been identified. Instrumental use is based on the direct application of research findings to solve a policy problem (Caplan et al., 1975), implying that information is acquired for immediate use and applied for a specific purpose (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997). For example, prior to introducing a product to a new export market, companies may want to conduct specific marketing research in that market to unveil the needs and desires of the target customer group in order to adapt their marketing mix appropriately. Conceptual use is based on an indirect application of research findings (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992) in which much of the information is used for general enlightenment (Beyer and Trice, 1982) and development of the managerial knowledge base (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). This implies that the information is not necessarily applied to a specific problem and may be stored for future use (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997). For example, exporters or potential exporters may want to acquire general information on how to enter foreign markets, build international brands or set up international distribution systems without necessarily having an immediate and concrete application of this information in mind. Symbolic use is use of information that is not consistent with the declared purpose (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). Examples include distorting market research findings, taking conclusions out of context, disclosing only those findings that confirm an executive’s predetermined position, or consciously ignoring information (Weiss, 1977; Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). Symbolic use could legitimize and sustain previously held positions, or justify actions taken for other reasons (Beyer and Trice, 1982). An extensive empirical study by Diamantopoulos and Souchon (1999), however, concluded that “instrumental” and “conceptual” uses were actually

aspects of a single dimension; therefore, a two-dimensional view of information use, consisting of “instrumental-conceptual” use and “symbolic” use, is adopted in this paper and defined as follows: Filtered, transformed, and organized export data concerning a firm’s current and potential international customers, used in an instrumental-conceptual manner, and/or a symbolic manner, and normally with the intention of increasing organizational knowledge and/or perceived firm export performance.

Organizational knowledge and its dimensions There are several definitions of organizational knowledge, as well as several aspects of organizational knowledge that have been studied previously, including organization learning (Argyris and Scho¨n, 1978; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Huber, 1991; Sinkula, 1994), organizational memory (e.g. Walsh and Ungson, 1991), and knowledge management (Gupta et al., 2000; Lam, 2000; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). In general terms, knowledge is considered to be interpreted information (Huber, 1991) which is anchored in the beliefs and commitment of individuals (Nonaka et al., 2001). One way to approach knowledge as a theoretical construct is to clarify the borders between knowledge, data, and information (Bierly et al., 2000). Within such a framework, data are defined as being context-free and the smallest piece of material that can be detected by our senses (e.g. Marchand, 1998). Data are further suggested to be the building-blocks of higher-order constructs (Davis and Olson, 1985), such as information (Bierly et al., 2000); in this context, knowledge “builds on information that is extracted from data” (Boisot, 1998, p. 12). However, data are not necessarily transformed into information. Only data that have been filtered, organized, and/or transformed in a manner which makes the data useful and meaningful (Boisot, 1998) and enables people to make sense of them (Marchand, 1998) could be termed information. It is possible to make a distinction between information and knowledge. Some definitions of knowledge are closely related to information. For example, knowledge is defined as being “information that has value” (Elliott, 1996), or “a clear understanding of information” (Bierly et al., 2000). Such definitions are associated with credibility and usefulness as antecedents to knowledge utilization in the marketing use literature (e.g. Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). Other researchers, however, suggest that the concept of knowledge includes more than just useful and organized information. Teece (2001, p. 30), for example, suggests that “efficiently organized information is not knowledge”, and Davenport and Prusak (1998) define knowledge as “a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information”. Huber (1991, p. 89) uses the term knowledge “when referring to more complex products of learning, such as interpretations of information,

