B2B marketing

As competition in world markets has intensified,increasing numbers of firms are seeking opportu-nities in foreign markets to achieve their objec-

tives. In this context, exporting is the most widely usedfirm strategy for international expansion. Exportingactivity is also important for governments because itcontributes to the economic development of nations,

helps national industries develop, improves productiv-ity, and creates jobs (Czinkota 1994). Not surprisingly,the premise that successful exporting is critical to bothorganizational and national prosperity has gained muchsupport in recent decades (Diamantopoulos and Kakkos2007; Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006). There-fore, understanding the drivers of export performance isa significant area of research interest in marketing.However, despite the substantial published research thathas been reported to identify the determinants of exportperformance, little research has investigated the possibleimpact of managers’ individual values on the export per-formance of the firm. This gap is both crucial and surpris-

The Key Role of Managers’ Values in Exporting: Influence on CustomerResponsiveness and Export PerformanceCarlos M.P. Sousa, Emilio Ruzo, and Fernando Losada

ABSTRACTValues are an essential element explaining a person’s attitudes and behavior. Therefore, it is surprising that despite thenumber of studies that have examined the organizational and managerial factors affecting export performance, littleresearch has investigated the possible impact of a manager’s individual values on strategic choice and the export per-formance of the firm. To address this gap in the literature, the authors examine the impact of managers’ values on thefirm’s customer responsiveness and export performance. In addition, they examine the mediating role of customerresponsiveness in the values–export performance linkage. The authors explore the empirical usefulness of the psychicdistance construct by examining its direct link with export performance and the extent to which it moderates the rela-tionship between individual values and export performance. Overall, the results suggest that managers’ values signifi-cantly influence strategic decisions and the export performance of the firm, highlighting the need for more researchattention in this area.

Keywords: individual values, export performance, customer responsiveness, psychic distance

Journal of International Marketing

©2010, American Marketing Association

Vol. 18, No. 2, 2010, pp. 1–19

ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)

Key Role of Managers’ Values in Exporting 1

Carlos M.P. Sousa is Lecturer of Marketing, MarketingGroup, UCD Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School, Uni-versity College Dublin (e-mail: [email protected]).

Emilio Ruzo is Associate Professor of Marketing and MarketResearch, Department of Business and Marketing Manage-ment, Faculty of Business Management, University of Santi-ago de Compostela (e-mail: [email protected]).

Fernando Losada is Associate Professor of Marketing andMarket Research, Department of Business and MarketingManagement, Faculty of Business Management, University ofSantiago de Compostela (e-mail: [email protected]).

2 Journal of International Marketing

ing, given that the manager is the principal force behindthe initiation, development, sustenance, and success of afirm’s export effort; moreover, values are an essential ele-ment explaining a person’s attitudes and behavior.

Values are relatively stable criteria that people use toevaluate their own and others’ behavior across varioussituations (Schwartz 1992) and are a crucial element forthe subjective appraisal of events (Feather 1988). Theway people perceive the world is influenced by theirvalue systems (Schwartz 1992; Williams 1968). There-fore, understanding managers’ value systems is impor-tant in light of the growing evidence revealing that theway managers interpret a market situation directlyaffects the solutions considered, resources committed,and changes made in terms of strategic decisions(Thomas, Clark, and Gioia 1993; White, Varadarajan,and Dacin 2003). This is consistent with the view thatmanagers’ values should be considered key determinantsof strategic choices and firm performance (Carpenter,Geletkanycz, and Sanders 2004).

Thus, the main purpose of this study is to investigatehow managers’ individual values affect strategic choiceand export performance. Specifically, we focus on thefollowing research question: What is the impact of man-agers’ individual values on strategic choice and exportperformance of the firm? To this end, we develop andtest a model that investigates the impact of individualvalues on the firm’s customer responsiveness and exportperformance. Customer responsiveness refers to thefirm’s ability to respond quickly to customer needs andwants. We selected customer responsiveness becausethere is growing evidence that it is a key element of afirm’s marketing capabilities that influence the firm’sperformance (Jayachandran, Hewett, and Kaufman2004; Krasnikov and Jayachandran 2008).

In the next section, we present the conceptual back-ground to the research and develop specific researchhypotheses. This is followed by a description of theresearch methodology. After presenting the results anddiscussing their implications, we conclude with a discus-sion of the limitations and suggestions for furtherresearch.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ANDRESEARCH HYPOTHESESTheoretical BackgroundStudies in several research streams consistently point outthat managerial characteristics are critical and decisive

in a firm’s strategies and outcomes. In the area of strate-gic management, a considerable number of studies havebeen dedicated in the past four decades to emphasizingthe importance of management in strategic choice andperformance (e.g., Cannella and Monroe 1997; Ham-brick 2007; Miller and Toulouse 1986). How much theindividual manager matters in determining firm behav-ior and performance has also attracted recent researchattention in economics and finance—an area that so farhas given little consideration to this issue (Bertrand andSchoar 2003). Not surprisingly, in the area of market-ing, several studies have also been conducted to investi-gate the impact of managers on firm strategy and per-formance. For example, in their study, White,Varadarajan, and Dacin (2003) show that marketingexecutives’ cognitive style affects their interpretation ofa market situation and their response to it. In contrast,Griffith and Lusch (2007) investigate how marketers’perceptions of the governance structure are related totheir capital investments. Goldfarb and Yang’s (2009)recent study questions whether all managers are createdequal and suggests that managers’ abilities affect mar-keting outcomes. Consequently, there seems to be a gen-eral consensus in the literature that managers matter inorganizations because of their influence on strategicchoice and performance. Indeed, it is possible to arguethat marketing managers play a significant role throughtheir responsibility to interpret the environment andmake crucial choices regarding which customers toserve, which competitors to challenge, and which prod-ucts and services to offer (Day 1984).

This importance is also acknowledged in the export lit-erature, in which research has continuously identifiedmanagement as the principal force behind the initiation,development, sustenance, and success of a firm’s exporteffort because of the direct responsibility for andinvolvement in export decisions (Miesenböck 1988;Sousa, Martinez-Lopez, and Coelho 2008). In this con-text, Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Piercy (1998) review theliterature to identify the impact of managerial influenceson exporting. Their study indicates that the most widelyinvestigated managerial variables were of an objectivenature (e.g., age, education, experience), which, in gen-eral, received weak empirical support. Though lessresearched, subjective managerial characteristics (e.g.,risk perception, flexibility, dynamism) were found toconsistently show a strong association with exporting,underlining their superior influence in this field.

Traditionally, more attention has been devoted to demo-graphic variables than to cognitive factors because of


their convenience and the ease of data collection (Priem,Lyon, and Dess 1999). However, it may be more appro-priate to focus on psychographic or cognitive variablesbecause they have been found to be better predictorsand may contain less noise than demographic indicators(Hambrick and Mason 1984; Priem, Lyon, and Dess1999). The key factors that influence performance out-comes are the psychological characteristics of executives(Carpenter, Geletkanycz, and Sanders 2004) becausethey provide a pointed causal link to the executivebehaviors (Finkelstein, Hambrick, and Cannella 2008).In this context, managers’ values have been identified asthe main determinant of strategic outcomes and firmperformance (Hambrick 2007).

This is consistent with some studies in the export litera-ture (e.g., Axinn 1988) that find that managers’ atti-tudes toward exporting are the most significant indica-tor of export performance. Considering that attitudesare based on values (Homer and Kahle 1988), theemphasis should be on values. People assess events andmake decisions using values as their criteria (Kluckhohn1951; Rokeach 1973). Therefore, understanding thepeople’s value systems is important because values arean essential element to explain their attitudes andbehavior.

