Oe^Y
ALFRED
P.
WORKING PAPER
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
"strategic consistency, synergy and business performance
Gordon Walker
aiTd
Raymond Thietart
WP #1742-86
January 1986
MASSACHUSETTS
TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
INSTITUTE OF
Strategic consistency, synergy and business performance
Gordon Walker
alid
Raymond Thietart
January 1986
WP #1742-86
STRATEGIC CONSISTENCY, SYNERGY AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE
Gordon Walker
Sloan School of Management
MIT
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-2574
and
Raymond Thietart
ESSEC
BP 105
95021 Cergy Cedex
France
011-33-14-341-2333
Business Policy and Planning Division
STRATEGIC CONSISTENCY, SYNERGY, AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE
The research presented in this paper 1) operat ionalizes a type of
strategic consistency at the business level, 2) compares the effect of
strategic consistency on business unit performance to that of a less
parsimonious model of operational consistency, and 3) identifies
differences in the strategic consistency effect between businesses that
share activities extensively with other businesses in the corporation
(high synergy) and businesses that do not share activities extensively
(low synergy). The results show that there is a substantial tradeoff
between corporate level synergy and intra-business unit consistency.
concept
The
business,
consistency
achieve
concurrently
In this paper
within
the
Strategic
1978).
example, Porter, 1985, Chapter 10).
business
involves
level
investing
within the business unit that together support
goals.
as correlating investments
function
Schendel,
involves correlating investments in
for
the
unit's
the
of
corporate,
other across individual business units to
(see
at
functions
in
achievement
defined
a
goals
consistency
and
level
each
reinforce
firm's
the
(Hofer
corporate
the
at
that
Strategic
the
high performance in organizations
of strategy in organizations:
levels
operational
and
functions
to normative and
the relationships between types of consistency associated with
prototypical
three
the
central
Galbraith, 1977; Peters and Waterman, 1984).
1975;
examine
we
become
has
achieving
about
statements
empiricial
(Child,
consistency
of
business
Operational consistency can be
in the various activities that comprise
unit
and,
in the context of the unit's
strategy, that together support the achievement of the function's goals.
operational
Although
consistency
the
activities
must
activities
unit
business
within
may
inter-unit
level
be
in
conflict
with
businesses,
investments
lose
in
these
As a result,
some of their control over these activities
and so the degree of strategic consistency within the
decreased.
sharing
across
coordinated by the businesses involved.
managers
be
the
cost
Porter (1985: p. 332) calls this effect of
of compromise.
The purposes of the present
are to demonstrate first, that strategic consistency at the business
can
be
parsimoniously
the
be
and corporate consistency may be incongruent.
shared
are
units
their
business
paper
business
functions,
across
not
unit manager has the power to correlate multiple investments
business
When
need
level and may in fact contribute to it when
business
the
at
consistency
power
of
operationalized
than
the
a
model
strategic
and
related
to
unit
performance
more
of operational consistency and second, that
consistency model to explain performance
is
-2-
higher
business
for
activities
of
which
units
share
small
a
percentage
of
their
other units in the corporation, and therefore whose costs
with
compromise are low, than for units which share more of their operations
and whose costs of compromise are high.
In
within
consistency
marketing
quality
of
1985, Chapter 4)
marketing
expenditures
consistency
operational
outcome
not
a
correlated,
the
business
an
investments
expenditures.
correlated,
in
Investments
in
the
to
has
To the extent the types
business
the
measures
extent
operational
achieved
has
achieved
Similarly, because quality is
this function.
function,
strategic
marketing are broken down into
in
including service.
are
in
concurrent
to
of
made in activities across the value chain
expenditures
encompass
unit
promotion
and
definition
our
limit
Investments
advertising
Porter,
(see
we
business
the
quality.
and
force,
sales
research
present
the
of
quality
are
consistency for the
activities that contribute to this goal.
strategic
The
marketing
expenditures
serve
of
been
Nelson
signals
as
association
the
has
First,
perspectives.
the
value
quality
and
Chapter
(1985,
subsets
of
sufficient
is
Last,
Klein
and
expenditures
commitment
two
the
alone
proposed
investments
in
three
different
that
marketing
of quality and thereby alert consumers to
Second, in a similar vein, Porter
distinction
signalling
between
strategy of product differentiation.
quality
signalling;
the
from
and
use
components of purchasing decisions from suppliers following
as
business
generic
makes
4)
has
(1974)
product's valuable characteristics.
criteria
between
proposed
criteria
is
to
Leffer
is not due
to
related
he mentions:
to use.
a
Our model involves
marketing operations involve
Both are necessary, but neither
achieve high performance (Porter, 1985, p. 140).