Export market information

99

IMR 20,1

100

beliefs about cause-effect relationships, or, more generally, ‘know-how’”. Nonaka (1994, p. 15) distinguishes between information and knowledge by defining information as “a flow of messages”, and knowledge as being “created and organized by the very flow of messages, anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder”. The above definitions of knowledge share some common ground. First, there is an understanding that information and knowledge are two different but related concepts. Second, it seems to be accepted that knowledge can be an output of information. Third, knowledge includes cognitive elements involving interpretation, integration with previous knowledge, understanding, commitment, or belief. Thus, knowledge can be seen as interpreted and integrated information, anchored in the beliefs of the beholder, thereby creating justified, true belief. Here, the question of what is “absolute truth” is avoided, since truth is in the eye of the beholder and rooted in individuals’ value systems. Instead, the term “justified” is emphasized, indicating the relative, dynamic, and humanistic aspects of knowledge (Nonaka et al., 2001). This implies that what is considered “true” knowledge can change over time and depends on the actual context and interactions among people. Knowledge in an organizational context has often been conceptualized along two dimensions, the epistemological and the ontological (Nonaka, 1994; Lam, 2000). The epistemological dimension concerns the modes of expression of knowledge (explicit and tacit), while the ontological dimension relates to the level of socialization (the individual or collective levels) (Lam, 2000). As this paper focuses on organizational (collective) knowledge, however, only the epistemological perspective is considered in what follows. Polanyi (1962) has been credited as being the first to distinguish between explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be expressed in words and numbers and can easily be communicated and shared with others (Lam, 2000); it includes scientific formulae, product specifications, manuals, and computer programs, etc. (Nonaka et al., 2001). Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is deeply rooted in individuals’ actions and experience, including ideas, values, subjective insights, intuitions, hunches, and emotions, and is not easily visible and expressible (e.g. Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). It is personal and hard to formalize and communicate to others (e.g. Lam, 2000). More specifically, “explicit knowledge can be generated through logical deduction and acquired by formal study. Tacit knowledge, in contrast, can only be acquired through practical experience in the relevant context, i.e. ‘learning-by-doing’” (Lam, 2000, p. 490). This paper makes a distinction between information-based knowledge, often termed explicit knowledge in the management literature (Lam, 2000; Gupta et al., 2000), and experience-based knowledge, often termed tacit knowledge (Lam, 2000; Gupta et al., 2000). Even though other possible dimensions of market knowledge can be discussed and conceptualized, the discussion of

information- versus experience-based knowledge is considered to be a fruitful starting-point. While the former focuses on aspects of information and its organization and dissemination within organizations, as in several articles in the marketing literature (e.g. Kohli and Jaworski, 1990), the latter places emphasis on aspects of the individual’s experience of information or processes and is more related to studies within organizational learning (Sinkula, 1994; Argyris and Scho¨n, 1978), organizational memory (e.g. Walsh and Ungson, 1991), or knowledge management (Nonaka, 1994; Lam, 2000; Gupta et al., 2000). A distinction between these two dimensions is also important from a managerial point of view. For example, it may be easy for a firm to copy a system of explicit knowledge, but more difficult to copy tacit knowledge which is rooted in individuals’ experience. Export performance There seems to be general agreement in the literature that market information is vital to firm success in both domestic and international contexts (e.g. Hart and Tzokas, 1999). Export performance has been defined as the outcome of a firm’s activities in export markets (Shoham, 1996), and there is consensus that performance is a multidimensional construct comprising effectiveness (meaning the extent to which organizational goals and objectives are achieved), efficiency (which is the ratio of performance outcomes to the inputs required to achieve them), and adaptability (the organization’s ability to respond to environmental changes (Katsikeas et al., 2000). For purposes of the present paper, however, export performance is approached in a generic sense, in that the literature is insufficiently developed to permit the specification of links between export information use, organizational knowledge and specific dimensions of export performance. Conceptual relationships and propositions Use-knowledge relationships Given that organizational knowledge has been neglected in previous research on the use of export market information, the relationship between export market information use and organizational export knowledge is of particular interest. Based on the definition of export market information use proposed earlier, it is suggested that information is acquired with the intention of increasing organizational export knowledge. Thus, organizational knowledge is considered to be an outcome of the use of export information. While this is a novel link within export information literature, it has been mentioned within the general management literature. Probst et al. (1998, p. 247), for example, state that “to develop organizational knowledge leading to a sustainable competitive advantage, the incorporation and integration of information which is available outside the borders of the company are a necessary condition”. This