Building on the preceding discussion, we present a model(see Figure 1) that includes the manager’s individual val-ues as determinants of strategic decision making and

the export performance of the firm. In terms of strategicdecision making, the marketing literature has long advocated the importance of responding to customerneeds for the long-term sustainability of a firm’s competi-tive advantage (Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster 1993;Kohli and Jaworski 1990). The firm’s capability torespond to customers’ requests is considered a key deter-minant and critical to the success of the firm (Jayachan-dran, Hewett, and Kaufman 2004). As a result, weinclude a firm’s customer responsiveness (i.e., its abilityto respond quickly to customer needs and wants) as thestrategic variable in our model. Our study also con-tributes to existing knowledge by investigating the mod-erating effects of psychic distance on the relationshipbetween values and export performance. This is in linewith the argument that psychic distance was originallyconceived as a moderator (Ellis 2008). Figure 1 presentsour research framework.

Values

Despite the importance of values, the difficulty is inknowing how to assess individual values. Schwartz’s(1992) work addresses the assessment of individual val-ues, but despite its strong theoretical foundation,Schwartz’s theory has yet to be applied widely in thebusiness literature. Therefore, given its strong theoreti-cal foundations, it offers great potential for marketingresearch (Steenkamp 2001). Furthermore, Schwartz’stheory has been tested in more than 200 samples from

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

Resultant conservation

Resultant self-enhancement

Customer responsiveness

Export performance

Psychic distance

Individual Values

more than 60 countries (Roccas et al. 2002), therebyincreasing its confidence and validity.

Schwartz and Bilsky (1990) define values as desirablegoals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding prin-ciples in people’s lives. Values are relatively stable crite-ria that people use to evaluate their own and others’behavior across various situations. Schwartz (1992)derives ten value types by reasoning that values repre-sent, in the form of conscious goals, three universalrequirements of human existence: (1) biological needs,(2) the requisites of coordinated social interaction, and(3) the demands of group functioning. These ten valuetypes are universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradi-tion, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimula-tion, and self-direction. To understand the conceptualorganization of the value system, Schwartz develops atheory of the dynamic relationships among these valuetypes. The ten types of values form a continuum ofrelated motivations, which gives rise to a circular struc-ture (see Figure 2). Schwartz postulates that actionstaken in pursuit of each type of value have psychologi-cal, practical, and social consequences that may conflictor be compatible with the pursuit of other types. As aresult, he further organizes these ten value types intofour higher-order value domains that form two basic

bipolar dimensions: (1) openness to change (stimulationand self-direction) versus conservation (security, con-formity, and tradition) and (2) self-enhancement (power and achievement) versus self-transcendence (universalism and benevolence). The hedonism valuetype is enclosed by broken lines in Figure 2 because itincludes elements of both openness-to-change and self-enhancement dimensions. These two bipolar dimen-sions constitute the most fundamental aspect of theSchwartz value system (Schwartz and Sagiv 1995) andare the focus of this study.

Thus, we hypothesize that export performance and cus-tomer responsiveness are associated with the two bipo-lar dimensions of openness to change versus conserva-tion and self-enhancement versus self-transcendence. Tothe best of our knowledge, this has not yet been investi-gated in the literature. The next section discusses thehypotheses underlying this framework.

Development of Hypotheses

Individual Values. As indicated previously, this studyrelies on the Schwartz value theory and its two bipolardimensions (i.e., openness to change versus conservationand self-enhancement versus self-transcendence) toassess the importance of individual values on the firm’scustomer responsiveness and export performance.

Resultant Conservation. Resultant conservation refersto the importance attached to conservation relative toopenness-to-change values. The two values underlyingopenness to change are self-direction and stimulation.Self-direction derives from the need for control, auton-omy, and independence. The motivational goal is inde-pendent thought and action choosing, creating, andexploring. Stimulation derives from the need for varietyand stimulation to maintain an optimal level of activa-tion. Thus, the defining goal is excitement, novelty, andchallenge in life. Underlying the conservation pole arethe values security, conformity, and tradition. The defin-ing goal of security is safety, harmony, and stability ofsociety, relationships, and self. The motivational goal ofconformity is the restraint of actions that might disruptand undermine smooth interaction and group function-ing and violate social expectations and norms. Finally,the motivational goal of tradition is respect, commit-ment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas thatone’s culture or religion provides (Schwartz 1992). Insummary, the openness-to-change versus conservationdimension opposes values emphasizing own independ-ent thought and action favoring change to those empha-


Figure 2. Schwartz’s Theoretical Model ofRelationships Among Values

Self-Transcendence

Self-Enhancement

Universalism

Self-directionTradition

Conformity

Security

Power

Achievement

Hedonism

Stimulation

Openness

to Change

Conser-

vation

Benevolence

Source: Schwartz (1992).


sizing submissive self-restriction, preservation of tradi-tional practices, and protection of stability.

We hypothesize that resultant conservation (i.e., theimportance attached to conservation minus the impor-tance attached to openness to change [Feather 1995])has a negative effect on a firm’s responsiveness in meet-ing customer needs. Conservation goals seem to beincongruent with customer responsiveness because thedisposition to adapt and respond quickly to changingcustomer needs is in conflict with the acceptance ofestablished customs and respect for traditional ways ofdoing things. In contrast, we believe that the openness-to-change values are congruent with customer respon-siveness. The motivational goal is independent thought,creating, exploring, and action favoring change, whichwould seem to be more in line with the need to adaptand respond quickly to changing customer require-ments. This is consistent with Kohli and Jaworski’s(1990) argument that managers who are more open tonew ideas and have a more positive attitude towardchange are more likely to be responsive to changes incustomer needs. Therefore, we hypothesize that themore a person attaches importance to conservation val-ues relative to openness-to-change values (called result-ant conservation [Feather 1995]), the lower the firm’scustomer responsiveness will be.

H1: Resultant conservation is negatively related tocustomer responsiveness.

We also expect resultant conservation to have a negativeeffect on export performance. Values that emphasizesubmissive restriction and preservation of traditionalpractices seem to be incongruent with the developmentof successful export operations, whereas values associ-ated with independent thought and action choosing, cre-ating, exploring, and challenge in life seem to be morecompatible with activities that lead to successful exportoperations. This argument is consistent with previousstudies that have shown flexible, open-minded, risk-tolerant, and receptive managers to be more likely toengage and succeed in export operations (Dichtl et al.1984; Gómez-Mejia 1988; Leonidou, Katsikeas, andPiercy 1998). Resultant conservation has also beenfound to be negatively related to innovativeness(Steenkamp, Ter Hofstede, and Wedel 1999). This isconsistent with Schwartz and Bardi’s (2001) argumentthat conservation values maintain the status quo andweaken the motivation to innovate. However, managersin export organizations are expected to be innovative,creative, and willing to break away from existing norms

and patterns (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Piercy 1998;Simmonds and Smith 1968). This is consistent with arecent study by Contractor, Hsu, and Kundu (2005),who find that managers with strong innovative abilitiesenhance the export performance of their firms. There-fore, we hypothesize that the more a person attachesimportance to conservation values relative to openness-to-change values, the lower the export performance ofthe firm will be.

H2: Resultant conservation is negatively related toexport performance.

Resultant Self-Enhancement. As indicated previously,the second bipolar dimension is self-enhancement versusself-transcendence. Self-transcendence comprises univer-salism and benevolence. These value types emphasizepreservation and enhancement of the welfare of thosewith whom there is frequent contact (benevolence) andappreciation and protection of the welfare of all people(universalism). Constituting the self-enhancement poleare the value types power and achievement. These valuetypes emphasize personal success by demonstratingcompetence (achievement), social status, prestige, andcontrol or dominance over people and resources(power). Thus, this second bipolar dimension, self-enhancement versus self-transcendence, opposes valuesemphasizing the pursuit of one’s own relative successand dominance over others to those values emphasizingacceptance of others as equals and concern with theirwelfare.