(1981)
have argued that the effect of marketing
to signalling but
to the demonstration of supplier
the level of quality in the product;
buyers should be more
-3-
willing
purchase
to
costs
irretrievable
high
product when they know that the supplier has sunk
a
into
selling it and thereby implicitly ensures
that the level of quality will be maintained over the long term.
the association between investments in marketing and quality
Because
justified
theoretical grounds
on
priori, strategic consistency
can
be
can
be specified separately from its relationship to performance; and this
relationship
able
are
rendering
parsimonious
mentioned
we
the
Paine,
by
Finally,
examine
the
corporation
between
performance
and
This comparison illuminates the
1981).
and
operational
strategic
defining
investments,
level
consistency
as
at the
effects of inter-unit sharing of these activities in
the
on
potential
compare
relationship
as joint investments in activities within a business unit,
level
can
the
strategic
above.
business
more
performance (Schoeffler, Buzzell and Heany, 1974;
and
between
difference
of
of
Anderson
Zeithaml,
is a
investments than the operational consistency model, is also
predictor
better
With the present model, furthermore, we
whether the strategic consistency model that
test
business-level
a
then be tested.
can
to
a
focal unit's achievement of consistency and thus
between
conflicts
inter-unit
synergy
and intra-unit
can
contrasted
consistency.
deductive
Our
Hambrick's
strategy
(1983)
for
relationships
Van
with
de
goods,
strategic
consistency
of
be
to
building a contingency theory of
businesses
and Galbraith and Schendel's
method of identifying strategic types that vary in their
performance.
(1985)
Our approach also differs from Drazin and
operationalization of "fit" through its association
work unit performance.
specific
than
Ven's
to
to
method
inductive
industrial
inductive
(1982)
approach
These alternative methods do not so much test
hypotheses as uncover underlying patterns in the data.
Models of
consistency, such as ours, that are theoretically derived rather
derived from the data should be methodologically more robust and lead
to a stronger tradition of theory development.
-4-
MODELS
Figure
In
which
factor
representing
order
strategic consistency is represented as
explains
turn
in
marketing
correlation
the
operational
factors
specific
1,
between
first
a
second order
order
consistency in marketing and quality.
explain
activities
The first
correlations between investments in
the
between
and
factors,
measures
the quality of
of
products and services provided by the business.
Insert Figure
Figure
business
strategic
(Rumelt
model
shows
2a
1
About Here
the relationship between strategic consistency and
performance
measured
consistency
and
return
as
market
on
which,
share
investment,
albeit
and
between
controversially
Wensley, 1981), may also influence return on investment.
and
The
in which operational but not strategic consistency influences return
on investment and market share is shown in Figure 2b.
Insert Figure
Both
consistency
fit
models
research,
of
strategic
can
the two models.
1.
and
may
(Figure
About Here
2a)
be
and
be fit to data and a
obtained (see Bentler and Bonett, 1980).
concept
If
strategic
the
2
consistency,
determined
as
operational
(Figure
2b)
measure of their goodness of
The explanatory value of the
operationalized
in
the
present
by comparing the goodness of fit indices of
Our first research question is:
Does the strategic consistency model explain the relationships
between business performance and investments in marketing and
quality as well as the less parsimonious operational consistency
model?
there is no significant difference in fit between strategic consistency
the operational consistency models, we can accept the former as a more
-5-
representation
powerful
of
relationship
the
between
the
investment
behavior of the business unit and its performance.
model
show
to
higher
is
extensively
operations
we
want
also
We
consistency
that the explanatory power of the strategic
business units that do not share their
for
To this end,
with other units in the corporation.
choose the inter-unit sharing of marketing activities and of facilities
(plant
equipment)
and
To
corporation.
value
explanatory
research
of
the
marketing
and
indicate
synergies
effect
the
strategic
of
across
businesses in the
inter unit sharing on the
consistency
model
in
the present
the extreme cases of high sharing of both production
compare
we
facilities
to
demonstrate
activities
and low sharing of these functions.