Export market information

101

IMR 20,1

102

suggests that external information needs to be acted on (i.e. used) to develop organizational knowledge. There are numerous other research contributions supporting this proposed relationship between information and knowledge. For instance, it has been claimed that “[i]nformation use is the intermediate step and, therefore, essential to knowledge development, since it is through information represented in what we say, what we write and what we present that we develop new knowledge” (Marchand, 1998, p. 254). Similarly, Purvis et al. (2001) suggest that knowledge within a firm is created when individuals, teams, and departments “process information, make decisions, and act on existing knowledge”. Another view on the relationship between information and knowledge is offered by Bertels and Savage (1998, p. 17), who state that “information only comes alive by our interpretation, that we create meaning by distinguishing and valuing information”. Also the psychology and consumer behavior literature defines (consumer) knowledge as an aggregate of learned beliefs (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), frequency of product-related experiences or familiarity (e.g. purchasing, product use) or the expertise or ability to perform product-related tasks (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987). While the above examples show a clear causal linkage between the concepts of use of information and resultant knowledge, there are some indications in the general management literature that the opposite effect exists as well. Davenport and Prusak (1998), for example, define knowledge as “a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information”. This suggests that knowledge also has an impact on how information gets selected, filtered, and interpreted and, as such, indicates that the interpretation of information and its consequent use are determined by the existing knowledge base. This position is strengthened by the words of Teece (2001, p. 129), who states that “knowledgeable people and organizations can frame problems and select, integrate and augment information to create understandings and answers”. Further, the issue of knowledge creation is more complex than simply responding to external information. Earlier in this paper, the distinction between information-based knowledge (explicit knowledge) and experience-based knowledge (tacit knowledge) was set out. Organizational knowledge is believed to be created by interactions among individuals, with their diversity in expertise, values, insights, and ability to learn (Nonaka et al., 1998). Thus, the process of converting external market information into organizational knowledge can follow several tracks (Nonaka et al., 2001). Instrumental-conceptual information may be transformed into explicit knowledge by incorporating a justified true belief into, for example, company reports and manuals, formal databases, international product concepts and designs, etc. This knowledge is formed more by data and information than individual learning, values, and know-how. However,

instrumental-conceptual use of information can also be transformed into tacit knowledge by making the justified true belief routinized and embedded in actions and practices (Nonaka et al., 2001). This may include know-how in daily operations, organizational routines as well as more practical knowledgeincreasing activities such as shared, hands-on practice through experience in the marketplace, meetings with foreign buyers, and international seminars and workshops. Firms tend to put greater emphasis on explicit knowledge (Takeuchi, 2001) as its formal and systematic nature makes such knowledge easy to communicate (Gupta et al., 2000). Thus, stronger links are expected between instrumental-conceptual use of export market information and explicit market knowledge than between instrumental-conceptual use of export market information and tacit export knowledge. Thus, the following propositions are suggested: P1a. There is a positive relationship between instrumental-conceptual use of export market information and explicit market knowledge. P1b. There is a positive relationship between instrumental-conceptual use of export market information and tacit market knowledge. P1c. Instrumental-conceptual use of information in an export context has a larger impact on explicit market knowledge than on tacit market knowledge. Symbolic use of information, on the other hand, is not expected to create new knowledge or improve an existing knowledge base. This is due to the nature of symbolic use of information, which encourages distortion, oversimplifying, and ignoring of relevant information (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992); it is, in other words, “bad” use of information (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996). Thus it is reasonable to fear that using information in symbolic ways may dilute and even conceal the aggregated knowledge base. Thus, it is expected that: P1d. There is a negative relationship between symbolic use of export market information and explicit export market knowledge. P1e. There is a negative relationship between symbolic use of export market information and tacit export market knowledge. Impact on performance Several studies have linked market information to company success (Baker et al., 1988; Hooley and Lynch, 1985; Dolinger, 1984), including export performance (e.g. Hart and Tzokas, 1999). For example, formalized international marketing research activities tend to relate to better financial performance, and firms engaging in such activities have a better understanding of their customers, competitors, and the foreign environment, resulting in a