We hypothesize that resultant self-enhancement (i.e., the importance attached to self-enhancement minus theimportance attached to self-transcendence [Feather1995]) has a positive effect on a firm’s responsiveness inmeeting customer needs. Reward and compensation sys-tems are positively related to manager sensitivity to dealwith customer needs and requirements (Ruekert 1992).The emphasis on rewards is also a way to gain socialstatus and generate admiration of others (Srivastava,Locke, and Bartol 2001). Therefore, it is plausible toexpect that managers who emphasize success and powerare more likely to have a disposition toward meetingcustomer needs. Managers who emphasize personal suc-cess by demonstrating competence are also more likelyto show greater interest in knowing more about theircustomers. Therefore, we expect that the more impor-tance a person attaches to self-enhancement relative toself-transcendence (called resultant self-enhancement[Feather 1995]), the better the firm’s customer respon-siveness will be.


H3: Resultant self-enhancement is positively rela-ted to customer responsiveness.

Values that emphasize personal success by demonstrat-ing competence and dominance over others would seem to be compatible with a firm’s export success.Competent managers are more likely to be capable ofcoping with export-related problems as well as formu-lating and implementing effective marketing strategies(Cunningham and Spiegel 1971), thereby increasing theexport performance of the firm. Higher levels ofdynamism and aggression in relation to business activi-ties and higher levels of self-confidence on the part ofthe manager have also been reported to be positivelyrelated to firm performance (Bilkey and Tesar 1977; Da Rocha, Christensen, and Da Cunha 1990; Simmondsand Smith 1968). Therefore, the more importance a person attaches to self-enhancement relative to self-transcendence (called resultant self-enhancement), thebetter the export performance of the firm will be.

H4: Resultant self-enhancement is positively rela-ted to export performance.

Customer Responsiveness. A firm’s customer respon-siveness, or its ability to respond quickly to customerneeds and wants, is critical for sustained success. Intoday’s fast-changing environment, customer needs arecontinuously evolving. This implies that to achieve asustainable competitive advantage, a firm should moni-tor and respond effectively and quickly to changes incustomer needs (Day 1994). Firms that are more respon-sive to their customer needs are more likely to achieve amore loyal and sustainable customer base (Jayachan-dran, Hewett, and Kaufman 2004; Krasnikov and Jayachandran 2008; Sinkula, Baker, and Noordewier1997). The ability to respond quickly to customer needsmay also have a positive impact on the firm’s perform-ance because it provides the firm with a first-moveradvantage (Kerin, Varadarajan, and Peterson 1992).Therefore, we expect customer responsiveness to bepositively related to export performance.

H5: Customer responsiveness is positively related toexport performance.

Although empirical evidence is lacking in examiningintermediating variables through which individual val-ues may ultimately affect firm performance, it has beenargued that resources, whether at the firm or individuallevel, should be converted to capabilities or strategicchoice before influencing firm performance (Chadwick

and Dabu 2009; Kim, Cavusgil, and Calantone 2006;Wang et al. 2009). In our study, this implies that man-agers’ individual values drive the firm’s customerresponsiveness, which in turn drives the export perform-ance of the firm. While we detail the underlying rela-tionships in H1–H5, in H6 and H7, we integrate the pre-ceding arguments to formally test the mediating role ofcustomer responsiveness in the values–export perform-ance linkage, considering resultant conservation andresultant self-enhancement, respectively.

H6: Customer responsiveness mediates the rela-tionship between resultant conservation andexport performance.

H7: Customer responsiveness mediates the rela-tionship between resultant self-enhancementand export performance.

Psychic Distance. We define psychic distance herein asthe perception of the differences that exist between thehome country and the foreign country in terms of eco-nomic development, climatic conditions, lifestyles, con-sumer preferences, language, education, and culturalvalues (Sousa and Bradley 2006). The literature indi-cates that psychic distance has a direct impact on theperformance of the firm (Evans and Mavondo 2002;Madsen 1989). However, because some scholars reporta negative relationship (e.g., Madsen 1989) and othersfind a positive effect (e.g., Evans and Mavondo 2002),the literature fails to provide conclusive support foreither a negative or a positive effect of psychic distanceon the performance of the firm (Evans, Mavondo, andBridson 2008; Prime, Obadia, and Vida 2009). Theinternationalization process literature—which has beenwidely accepted as a starting point for the research onpsychic distance—implies that psychologically closecountries are more similar and easier to manage thanpsychologically distant countries, and therefore firmsshould achieve greater success in similar markets(Johanson and Vahlne 1977, 1990; Johanson andWiedersheim-Paul 1975). The assumption is that firmswill perform better in markets that are perceived to besimilar because differences between markets can lead toenvironmental uncertainty. This uncertainty and lack ofinformation about the foreign market may also increasethe possibility of making the wrong decisions and there-fore reduce the performance of the firm abroad (Lee1998). Thus, to export successfully, it seems advisable forfirms to choose countries at a small psychic distance ratherthan distant markets. Therefore, in line with the precedingarguments, we propose the following hypothesis:


H8: Psychic distance is negatively related to exportperformance.

This study proposes that psychic distance moderates theinfluence of individual values on the export perform-ance of the firm. The use of psychic distance as a mod-erator to explain export performance is consistent withSousa, Martinez-Lopez, and Coelho’s (2008) view thatforeign market characteristics should be considered amoderator, as well as being in line with the argumentthat psychic distance was originally conceived in theUppsala model as a moderator (Ellis 2008). This is alsoconsistent with Carpenter, Geletkanycz, and Sanders’s(2004) argument that the effects of managerial values onperformance outcomes are dependent on the manager’sperceptions about environmental factors. Firms thatdecide to enter psychologically distant markets must beprepared for challenges, derived from differences in lan-guages, lifestyles, cultural standards, consumer prefer-ences, and purchasing power (Albaum and Tse 2001; Luand Beamish 2001; Peñaloza and Gilly 1999; Sousa andBradley 2006). In addition, psychic distance creates dif-ficulties for managers when they need to adapt to a dif-ferent culture because it leads to higher levels of com-plexity and uncertainty for managerial decision making(Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillian 1995). Thesehigher levels of uncertainty and ambiguity in the inter-national business environment favor managers who areflexible, are open to change, and exhibit greater toler-ance for ambiguity (Herrmann and Datta 2002). As aresult, we expect that psychic distance will enhance thenegative relationship between resultant conservationand export performance. The reasoning for this is thatas psychic distance increases, managers who emphasizeopenness-to-change values relative to conservation val-ues will be in a better position to handle the increasinglevel of complexities associated with operating in a for-eign market because they will be more flexible andopen-minded in dealing with these issues.

The internationalization process literature (Johansonand Vahlne 1977; Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul1975) also implies that managers have less experienceand lower levels of competence when entering psycho-logically distant markets. As such, executives facingmany requirements from the environment are only ableto comprehend and process a small proportion of thefacts (Hambrick, Finkelstein, and Mooney 2005), thusreducing the positive influence of their competence onperformance. Moreover, the possible adverse effects ofhigh levels of psychic distance occur even when amanager is achievement oriented. It would be naive to

consider that performance would simply depend on highlevels of managers’ achievement orientation withoutrecognizing that achievement orientation will not sur-mount completely the burden of high levels of uncer-tainty in psychologically distant markets. In H4, we pre-dict resultant self-enhancement to be positively relatedto export performance because a manager who isachievement oriented and emphasizes success bydemonstrating competence is more likely to succeed.However, as psychic distance increases, managers willfind it more difficult to handle and cope with the chal-lenges of the foreign market, thereby weakening thepositive impact of resultant self-enhancement on exportperformance. Thus, on the basis of the preceding discus-sion, we propose the following hypotheses:

H9: Psychic distance enhances the negative rela-tionship between resultant conservation andexport performance.