Our second research question then is:
strategic consistency model explain the relationships
business performance and investments in marketing and
better in the low sharing subsample of businesses than
in the high sharing subsample?
Does
2.
the
between
quality
high
the
to
of fit of the strategic consistency model should be lower in
goodness
The
be
sharing
able
less
allocation
subsample of business units, whose managers are assumed
achieve
to
compromises
strategic
consistency because of resource
with other units, than in the low sharing business
units which are less constrained by corporate synergies.
DATA AND METHODS
We
database
data
test
using
our
the
models
last
on
businesses in the SPI4 version of the PIMS
year of data for each business.
This source of
is controversial (Wensley, 1982) but is consistently used by business
strategy
researchers
because
of
its
breadth, size, and general quality
(Ramanujam and Venkatraman, 1984).
A
that
of
the
of
authors (Phillips, Chang and Buzzell, 1983) have shown
validity
of business strategies varies substantially over types
number
business.
We chose components businesses for our sample.
For several
-6-
reasons
we
major
businesses
components
have
costs
quality
sharing component fabrication facilities is conflict over
of
Second,
goals.
activities
are appropriate for studying the questions
First, Porter (1985, p. 345) points out that one of the
posed.
production
the
technologies
and
marketing
of components businesses typically may be either specialized or
general izab
businesses.
other
to
le
components
producers
As
a
result,
the
subsample
of
likely to have a broad distribution of inter-unit
is
sharing.
In
for
present
the
marketing
been
activities
achieved
in
market
which
in
appropriate
are
sells
its
a
carefully defined version of the
products
that
is
particularly
bidding process through which components
competitive
the
extent to which quality outcomes have
relative to the unit's three most important
unit
the
the
market",
"served
the
to
and
measured
were
competitors
business unit resource allocation decisions
study,
Business performance is indicated by return on investment; and
sold.
marketing and quality variables, market share is measured relative to
like
that of important competitors.
structural
The
LISREL
(Joreskog
estimation
First,
as
equation
models shown in Figure
2
were tested using
and Sorbom, 1982), a full information maximum likelihood
technique.
measurement
There
are
advantages
several
of
this method.
may be specified and estimated at the same time
error
strategic and operational consistency and their effects on market share
and
performance.
to
the
PIMS
contaminating
(Figure
2a)
estimated
normally
LISREL
This characteristic of the analysis addresses objections
data
on
subjective
through
biases.
which
simultaneously
grounds
the
questionnaire
that
data
Second, the second order factor model
strategic
consistency
is
specified
a
can be
(Weeks, 1980) rather than sequentially, as would
be done using more restricted factor analytic techniques.
produces
contain
chi-square
statistic as
a
Third,
measure of goodness of fit;
.
-7and
this measure can be compared across models to determine their relative
explanatory power.
RESULTS
correlation matrices for the high and low sharing subsamples are
The
found
Table
in
subsample
plant
equipment
and
marketing
sharing
shared
they
if
business
The
1.
than ten percent (median split) of their
less
and
units were placed in the low sharing
ten percent (median split) of their
than
less
with other units in the corporation.
activities
Likewise, high
businesses shared more than ten percent of plant and equipment and
of marketing activities with other corporate units.
Insert Table
Table
1
About Here
shows the result of the LISREL analysis for the operational
2
and
strategic consistency models for both subsamples.
are
presented.
chi-square
The
goodness
Standardized scores
of fit value of each model is
presented below it.
Insert Table
The
consistency
consistency
subsamples
are
high
between)
operations
marketing
or
quality
although
expected
the
achieving
both
loadings
hampered
not
is
the
significant
that
production.
consistency
of
and
and
indicating
About Here
investment in the three marketing activities on
loadings of (relative)
marketing
2
are
measures
in
of
both
consistency
by
quality
high
and
on
quality
low
sharing
within (as opposed to
multi-unit
participation
in
Furthermore, in both subsamples, marketing and
load
significantly
lower
for
the
on
high
strategic consistency,
sharing
subsample, as
stimulated
expectation,
The
goodness
of
of
fit
significantly
by
question
research
strategic
the
for
both high and low sharing subsamples.
subsample
the
chi-square difference is
.70.