Export market information

103

IMR 20,1

104

competitive edge over competition (Koh, 1991). Also, particular manifestations of use of information, in terms of immediate and future use, have been revealed to be positively related to export performance (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997). Thus, it is expected that: P2a. There is a positive relationship between instrumental-conceptual use of export market information and firm export performance. Symbolic use has been associated with ignoring information, distorting research findings, oversimplifying, and in general using information in ways inconsistent with its intended purpose (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). Distorted knowledge can have negative consequences on decision making (Feldman and March, 1981), and it is reasonable to believe that such use of information has a negative effect on firm performance (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996). Thus it is proposed that: P2b. There is a negative relationship between symbolic use of export market information and firm export performance. The relationship between organizational knowledge and export performance has not as yet been discussed or empirically tested in the exporting literature. However, within the management literature, this relationship (particularly through the notion of sustainable competitive advantage) has substantial backing, as evidenced from the following quotes: “(a)ctual knowledge is the basis for a company’s survival in today’s competition and for the cyclical renewal of its identity” (Schu¨ppel et al., 1998, p. 233); “(c)ompanies differ in their organizational knowledge and these differences generally lead to persisting effects on relative performance” (Probst et al., 1998, p. 243); “(k)nowledge underpins the ability to compete” (McNaughton et al., 2001, p. 533); “to generate extraordinary value for shareholders, a company has to learn better than its competitors and apply that knowledge through its businesses faster and more widely than they do” (Prokesh, 1997, p. 148); “more effective management of the creation and use of knowledge would accelerate a company’s natural rate of learning, allow it to outpace competitors and create value for both customers and shareholders” (Lucier and Torsilieri, 2001, p. 232); “knowledge is seen as a factor of production and causally linked to organizational performance” (Patriotta and Pettigrew, 2001, p. 5). Based on the above, a positive link between organizational export knowledge and firm export performance can be expected: P2c. There is a positive relationship between explicit knowledge and firm’s export performance. P2d. There is a positive relationship between tacit knowledge and firm’s export performance. A summary of the proposed relationships is given in Figure 2.

Export market information

105 Figure 2. Proposed relationships

Conclusion and future research This paper has delineated the constructs of export market information use, organizational knowledge, and firm performance, and highlighted some key relationships between them. A deeper understanding of such relationships should make firms more aware of the possible effects of systematic use of export market information, and thereby enable them to take advantage of this insight. Specifically, different dimensions of use of information may be associated with different dimensions of knowledge and/or different dimensions of export performance. It has been suggested that export market information use has both a direct impact on firm export performance, and an indirect impact through export market knowledge. In this context, some aspects of information use are more performance-enhancing in an ultimate and direct manner (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1999), while others have more to do with knowledge generation and, hence, may have a longer-term impact on performance through learning processes (e.g. Baker and Sinkula, 1999). This has implications for both theory development (e.g. is knowledge a mediator between use and performance, and when?), research methodology (e.g. can this be empirically established in a cross-sectional study?), and management (e.g. are there different optimal strategies for using export market information based on learning over time?). The incorporation of a temporal dimension can have a major impact on how export market information use and use of knowledge interact with export performance. Early in the internationalization process, firms are likely to use information in an instrumental manner, and a direct effect on export performance can be expected. As the firm aggregates more general knowledge over time and learns to implement its strategies across different markets and/or products, it will also be capable of implementing its strategies based on prior knowledge and learning. Thus the relationship between use of prior knowledge and performance will become stronger and, correspondingly, the direct effect of information use on performance may become weaker. It is also possible that learning and knowledge over time will

IMR 20,1

106

influence how and why export market information is important or useful, and for what purposes (and hence, ultimately, what information should be acquired). Incorporation of a temporal dimension may well influence the conceptualization and operationalization of the key constructs involved. For example, it may be necessary to measure export performance over time and also consider potential performance in a model in which knowledge and learning aspects are included. Too narrow a conceptualization of performance may mask the true benefit of effective use of accumulated export market knowledge and thus provide an inaccurate picture of the role of knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in export marketing. Regarding future research, an investigation of different antecedents of both export market information use (e.g. Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1996) and export market knowledge will extend the proposed model to include several established research issues in export marketing (e.g. Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1997) and market orientation (e.g. Jaworski and Kohli, 1996). For example, future studies could examine how top management’s risk aversion, organizational formalization (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993), organizational culture and climate (Slater and Narver, 1995), export information acquisition modes (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1999), informational factors (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992), or environmental factors (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992) influence the relationship between export information use, organizational knowledge, and export performance at different stages in the internationalization process. In conclusion, knowledge and learning factors have a key role to play in the use of export market information and export performance. To improve their comparative export advantages, firms should acquire a better understanding of the content, antecedents and consequences of knowledge and learning behavior in their export setting, as well as stimulating a learning environment in order to enable efficient and effective use of export market information. The framework presented in this paper should be seen as the start of a road-map to enable them to do so. References Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 411-54. Argyris, C. and Scho¨n, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Baker, M.J., Hart, S.J. and Black, C.D. (1988), “The competitiveness of British industry: what really makes the difference?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 70-85. Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999), “The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 411-27.