H10: Psychic distance attenuates the positive rela-tionship between resultant self-enhancementand export performance.

METHODOLOGYSample and Data Collection Procedure

We conducted the study in 2008 using a sample ofexporting firms headquartered in Galicia (Spain). Fol-lowing Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas (2004), we useda multi-industry sample to increase observed varianceand reinforce the generalization of the results. To collectthe data, we developed a structured questionnaire,beginning with a comprehensive review of the literaturein the area. Five academic experts familiar with the topicassessed the content validity of the items, and ten exportmanagers pretested the questionnaire.

The sampling frame for the study was based on a gov-ernment agency database. Questionnaires were distrib-uted to 1222 senior managers with responsibilities in thefield of exporting or foreign operations. After eliminat-ing nonvalid questionnaires, we retained 208 usablequestionnaires, representing a response rate of 17%.This constitutes a fairly good response rate, consideringthat the average top management survey response ratesare between 15% and 20% (Menon, Bharadwaj, andHowell 1996). To encourage respondents to participate,we promised them a copy of the report with the resultsof the research.

We selected a single key informant in each firm to com-ment on a single export venture (main product or groupof products exported and main important country towhich those products were exported). The use of such aninformant also allowed us to reduce the potential for sys-tematic and random sources of error (Huber and Power1985). In this context, it is important to select managerswho are involved in a particular decision domain (Dut-ton, Fahey, and Narayanan 1983; Hambrick 2007).Thus, the focus of this research is on the decision makerswith responsibilities in exporting because they influenceexport management through planning, organizing, lead-ing, and controlling resources in this area. To ensure reli-ability of the data source, we required the respondents tobe senior managers with responsibilities for exporting. Aspecific section of the questionnaire was used to establishthe respondent’s title, knowledge, involvement, andresponsibilities in exporting. The final analysis showedthat approximately 54% were export managers, and forthe companies without the position of export manager,the remaining 46% were general managers or other sen-ior managers with export management responsibilities(see Appendix A).

We examined the possibility of nonresponse bias byusing the guidelines of Armstrong and Overton (1977)to test for significant differences between early and laterespondents. We defined early responses as the first75% of returned questionnaires and considered the last25% late responses and representative of firms that didnot respond to the survey (Weiss and Heide 1993). Weperformed a series of t-tests with these two groups onseveral key firm characteristics, such as number ofemployees and export performance. The results indi-cated no significant differences between respondentsand nonrespondents, at the .05 level, suggesting thatnonresponse bias was not a problem.

We also tested the existence of common method bias byconducting two tests to determine the extent of variance.The first was the Harman one-factor test (Podsakoff andOrgan 1986). The results indicated that the risk of com-mon method variance was unlikely to be significant inthis case because the exploratory factor analytic resultsshowed that a single general factor did not account formost of the variance. As a confirmation, we performed asecond test to evaluate common method variance follow-ing the procedure that Podsakoff and colleagues (2003)recommend. In this approach, we reestimated the modelwith all the indicator variables loading on a generalmethod factor, and the resulting model fit was unaccept-able. In addition, research indicates that value scores are

not contaminated by social desirability (Schwartz et al.1997). Together, these findings suggested that commonmethod bias is not a serious threat in the study.

Measures

To operationalize the variables, this study relied on pre-viously validated scales (see Appendix B). We measuredindividual values with the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS),which comprises 57 items. Schwartz and colleagues(Schwartz 1992; Schwartz and Sagiv 1995) developedand extensively tested the SVS, whose reliability andvalidity has been demonstrated in numerous studies (e.g.,Schwartz 2006; Schwartz and Rubel 2005; Schwartz and Sagiv 1995). This study adopted a Spanish version of the SVS previously validated by Schwartz and colleagues.Moreover, the instructions and scoring procedure devel-oped by Schwartz were also employed in this study.Accordingly, respondents were asked to rate the impor-tance of each single value as a guiding principle in their own life using a nine-point scale ranging from –1(“opposed to my values”) to 7 (“of supreme impor-tance”). We obtained an index of the importance of avalue domain by computing the mean importance foreach value type separately and subsequently averaging thescores attributed to the value types within each domain.For example, to obtain scores for each value type thatconstitutes the conservation dimension, we obtained themean score for each participant for the conformity, tra-dition, and security value types. We used the sameapproach to obtain the scores for the self-transcendence,self-enhancement, and openness-to-change dimensions.Following Schwartz (2005), we included hedonism in theopenness-to-change domain. Subsequently, we computedresultant conservation by subtracting openness to changefrom conservation. Similarly, we computed resultant self-enhancement by subtracting self-transcendence fromself-enhancement. This method to calculate the scoreswas also used by Feather (1995) and Steenkamp, TerHofstede, and Wedel (1999).

We measured customer responsiveness using three itemsbased on various measures of customer responsivenessin the extensive market orientation literature (Hooley etal. 2000; Jayachandran, Hewett, and Kaufman 2004;Kohli, Jaworski, and Kumar 1993). As such, we opera-tionalized customer responsiveness using the followingitems: frequent measurement of customer satisfaction,quick to respond to the needs of the customer, and quickto adapt products to the needs of the customer. To operationalize psychic distance, we used the scale thatSousa and Bradley (2006) developed. As a result, we



measured psychic distance on a five-point scale (1 = “very similar,” and 5 = “very different”) using thefollowing items: purchasing power of customers, climatic conditions, lifestyles, consumer preferences,language, level of literacy, and cultural values, beliefs,attitudes, and traditions. Finally, we measured exportperformance using five items: degree to which itimproved global competitiveness, degree to which itstrengthened strategic position, perceptions of howcompetitors rate the firm’s export performance, exportsales growth, and export profitability. These items havebeen used in previous studies (Styles 1998; Zou, Taylor,and Osland 1998) to measure export performance.

In addition to the variables specified in our theoreticalmodel, we included the manager’s international experi-ence as a control variable. Previous research suggests thata manager’s experience has an impact on the firm’s cus-tomer responsiveness (Franke and Park 2006) and theexport performance of the firm (Sousa, Martinez-Lopez,and Coelho 2008). We measured manager experience byasking respondents to indicate the number of years theyhad been working with foreign markets.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTSReliability and Validity

We established content validity through the literaturereview and by consulting experienced researchers and

managers. On the basis of these procedures, we concluded that the measures satisfied the requirementsfor content validity. We assessed discriminant validity,convergent validity, and scale reliability with confirma-tory factor analysis in line with the paradigm that Gerbing and Anderson (1988) advocate. The resultsfrom the estimation of the confirmatory factor analysismodel show that the overall chi-square for this model was 484.919 (p < .001) with 254 degrees of freedom. Four measures of fit were examined: comparative fitindex (CFI = .98), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI = .97),incremental fit index (IFI = .98), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = .06). These fitindexes are inside conventional cutoff values (Vanden-berg and Lance 2000), and thus we deemed the modelacceptable.