And
the
and
.13 with
1
that the
not
be
For the high sharing
degree of freedom, p =
for the low sharing subsample the difference is
goodness
of
higher
for
substantially
of
fit
strategic
the
1.7, p = .21.
model
consistency
is
businesses that have a low degree of inter-unit
their corporation than for businesses that share marketing
within
sharing
would
from that of the operational consistency model is
different
confirmed
Also,
one,
model
consistency
production facilities more extensively.
Research question two is thus
answered in the affirmative.
Interestingly,
models
roughly
and
variance
the
high
than
explained
and strategic consistency
performance is higher for low sharing
in
Also,
strategic
consistency
explains
the variance in performance in the low sharing subsample;
of
estimate
this
marketing
operational
the
businesses.
sharing
25%
both
in
roughly 25% more than the variance explained by the
is
variables
quality
and
independently
in
the
operational
consistency model for this subsample.
Likewise,
explains
do
high
the
sharing
businesses, strategic consistency
greater proportion of the variance in performance (13.5%) than
a
marketing
and
quality
However, for high sharing businesses
alone.
the effect of strategic consistency nor the independent effects of
neither
marketing
for
for
or
quality on performance are significant.
Note, moreover that
the high sharing subsample, both operational and strategic consistency
models
provide
only
marginally
acceptable
fits using at p = .05 as the
cutoff for acceptability (see Bagozzi, 1980).
For
explains
marketing
both
high
low
and
sharing
more
variance
in
and
quality;
however,
subsamples, strategic consistency
share than do separate investments in
market
in
contrast
to
return on investment,
-9-
market
share
businesses.
sharing
reversal
this
In
market
occur
it
predicts
of
quality on market share does not
since
performance and market share are
This result is consistent with early findings
Buzzell
(Schoeffler,
and
Heany,
1974)
which
In the absence of a detailed analysis of the markets in which
that these markets reward specialized producers using
suggest
tentatively
by our sample businesses are sold, these results
produced
components
differentiation
strategies
Chapter
1984,
than
that are purchased less frequently, on average, than
goods
for
components.
7)
Porter, 1980, Chapter 7; Hax and Majluf,
(see
that
and
opportunities
exploit
strongly
that the association between market share and ROI is more likely
indicated
the
indirectly
relationship
this
more
times
effect
the
performance more than it
influences
the high sharing subsample quality predicts
in
related.
significantly
for
quality
three
However,
performance
influence
not
to
share;
almost
share
performance.
the operational consistency model demonstrates,
As
businesses
market
influences
high sharing than in the low
the
in
due primarily to role of quality in the two subsamples.
is
sharing
low
predicted
better
is
low
achieve
to
businesses
sharing
high
performance
are better able to
through
intra-unit
coordination rather than inter-unit synergies.
DISCUSSION
on
a
present
the
In
strategic
number
predictive
of
power
we have operationalized a particular type of
study
consistency,
the
performance advantages of which were proposed
theoretical
of
grounds,
construct
this
demonstrated
and
over
a
model
the
superior
in which operations
influenced performance independently and directly.
Furthermore,
consistency
production
was
as
greater
expected,
in
the
businesses
explanatory
power
of
strategic
that did not share marketing and
activities with other businesses in the corporation.
The costs
-10of
inter-business
unit compromise to accomplish corporate-level synergies
apparently
overrode
themselves;
such
should
appeared
have
consistency
control
least
at
model but did not.
provided
by
a
results
the
in
synergy
units
the
to
differentiation strategy,
for
operational
the
These results show that it is important to
the involvement of a business unit in inter-unit sharing when
for
examning
benefits
the
benefits, as they related to
effects of investments in operations on performance and that
the
combinations
of investments may be more powerful predictors of performance
than the investments alone (see Hambrick, 1983).
should
It
to
strategic
business
consistency,
level,
propositions.
dimension
of
business
benefits
It
is
strategy
associated
across
value
the
correlated
(1985)
chain
investments
investments
and
as
to
a
quality
test
our
second order
outcomes
are
thus
could
explore
not
potential cost
the
inter-unit sharing (Porter, 1985, pp. 343-349).
within
business
a
might
separated
be
from
Examining Porter's
made at the corporate level.
list of the advantages and disadvantages of activity sharing across
businesses
pooling
in a corporation,
at
therefore
support
cost
corporate
difficult.