Bentley, T. (1986), Management Information Systems and Data Processing, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, London. Bertels, T. and Savage, C. (1998), “Understanding knowledge in organizations”, in von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Kleine, D. (Eds), Knowing in Firms. Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge, Sage Publications, London. Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1982), “The utilization process; a conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 591-622. Bierly, P., Kessler, E. and Christensen, E. (2000), “Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 595-618. Boisot, M. (1998), Knowledge Assets, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Caplan, N., Morrison, A. and Stambaugh, R. (1975), The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Davis, G.B. and Olson, M.H. (1985), Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development, McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (1982), “Factors affecting the use of market research information: a path analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 14-31. Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (1984), “A comparison of factors affecting researcher and manager perceptions of market research use”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, February, pp. 32-8. Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (1987), “A comparison of factors affecting use of marketing information in consumer and industrial firms”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, February, pp. 114–18. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A. (1996), “Instrumental, conceptual and symbolic use of export information: an exploratory study of UK firms”, Advances of International Marketing, Vol. 8, pp. 117-44. Diamantopoulos, A. and Souchon, A. (1999), “Measuring export information use: scale development and validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 1-14. Dolinger, M.J. (1984), “Environmental boundary spanning and information-processing effects on organizational performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, pp. 351-68. Elliott, S. (1996/1997), “APQC conference attendees discover the value and enablers of a successful KK program”, Knowledge Management in Practice, Vol. 5, December-January, pp. 1-8. Feldman, M.S. and March, J.G. (1981), “Information in organizations as signal and symbol”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 171-86. Fiol, C. and Lyles, M. (1985), “Organizational learning”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 803-13. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Glazer, R. (1991), “Marketing in an information-intensive environment: strategic implications of knowledge as an asset”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, pp. 1-19. Gupta, B., Iyer, L.S. and Aronson, J. (2000), “Knowledge management: practices and challenges”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 17-21.

Export market information

107

IMR 20,1

Hart, S. and Tzokas, N. (1999), “The impact of marketing research activity on SME export performance: evidence from the UK”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 37, pp. 63-75. Hooley, G.J. and Lynch, J.E. (1985), “Marketing lessons from UL’s high-flying companies”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 43-59.

108

Huber, G. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, February, pp. 88-115. Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, pp. 53-70. Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1996), “Market orientation: review, refinement, and road-map”, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 1, pp. 119-35. Katsikeas, C.S., Leonidou, L.C. and Morgan, N.A. (2000), “Firm-level export performance assessment: review, evaluation, and development”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 493-511. Kilman, R., Slevin, D. and Thomas, K. (1983), “The problem of producing useful knowledge”, in Kilman, R., Thomas, K., Slevin, D., Nath, R. and Jerrel, S.L. (Eds), Producing Useful Knowledge for Organizations, Praeger Publishers, New York, NY. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993), “Knowledge of the firm and evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 625-45. Koh, A.C. (1991), “An evaluation of international marketing research planning in United States export firms”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 7-25. Kohli, A. and Jaworski, B. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18. Knorr, K. (1977), “Policymakers’ use of social science knowledge: symbolic or instrumental?”, in Weiss, C. (Ed.), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Lam, A. (2000), “Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: an integrated framework”, Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 487-513. Larsen, J. (1982), Information Utilization and Non-Utilization, American Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, Washington, DC. Leonidou, L. and Katsikeas, C. (1997), “Export information sources: the role of organizational and internationalization influences”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 65-87. Low, G. and Mohr, J. (2001), “Factors affecting the use of information in the evaluation of marketing communications productivity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 70-88. Lucier, C. and Torsilieri, J. (2001), “Can knowledge management deliver bottom-line results?”, in Nonaka, I. and Teece, D. (Eds), Managing Industrial Knowledge. Creation, Transfer and Utilization, Sage Publications, London. McNaughton, R.B., Osborne, P., Morgan, R.E. and Kutwaroo, G. (2001), “Market orientation and firm value”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17 No. 5/6, pp. 521-42. Marchand, D. (1998), “Competing with Intellectual capital”, in von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Kleine, D. (Eds), Knowing in Firms. Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge, Sage Publications, London. Menon, A. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1992), “A model of marketing knowledge use within firms”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, October, pp. 53-71.