The results also reveal that all items load on their specified constructs and that each loading is large andsignificant, indicating convergent validity. In contrast,we assessed discriminant validity by observing the construct intercorrelations. These were significantly different from 1, and the shared variance between any two constructs (i.e., the square of their intercorrela-tion) was less than the average variance explained in the items by the construct (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Table 1 shows the correlation matrix for the constructs. Adequate discriminant validity is evident for all constructs because their diagonal elements are greaterthan the off-diagonal elements in their corresponding

Table 1. Correlation Between Constructs

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Conservation .81

2. Openness to change –.47 .74

3. Self-enhancement –.21 .09 .84

4. Self-transcendence –.16 –.32 –.51 .82

5. Customer responsiveness .07 .04 .06 –.15 .71

6. Psychic distance .04 –.01 .01 .05 –.07 .68

7. Export performance –.08 .06 .17 –.07 .24 .18 .66

8. Experience .13 –.21 –.16 .18 .07 .03 .05 1

Notes: Diagonal is the square root of the AVE.


rows and columns. With regard to reliability, all con-structs present desirable levels of composite reliability(CR) and considerably exceed the minimum recom-mended by Bagozzi and Yi (1988) of .60: conservation(CR = .85), openness to change (CR = .78), self-enhancement (CR = .83), self-transcendence (CR = .81),customer responsiveness (CR = .75), psychic distance(CR = .85), and export performance (CR = .76). Interms of the average variance extracted (AVE), only psychic distance (AVE = .46) and export performance(AVE = .44) fell slightly short of the .50 guideline; all theothers exceeded the recommended level.1 Therefore, weconclude that for all constructs, the indicators were suf-ficient and adequate in terms of how the measurementmodel was specified.

Testing of Hypotheses

Because of the complexity of the model and the need to test the relationships between the constructs simultane-ously, we used structural equations by applying the maximum likelihood (ML) method (AMOS version5). Estimating the hypothesized model produced the following statistics: chi-square = 686.016, d.f. = 443 (p < .001); CFI = .97; TLI = .96; IFI = .97; and RMSEA =

.05. Given that all the fit indexes were inside conven-tional cut-off values, we deemed the model acceptable(Vandenberg and Lance 2000). Next, we examined therelationships proposed in the model (Figure 3).

H1 was not supported, because the effect of resultantconservation on customer responsiveness was not sig-nificant. However, we found support for the negativeinfluence of resultant conservation on the export per-formance of the firm (H2). In contrast, we found thatresultant self-enhancement had a positive effect on cus-tomer responsiveness (H3) and no significant impact onexport performance (H4). Thus, the data were not sup-portive of H4 but rendered support for H3. The effect ofcustomer responsiveness on export performance wassignificant and positive, in support of H5. Taking H1–H5together, our data suggest that customer responsivenessmediates the effect of resultant self-enhancement onexport performance (H7).

To examine the extent to which customer responsivenessmediates the influence of resultant self-enhancement onexport performance, we relied on the three-step medi-ated regression approach that Baron and Kenny (1986)recommend. To meet the first mediation condition, we

Figure 3. Model with Mediation Effect

Resultant conservation

Resultant self-enhancement

Customer responsiveness

Export performance

Psychic distance

–.14 (p < .05)

.17 (p < .0

5)

.08 (n.s.)

.29 (p < .01)

.15

(p <

.05)

.13 (p < .10)

.02 (n.s.)

.01 (n.s.)

χ2 = 686.016, d.f. = 443; CFI = .97; TLI = .96; IFI = .97; RMSEA = .05.Notes: Standardized parameter estimate (significance level); n.s. = not significant.


found that resultant self-enhancement was significantlyrelated to customer responsiveness (p < .05), thus satis-fying the first condition of mediation. To test the secondmediation condition, we estimated a new model thatspecifies only the direct paths between values and exportperformance. We found that without the presence ofcustomer responsiveness, resultant self-enhancementwas significantly related to export performance (p <.05). This result satisfies the second condition of media-tion. Finally, after entering the mediator of customerresponsiveness, the results indicate that customerresponsiveness was significantly related to export per-formance. This suggests that customer responsivenessmediates the impact of resultant self-enhancement onexport performance, in support of H7. We did not con-sider the mediation effect of customer responsiveness onthe relationship between resultant conservation andexport performance, because the first condition of mediation (the link between resultant conservation andcustomer responsiveness) was not met. Therefore,hypotheses regarding the mediating role of customerresponsiveness in the values–export performance rela-tionship were partially supported, being supported inthe case of resultant self-enhancement (H7) but not inthe case of resultant conservation (H6).

With regard to the direct export performance implica-tions of psychic distance, we predicted that psychic distance would be negatively related to exportperformance (H8). However, contrary to expectations,the estimated coefficient of psychic distance was positive (.15) and significant (p < .05), indicating that the greaterthe psychic distance between the home and foreign market, the better the export performance of the firm is. To estimate interaction effects using structural equa-tions, we followed a method that Little, Bovaird, and Widaman (2006) propose. The Little, Bovaird, andWidaman orthogonalized approach uses the observedcovariation pattern among all possible indicators of theinteraction to form the latent interaction term. Theinteraction latent variable and its measures are then directly included in the model. Following this procedure, the results indicate that the coefficient of the interaction between resultant conservation and psychic distance was positive and significant (.13; p < .10). This contradicts H9, which predicted a negative effect. These results indicate that psychic distance is not a pure moderator but a quasi moderator. This isbecause, as the coefficients show, the main effect as well as the interaction effect of psychic distance is significant. Finally, we found no effect between psychicdistance and the influence of resultant self-enhancement

on export performance, thus failing to support H10. In relation to the control variable, the manager’sinternational experience, we found no significantimpact.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Despite acknowledging that managers play a key role inthe initiation, development, sustenance, and success of afirm’s export operations, the extant literature has largelyignored the possible impact of the manager’s individualvalues on strategic choice and the export performance ofthe firm. The objective of this study, and therefore itscontribution to the literature, is to examine for the firsttime the impact of managers’ values on the firm’s cus-tomer responsiveness and export performance. In addi-tion, we examine the mediating role of customer respon-siveness in the values–export performance linkage aswell as the direct effect on export performance. We alsoinvestigate the empirical usefulness of the psychic dis-tance construct by examining its direct link with exportperformance and the extent to which it moderates therelationship between individual values and export performance.

The results indicate that resultant conservation is negatively related to export performance. This suggeststhat managers who are more flexible, open-minded, creative, innovative, and receptive to change are morelikely to succeed in export operations. This is also consis-tent with previous studies that have found that managerswho are innovative, creative, and willing to break awayfrom existing norms and patterns are more likely to succeed in export operations (Contractor, Hsu, andKundu 2005; Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Piercy 1998).However, contrary to expectations, the impact of result-ant conservation on the firm’s customer responsivenesswas not significant. A possible explanation for this sur-prising result is that the motivational content of the conservation versus openness-to-change dimension is notso important in shaping the firm’s customer responsive-ness. Nevertheless, this is an issue that warrants furtherempirical investigation.

We found that customer responsiveness had a significantand positive impact on the export performance of thefirm. This confirms our hypothesis and supports ourview that firms achieve better results when they are moreresponsive to their customers’ needs. This is also consis-tent with other studies that find customer responsivenessto be positively related to the performance of the firm


(e.g., Jayachandran, Hewett, and Kaufman 2004; Martinand Grbac 2003). The results also confirm that customerresponsiveness fully mediates the effect of resultant self-enhancement on the export performance of the firm. Thepositive impact of resultant self-enhancement suggeststhat managers who are motivated by power and personalsuccess through demonstrating competence are morelikely to succeed in foreign markets. This seems to con-firm prior research (Bilkey and Tesar 1977; Cunninghamand Spiegel 1971; Da Rocha, Christensen, and DaCunha 1990), which has found that competence andhigher levels of dynamism and aggression of the managerin relation to business activities have a positive impact onthe export performance of the firm.