The
characterize
constraints
Although
do
we
that
for example,
corporate-level
the
Disentangling
likely
which
in
consistency
at the
our investigation to differentiation as a type
and
with
business
sharing
however, how correlations in cost reducing investments
clear,
not
inter-unit
to
strategic
marketing
restricted
of
type
specifying
which
we
approach
one
one
and
By
with
correlated,
emphasized, however, that we have chosen one approach
be
they
leadership
and
indicates that the advantages of
for the most part cost-related, and
are
strategies
business
at
investments
the
business
might
level.
therefore
be
disadvantages which the results of our study demonstrate
not
on
examine
will
business
units to differentiate themselves.
businesses
experience
higher
with low cost strategies, it is
benefits
from
sharing.
The
-11-
results
therefore
study
this
of
Christensen
and
Montgomery,
strategies
of
the
relationships
interesting implications for the
have
for "related" corporate diversification (Rumelt, 1974;
rationale
standard
1982; Shelton, 1985), specifically, that the
businesses
need
be
to
which
considered
involved
are
these
for
synergistic
in
relationships
to
be
rationalized as leading to higher performance.
However,
we
were too limited to capture the benefits sharing can provide.
selected
Porter
relationships,
described, and intangible relationships
have
transfers of know-how.
Marketing and production
are only two of the many types of tangibles that business units
others
share;
examination
broader
we
as
inter-unit
of
facilities
may
such
the distinction between tangible inter-unit
makes
again,
(1985),
comprised
possible that the measures of inter-business sharing
is
it
of
technology
include
effects
the
and
procurement.
A
fuller
synergy on business strategy including
of
a
of tangible and untangible relationships is called for (see
range
Wells, 1984).
Furthermore,
differences
share
and
are
limited
to
businesses
producing
marketing and quality variables on market
in the effect of
performance (see Phillips, Chang and Buzzell, 1983), and in the
distributions
facilities
results
Other types of businesses may show dissimilar results because
components.
of
our
intercorporate
of
businesses
across
due
sharing
to
of
the
and
production
adoption
of generic
marketing
general
facilities or the demands of functional specialization.
Finally,
validation
Phillips,
constructs
strategic
study is one of the few that attempts to take constrct
our
using the PIMS data seriously (Ramanujam and Venkatraman, 1984;
Chang
as
and
is
typically
consistency.
configuration
Buzzell,
oriented
Our
1983).
done,
but
We validated not only first order
the
second
order
construct of
model and method can be contrasted with the
approaches
of authors with more complex models of
-12-
consistency
(Galbraith
content
that
have
far
so
defied
large
sample
empirical
and Nathanson, 1978; Peters and Waterman, 1984).
testing
Expanding the
and generalizability of the model, especially to include strategic
decision making over time,
is
clearly a next step.
-13-
TABLE
1
Correlation Matrices for High and Low Sharing Businesses
High Sharing Businesses
Return on investment
Relative market share
1.00
n=176
.22
1.00
Relative sales force
-.02
.04
Relative advertising
.16
.24
.41
1.00
Relative promotion
.08
.10
.38
.63
1.00
Relative product quality
.22
.35
-.10
.13
.11
1.00
Relative service quality
.09
.31
-.01
.17
.09
.41
Relative image for quality
.18
.32
.06
.14
.18
.55
1.00
1.00
.59 1.00
Low Sharing Businesses
Return on investment
1.00
n=210
Relative market share
.25
1.00
Relative sales force
.16
.11
Relative advertising
.19
.31
.39
1.00
Relative promotion
.22
.29
.49
.71
1.00
.23
.28
1.00
Relative product quality
.35
.29
.26
Relative service quality
.26
.24
.16
.29
.29
.43
1.00
Relative image for quality
.34
.32
.19
.33
.31
.51
.53
1.00
1.00
15
Si
-16-
FIGDRE
1
Second Order Factor Model of Strategic Consistency
Sales Force
Expenditures Relative
to Competitors
Advertising
Expenditures Relative
to Competitors
Promotional
Expenditures Relative
to Competitors
Product Quality
Relative to
Competitors
Service Quality
Relative to
Competitors
Image for Quality
Relative to
Competitors
-17-
FIGDRE
2
Strategic Consistency, Operational Consistency and Business Performance
a.