Moorman, C. (1995), “Organizational market information processes: cultural antecedents and new product outcomes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, pp. 318-35. Moorman, C., Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993), “Factors affecting trust in market research relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 81-101. Moorman, C., Deshpande´, R. and Zaltman, G. (2001), “Relationship between providers and users of market research: the role of personal trust”, in Deshpande´, R. (Ed.), Using Market Knowledge, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge-creating company”, Harvard Business Review, Boston, MA, pp. 96-104. Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, February, pp. 14-37. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2001), “SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation”, in Nonaka, I. and Teece, D. (Eds), Managing Industrial Knowledge. Creation, Transfer and Utilization, Sage Publications, London. Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K. and Sasaki, K. (1998), “Three tales of knowledge-creating companies”, in von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Kleine, D. (Eds), Knowing in Firms. Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge, Sage Publications, London. Patriotta, G. and Pettigrew, A. (2001), “Studying, knowing and organizing”, working paper, Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Polanyi, M. (1962), Personal Knowledge, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Probst, G., Bu¨chel, B. and Raub, S. (1998), “Knowledge as a strategic resource”, in von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Kleine, D. (Eds), Knowing in Firms. Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge, Sage Publications, London. Prokesh, S.E. (1997), “Unleashing the power of learning: an interview with British Petroleum’s John Browne”, Harvard Business Review, Boston, MA, pp. 146-68. Purvis, R., Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R.V. (2001), “The assimilation of knowledge platforms in organizations: an empirical investigation”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 117-35. Schu¨ppel, J., Mu¨ller-Stewens, G. and Gomez, P. (1998), “The knowledge spiral”, in von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Kleine, D. (Eds), Knowing in Firms. Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge, Sage Publications, London. Seringhaus, F.H.R. (1993), “Comparative marketing behaviour of Canadian and Austrian hightech exporters”, Management International Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 247-69. Shoham, A. (1996), “Marketing-mix standardization: determinants of export performance”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 53-73. Sinkula, J. (1990), “Perceived characteristics, organizational factors, and the utilization of external market research suppliers”, Journal of Business Research, August, pp. 1-17. Sinkula, J. (1994), “Market information processing and organizational learning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 35-45. Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 63-74. Souchon, A. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), “A conceptual framework of export marketing information use: key issues and research propositions”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 49-71.

Export market information

109

IMR 20,1

110

Souchon, A. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1997), “Use and non-use of export information: some preliminary insights into antecedents and impact on export performance”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 135-51. Souchon, A. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1999), “Export information acquisition modes: measure development and validation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 143-68. Styles, C. (1998), “Export performance measures in Australia and the United Kingdom”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 12-36. Takeuchi, H. (2001), “Towards a universal management concept of knowledge”, in Nonaka, I. and Teece, D. (Eds), Managing Industrial Knowledge. Creation, Transfer and Utilization, Sage Publications, London. Teece, D.J. (2001), “Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial context”, in Nonaka, I. and Teece, D. (Eds), Managing Industrial Knowledge. Creation Transfer and Utilization, Sage Publications, London. Walsh, J. and Ungson, G. (1991), “Organizational memory”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-91. Weiss, C. (1977), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, D.C. Heath & Company, Lexington, MA. Weiss, C. (1981), “Measuring the use of evaluation”, in Ciarlo, J. (Ed.), Utilizing Evaluation: Concepts and Measurement Techniques, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Emerald Fulltext The online full text management research database Full text access to the latest research and global thinking

Prestigious, peer reviewed management articles with user access for all – whenever, wherever

Sophisticated yet simple searching, with archives that significantly expand your library collection and training resources to encourage and support usage Further Emerald products are available. Evaluate Emerald content for yourself – visit www.emeraldinsight.com for your 30-DAY FREE TRIAL!

www.emeraldinsight.com

information ideas insight

Literati Club Support and services for authors and editors The Literati Club provides services and support for those authors who publish within an Emerald journal and for the editors of each of our journals The Literati Club is a tangible expression of commitment by a publisher to its authors and editors Through our Internet presence we aim to offer support and resources to all authors and editors worldwide We address issues such as copyright, service levels and standards, time in review and time of publication

For further information or suggestions please contact us at [email protected]

www.emeraldinsight.com/literaticlub

information ideas insight