The results indicate that the relationship between psy-chic distance and export performance is positive and significant. This discloses an unexpected relationshipand is contrary to our hypothesis, implying that firmsperform better in psychologically distant countries.Though surprising, this finding is consistent with previ-ous results reported by Evans and Mavondo (2002),Evans, Mavondo, and Bridson (2008), O’Grady andLane (1996), and Sousa and Lengler (2009). Theseauthors argue that firms entering psychologically distantmarkets are likely to perceive a higher level of risk,which results in a strong desire to learn more about theforeign market, enabling them to be better prepared forthe challenges and opportunities presented by that mar-ket. Therefore, similarities between markets could leadto managerial carelessness and failure. Firms enteringpsychologically close markets may also find it difficultto establish a clear basis for differentiation and, as aresult, will encounter stronger local competition, whichcould affect performance negatively (Evans, Mavondo,and Bridson 2008). The emphasis on the perceptualnature of psychic distance may also provide an explana-tion for the observation of a psychic distance paradox(Yamin and Sinkovics 2006). The paradox is that con-trary to an intuitive view of psychic distance being negatively related to export performance, this constructhas a positive effect on performance (O’Grady and Lane1996). As psychic distance increases, managers maybecome aware of their knowledge limits, and this per-ception reinforces the need for learning about foreigncountries. As a result, the expectations in relation tolearning barriers may induce counteracting behavior on the part of the internationalizing firm, thereby devot-ing greater resources to learning about the market and,consequently, increasing the likelihood of a better performance.

The interaction between resultant conservation and psy-chic distance has a positive sign, indicating that the lat-ter attenuates the negative effect of resultant conserva-tion on export performance. This result contradicts ourhypothesis. The effects of resultant conservation becomepositive on export performance when psychic distance ishigh. When psychic distance is low, the relationshipbecomes negative. Thus, managers who emphasize con-servation values relative to openness-to-change valuesare more likely to succeed in psychologically distantmarkets. A possible explanation is that as psychic dis-tance increases, for managers to be successful, they mustbe increasingly careful not to violate social expectationsand norms, to respect traditions, and to accept the cus-toms and ideas that a different culture or religion pro-vides. All these actions would be consistent with themotivational goal of the conservation dimension. To acertain extent, this finding is also consistent with theview that to succeed in export operations, firms mustadapt their strategies to the idiosyncrasies of the foreignmarket (Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Lee and Griffith2004). Thus, firms that enter psychologically distantmarkets are more likely to imitate the strategies of localcompanies. Neo-institutionalists have emphasized therole of uncertainty in propelling mimetic isomorphism(DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Mizruchi and Fein 1999).They have shown that mimetic processes tend to occuras the levels of uncertainty increase. Because managerswho emphasize conservation values are more likely touse mimetic processes or to imitate, they may be moreefficient in psychologically distant markets than man-agers who emphasize openness-to-change values insituations in which it is necessary to follow similarstrategies as local competitors.

Managerial Implications

When developing their export operations, managersshould take into account the unexpected finding thatpsychic distance has a positive effect on export perform-ance, which has been denoted as the psychic distanceparadox in the literature (O’Grady and Lane 1996). Theappeal of similar markets, suggested by the Uppsalamodel as the main reason for entering psychologicallyclose countries (Johanson and Vahlne 1977; Johansonand Wiedersheim-Paul 1975), may direct managers tounderestimate the small but important differences thatexist between the home and the foreign market. In addi-tion, the same reasoning may lead export managers notto target psychologically distant countries, thereby los-ing export opportunities. For example, a firm entering a


psychologically distant market may face less direct com-petition, have a greater ability to differentiate, and beable to capitalize on a growing market (Evans,Mavondo, and Bridson 2008). Therefore, when operat-ing in psychologically close countries, managers shouldpay attention to all the differences that exist betweenmarkets. A direct consequence of our results is thatmanagers should consider exporting to psychologicallydistant countries because these markets may representgood opportunities to develop successful export ventures.

Given that customer responsiveness had a significant,positive impact on export performance, managersshould constantly monitor the needs and wants of theircustomers to ensure that they are able to respond effec-tively and quickly to any changes. Therefore, managersshould create a system that enables them to track theircustomer complaints, measure their customer satisfac-tion, and monitor changes in the marketplace. Man-agers must also make sure that these monitoring resultsare analyzed and evaluated. This should lead firms togenerate internal conditions to allow different depart-ments to have access to these monitoring results andwork articulately to respond to market changes. Becausea high degree of departmentalization in the firm makesit more difficult to communicate information andrespond quickly to market changes (Matsuno, Mentzer,and Özsomer 2002), managers should consider reducingdepartmentalization in the organization and/or increaseinterdepartmental connectedness.

In addition, this study finds support for the notion thatmanagers’ values are important in being a main forcebehind export performance. By focusing on individualvalues rather than classical variables such as age, experi-ence, or education, this study addresses a gap in the lit-erature and offers some noteworthy implications from amanagerial perspective. The results of this study suggestthat firms should pay attention to managers’ value ori-entations to maximize the export performance of thefirm. Our findings indicate that managers’ resultant self-enhancement values have a positive influence on thefirm’s customer responsiveness. From a managerial side,firms should take this into account when deciding onthe appropriate profile of export managers. In this case,it implies the selection of managers who emphasizeachievement and power values. Therefore, implement-ing a reward and promotion system that is directlyrelated to performance could play an important role inexport management because this would be consistent

with the mind-set of managers who emphasize resultantself-enhancement values.

In relation to resultant conservation, our findings sug-gest that managers who emphasize openness-to-changevalues relative to conservation values should performbetter in foreign markets. However, the interactionbetween resultant conservation and psychic distance ispositive, indicating that psychic distance attenuates thenegative effect of resultant conservation on export per-formance. Thus, when firms enter psychologically dis-tant countries, managers should emphasize conservationvalues; conversely, openness-to-change values are moreimportant in the case of psychologically close countries.In summary, this study shows that individual values areimportant in explaining the export performance of thefirm and that in the case of resultant conservation, psy-chic distance moderates this impact. Given that valueshave an effect on export performance, firms shouldplace considerable effort on assessing managers’ values.To determine individuals’ value orientations, firmscould administer value scales (e.g., the SVS) to potentialand current employees.

Limitations and Directions for FurtherResearch

This study contains several limitations that should beaddressed in further research. First, we tested ourhypotheses using cross-sectional data; therefore, wewere unable to empirically predict causality in the rela-tionships examined or capture the dynamic aspects ofthe drivers of export performance. Consequently,researchers should consider adopting a longitudinaldesign to shed light on the evolution of these variablesover time.

Moreover, the cross-sectional survey research designthat relies on a single key informant per firm has its limitations. Although the use of a single informant isprevalent within export marketing research, it increasesthe risk of common method variance. However, the sta-tistical tests we undertook to assess the presence of com-mon method variance in our results indicated that thisissue is not likely to be a significant concern in ourstudy. According to Podsakoff and colleagues (2003),the use of multiple respondents would have reducedconcerns about potential response bias, but in a largesample study identifying and obtaining responses frommultiple well-informed respondents, it is extremelyproblematic. The use of multiple respondents may also

pose further difficulties for the researcher, such as a pos-sibility of a decrease in response rate and the need formore time, effort, and funding to carry out the research.Nonetheless, the use of multiple respondents and longi-tudinal studies should be considered in the future toenable researchers to examine more closely the relation-ships we proposed in this study.