Strategic consistency, market share and return on investment
Relative
Sales Force
-4
-»
b.
Operational consistency, market share
Relative
Sales Force
->!
Relative
Service
Quality
return on investment
Return on
Investment
.
REFERENCES
3.
Bagozzi, R. P. 1980. Causal Models in Marketing
Wiley.
.
New York: John
5. Bentler, P. M. & Bonnett, D. G. 1980. Significance tests and
goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin
.
3:588-606.
7.
Child, J. 1975. Managerial and organizational factors associated
with comany performance - Part II: A contingency approach.
Journal of Management Studies 12:12-27
8.
Christensen, H. K. & Montgomery, C. A. 1982. Corporate economic
performance: Diversification strategy versus market structure.
Strategic Management Journal 2:327-343.
.
.
9. Drazin, R. & Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. An examination of alternative
forms of fit in contingency theory. Admin i s tT a t i Vf Sn'pnc P
.
Quarterly
.
(
.
.
.
f orthcoming)
10.
Galbraith, J. 1977. Organization Design
Addison-Wesley.
12.
Galbraith, J. & Nathanson, D. 1978. Stategv Implementaion
Paul , MK: West.
.
Reading, MA:
.
St.
& Schendel, D. 1982. An empirical analysis of
strategy types. Working paper no. 792, Krannert Graduate School
of Management, Purdue University.
13. Galbraith, C.
C. 1983. High profit strategies in mature capital
goods industries: A contingency approach. Academy of Manappment
Journal 26:687-707.
14. Hambrick, D.
.
C. & Majluf, N. S. 1984. Strategic Management
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Hax, A.
16.
Englewood
Hofer, A. C. & Schendel, D. 1978. Strategy Formulation:
Analytical Cnnrppfs St. Paul, MN West.
.
17.
.
:
Joreskog, K. & Sorbom, D. 1982. LISREL: Analysis of linear
structural relationships b y method of maximum likplihonri
Chicago: National Educational Resources.
.
1981. The role of market forces in
assuring contractual performance. Journal of Political Economy
89:615-641.
18. Klein, B. & Leffler, K. B.
19.
,
Nelson, P. 1974. Advertising as information. Journal of Political
Frnnnmy 82:729"54.
,
.
- 20 -
20. Peters, T. & Waterman, R. H.
1982. In Search of Excellence
.
New
York: Harper and Row.
21. Phillips, L. W., Chang, D. R. & Buzzell, R. D. 1983. Product
quality, cost position and business performance: A test of some
key hypotheses. Journal of Marketing
47:26-43.
,
22. Porter, M.
1980. Competitive Strategy
23. Porter, M.
1980. Competitive Advantage
New York: Free Press.
.
.
New York: Free Press.
24. Ramanujam, V. & Venkatraman, N. 1984. An inventory and critique
of strategy research using the PIMS databafp. Academy of
Management Review
,
9:138-151.
25. Rumelt, R. P.
1974. Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance
Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
.
26. Rumelt, R. P. & Wensley, R. 1931. In search of the market share
effect. Proceedings of t he Academy of Management. 2-6.
27.
Schoeffler, S., Buzzell, R. & Heany, D. F. 1974. Impact of
strategic planning on profit performance. Harvard Business
Review 52(1) :137-145
.
28. Shelton, L.
1985. Strategic business fits and corporate
acquisition: empirical evidence. Working paper no. 1705-85. Sloan
School of Management, MIT.
29. Weeks, D. G. 1980. A second-order longitudinal model of ability
Structure. Mnl HvaT-iat-p P. phavi nr a 1 Research. 15:353-365.
30. Wells, J. R.
1984. In search of synergy: strategies for related
diversification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard
University.
31. Wensley, R.
1982. PIMS and BCG: New horizon or false dawn.
Strategic Management Journal . 3:147-158.
32. Zeithaml, C. P., Anderson, C. R. & Paine, F. T. 1981. An
empirical re-examination of selected PIMS findings. ProCPPdings
of the Academy of Management . 12-16.
b(i30
GO?
Dat8flftf.ME.Ml
3
^DflO 004
DflM
M2T