Although our response rate was fairly good and we fol-lowed Armstrong and Overton’s (1977) methodology totest for nonresponse bias, researchers can use differentapproaches to minimize survey nonresponse. Oneapproach is to increase mailings or contact efforts.Although this approach is probably the most costly andtime consuming, obtaining the highest response ratepossible is the best way to reduce response bias. Mixingmodes can also enable researchers to reach people whoare inaccessible using a single mode. However, a criticalissue in multimode surveys is the comparability of dataacross modes because answers to certain questions maybe affected by the mode of collection (Fowler 2002).Therefore, to combine data collected using differentmethods, it is important that the researchers ensure thatthe data are comparable. Alternatively, the researchermay collect data on key variables from nonrespondentsby telephoning a randomly selected set and then com-paring them with the respondents to assess representa-tiveness (Short, Ketchen, and Palmer 2002; Very et al.1997).

Further studies should also investigate the significanceand relative importance of other moderating factors not considered in the current study. Although this study considered the role of psychic distance a moderat-ing variable, other possible factors could be examinedfor potential moderator effects. Moreover, furtherresearch that identifies additional factors that may beaffected by the manager’s values would contributegreatly to the understanding and the importance givento individual values in the international marketing literature. For example, the impact of values on the decision to adapt and/or standardize the firms’ market-ing strategy to the conditions of the foreign marketwould be of interest.

Individual values are desirable goals that serve as guid-ing principles in people’s lives and explain the attitudesand behavior of the individual. Inevitably, they influencemanagers’ attitudes and behavior toward their firms’export operations. However, the impact of a manager’sindividual values on the export performance of the firmis largely ignored in the literature. Our study contributes

to the attempt to close this void and could stimulate oth-ers to pursue this research stream.

NOTE

1. Psychic distance and export performance fell slightlyshort of the .50 guideline. Despite this, we decided tokeep the number of items, given the high CR andCronbach’s alpha coefficients for both constructs(psychic distance: CR = .85, α = .85; export perform-ance: CR = .76, α = .74). Moreover, each indicator’sestimated pattern coefficient on its posited underlyingconstruct is significant, suggesting the convergentvalidity of each factor (Anderson and Gerbing 1988).The same rationale has also been used in the litera-ture in which an AVE greater than .40 is consideredacceptable (Iglesias 2004; Verhoef, Hans, and Hoek-stra 2002).


Manager’s Age

26–30 years

31–35 years

36–40 years

41–50 years

51+ years

Manager’s Education

Primary school

High school

Undergraduate

Postgraduate

Position

Export manager

General manager/owners

Other positions (e.g., vice president, sales director, finance director)

12

21

25

26

16

4

20

64

12

54

25

21

24

44

52

55

33

8

42

133

25

111

53

44

Appendix A. Respondent Profile (n = 208)

Sample Characteristics Population (%) Number

Notes: Decimal points are omitted for clarity.

REFERENCES

Albaum, Gerald and David K. Tse (2001), “Adaptation of Inter-national Marketing Strategy Components, CompetitiveAdvantage, and Firm Performance: A Study of Hong KongExporters,” Journal of International Marketing, 9 (4), 59–81.

Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), “StructuralEquation Modeling in Practice: A Review and RecommendedTwo-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3),411–23.

Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton (1977), “EstimatingNonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 14 (August), 396–402.

Axinn, Catherine N. (1988), “Export Performance: Do Mana-gerial Perceptions Make a Difference?” International Market-ing Review, 5 (2), 61–71.

Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluationof Structural Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 16 (Spring), 74–94.

Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psycho-logical Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Con-siderations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51 (6), 1173–82.

Bertrand, Marianne and Antoinette Schoar (2003), “Managingwith Style: The Effect of Managers on Firm Policies,” Quar-terly Journal of Economics, 118 (4), 1169–208.

Bilkey, Warren J. and George Tesar (1977), “The Export Behav-ior of Smaller-Sized Wisconsin Manufacturing Firms,” Jour-nal of International Business Studies, 8 (1), 93–98.

Cannella, Albert A. and Martin J. Monroe (1997), “ContrastingPerspectives on Strategic Leaders: Toward a More RealisticView of Top Managers,” Journal of Management, 23 (3),213–37.

Carpenter, Mason A., Marta A. Geletkanycz, and William Ger-ard Sanders (2004), “Upper Echelons Research Revisited:Antecedents, Elements, and Consequences of Top Manage-ment Team Composition,” Journal of Management, 30 (6),749–78.

Cavusgil, S. Tamer and Shaoming Zou (1994), “MarketingStrategy–Performance Relationship: An Investigation of theEmpirical Link in Export Market Ventures,” Journal of Mar-keting, 58 (January), 1–21.

Chadwick, Clint and Adina Dabu (2009), “Human Resources,Human Resource Management, and the Competitive Advan-tage of Firms: Toward a More Comprehensive Model ofCausal Linkages,” Organization Science, 20 (1), 253–72.

Contractor, Farok J., Chin-Chun Hsu, and Sumit K. Kundu(2005), “Explaining Export Performance: A ComparativeStudy of International New Ventures in Indian and TaiwaneseSoftware Industry,” Management International Review, 45(3), 83–110.


Appendix B. Constructs and Measures

Individual Values (Schwartz 1992)SVS, which comprises 57 items.

Customer Responsiveness (adapted from Jayachandran, Hewett, and Kaufman 2004;Kohli, Jaworski, and Kumar 1993)

Scale: 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”)

• Frequent measurement of customer satisfaction.

• Quick to respond to the needs of the customer.

• Quick to adapt our products to the needs of

the customer.

Psychic Distance (Sousa and Bradley 2006)

Scale: 1 (“very similar”) to 5 (“very different”)

• Lifestyles

• Consumer preferences

• Climatic conditions

• Cultural values, beliefs, attitudes, and traditions

• Language

• Level of literacy and education

• Purchasing power of customers

Export Performance (Styles 1998; Zou, Taylor, and Osland 1998)

Scale: 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”)

• Strengthened our strategic position.

• Improved our global competitiveness.

Scale: 1 (“unsuccessful”) to 10 (“successful”)

• How competitors rate a firm’s export performance

Export Sales Growth

• Decline

• Stable

• 1%–5%

• 6%–10%

• 11%–15%

• 16%–20%

• 20+%

Export Profitability

• Loss

• Breakeven

• Profit


Cunningham, M.T. and R.I. Spiegel (1971), “A Study in Success-ful Exporting,” British Journal of Marketing, 5 (Spring), 2–12.

Czinkota, Michael R. (1994), “A National Export AssistancePolicy for New and Growing Businesses,” Journal of Inter-national Marketing, 2 (1), 91–101.

Da Rocha, Angela, Carl H. Christensen, and Carlos Eduardo daCunha (1990), “Aggressive and Passive Exporters: A Study inthe Brazilian Furniture Industry,” International MarketingReview, 7 (5), 6–15.

Day, George S. (1984), Strategic Market Planning: The Pursuitof Competitive Advantage. St. Paul, MN: West PublishingCompany.

——— (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organiza-tions,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 37–52.

Deshpandé, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Frederick E. Webster Jr.(1993), “Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Inno-vativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis,” Journalof Marketing, 57 (January), 23–37.

Diamantopoulos, Adamantios and Nikolaos Kakkos (2007),“Managerial Assessments of Export Performance: ConceptualFramework and Empirical Illustration,” Journal of Inter-national Marketing, 15 (3), 1–31.

Dichtl, Erwin, M. Leibold, Hans-Georg Koeglmayr, and StefanMueller (1984), “The Export-Decision of Small and Medium-Sized Firms: A Review,” Management International Review,24 (2), 49–60.

DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell (1983), “The IronCage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and CollectiveRationality in Organizational Fields,” American SociologicalReview, 48 (2), 147–60.

Dutton, Jane E., Liam Fahey, and V.K. Narayanan (1983),“Toward Understanding Strategic Issue Diagnosis,” StrategicManagement Journal, 4 (4), 307–323.

Ellis, Paul D. (2008), “Does Psychic Distance Moderate theMarket Size–Entry Sequence Relationship?” Journal of Inter-national Business Studies, 39 (3), 351–69.

Evans, Jody and Felix T. Mavondo (2002), “Psychic Distanceand Organizational Performance: An Empirical Examinationof International Retailing Operations,” Journal of Inter-national Business Studies, 33 (3), 515–32.

———, ———, and Kerrie Bridson (2008), “Psychic Distance:Antecedents, Retail Strategy Implications, and PerformanceOutcomes,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (2),32–63.

Feather, N.T. (1988), “From Values to Actions: Recent Applica-tions of the Expectancy–Value Model,” Australian Journal ofPsychology, 40 (2), 105–124.

——— (1995), “Values, Valences, and Choice: The Influence ofValues on the Perceived Attractiveness and Choice of Alterna-tives,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 (6),1135–51.

Finkelstein, Sydney, Donald C. Hambrick, and Albert A. Can-nella (2008), Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research onExecutives, Top Management Teams, and Boards. New York:Oxford University Press.

Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Struc-tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.

Fowler, Floyd J. (2002), Survey Research Methods, 3d ed. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Franke, George R. and Jeong-Eun Park (2006), “SalespersonAdaptive Selling Behavior and Customer Orientation: AMeta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (Novem-ber), 693–702.

Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), “AnUpdated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Uni-dimensionality and Its Assessment,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 25 (May), 186–92.

Goldfarb, Avi and Botao Yang (2009), “Are All Managers Cre-ated Equal?” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (October),612–22.

Gómez-Mejia, Luis R. (1988), “The Role of Human ResourcesStrategy in Export Performance: A Longitudinal Study,”Strategic Management Journal, 9 (5), 493–505.

Griffith, David A. and Robert F. Lusch (2007), “Getting Mar-keters to Invest in Firm-Specific Capital,” Journal of Market-ing, 71 (January), 129–45.

Hambrick, Donald C. (2007), “Upper Echelons Theory: AnUpdate,” Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 334–43.

———, Sydney Finkelstein, and Ann C. Mooney (2005), “Exec-utive Job Demands: New Insights for Explaining StrategicDecisions and Leader Behaviors,” Academy of ManagementReview, 30 (3), 472–91.

——— and Phyllis A Mason (1984), “Upper Echelons: TheOrganization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers,” Academyof Management Review, 9 (2), 193–206.

Herrmann, Pol and Deepak K. Datta (2002), “CEO SuccessorCharacteristics and the Choice of Foreign Market EntryMode: An Empirical Study,” Journal of International BusinessStudies, 33 (3), 551–69.

Homer, Pamela M. and Lynn R. Kahle (1988), “A StructuralEquation Test of the Value–Attitude–Behavior Hierarchy,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (4), 638–46.


Hooley, Graham, Tony Cox, John Fahy, David Shipley, JózsefBeracs, Krzysztof Fonfara, and Boris Snoj (2000), “MarketOrientation in the Transition Economies of Central Europe:Tests of the Narver and Slater Market Orientation Scales,”Journal of Business Research, 50 (3), 273–85.

Huber, G.P. and D.J. Power (1985), “Retrospective Reports ofStrategic-Level Managers: Guidelines for Increasing TheirAccuracy,” Strategic Management Journal, 6 (2), 171–80.

Iglesias, Victor (2004), “Preconceptions About Service: HowMuch Do They Influence Quality Evaluations?” Journal ofService Research, 7 (1), 90–103.

Jayachandran, Satish, Kelly Hewett, and Peter Kaufman (2004),“Customer Response Capability in a Sense-and-Respond Era:The Role of Customer Knowledge Process,” Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 32 (3), 219–33.

Johanson, Jan and Jan-Erik Vahlne (1977), “The Internationali-zation Process of the Firm: A Model of Knowledge Develop-ment and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments,” Journalof International Business Studies, 8 (1), 23–32.

——— and ——— (1990), “The Mechanism of Internationali-zation,” International Marketing Review, 7 (4), 11–24.

——— and Finn Wiedersheim-Paul (1975), “The Internationali-zation of the Firm: Four Swedish Cases,” Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 12 (3), 305–322.

Katsikeas, Constantine S., Saeed Samiee, and Marios Theo-dosiou (2006), “Strategy Fit and Performance Consequencesof International Marketing Standardization,” Strategic Man-agement Journal, 27 (9), 867–90.

Kerin, Roger A., P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Robert A. Peterson(1992), “First-Mover Advantage: A Synthesis, ConceptualFramework, and Research Propositions,” Journal of Market-ing, 56 (October), 33–52.

Kim, Daekwan, S. Tamer Cavusgil, and Roger J. Calantone(2006), “Information System Innovations and Supply ChainManagement: Channel Relationships and Firm Performance,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (1), 40–54.

Kluckhohn, Clyde (1951), “Values and Value-Orientation in theTheory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classifi-cation,” in Toward a General Theory of Action, Talcott Par-sons and Edward Shils, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 388–483.

Kohli, Ajay K. and Bernard J. Jaworski (1990), “Market Orien-tation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and ManagerialImplications,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 1–18.

———, ———, and Ajith Kumar (1993), “MARKOR: A Mea-sure of Market Orientation,” Journal of Marketing Research,30 (November), 467–77.

Krasnikov, Alexander and Satish Jayachandran (2008), “TheRelative Impact of Marketing, Research-and-Development,and Operations Capabilities on Firm Performance,” Journalof Marketing, 72 (July), 1–11.

Lee, Chol and David A. Griffith (2004), “The MarketingStrategy–Performance Relationship in an Export-DrivenDeveloping Economy: A Korean Illustration,” InternationalMarketing Review, 21 (3), 321–34.

Lee, Dong-Jin (1998), “The Effect of Cultural Distance on theRelational Exchange Between Exporters and Importers: TheCase of Australian Exporters,” Journal of Global Marketing,11 (4), 7–22.

Leonidou, Leonidas C., Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Nigel F.Piercy (1998), “Identifying Managerial Influences on Export-ing: Past Research and Future Directions,” Journal of Inter-national Marketing, 6 (2), 74–102.

Little, Todd D., James A. Bovaird, and Keith F. Widaman(2006), “On the Merits of Orthogonalizing Powered andProduct Terms: Implications for Modeling InteractionsAmong Latent Variables,” Structural Equation Modeling, 13(4), 497–519.

Lu, Jane W. and Paul W. Beamish (2001), “The Internationali-zation and Performance of SMEs,” Strategic ManagementJournal, 22 (6–7), 565–86.

Madsen, Tage Koed (1989), “Successful Export MarketingManagement: Some Empirical Evidence,” International Mar-keting Review, 6 (4), 41–57.

Martin, James H. and Bruno Grbac (2003), “Using SupplyChain Management to Leverage a Firm’s Market Orienta-tion,” Industrial Marketing Management, 32 (1), 25–38.

Matsuno, Ken, John T. Mentzer, and Aysegül Özsomer (2002),“The Effects of Entrepreneurial Proclivity and Market Orien-tation on Business Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 66(July), 18–32.

Menon, Anil, Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and Roy D. Howell(1996), “The Quality and Effectiveness of Marketing Strategy:Effect of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict in Intra-organizational Relationships,” Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 24 (4), 299–313.

Miesenböck, Kurt J. (1988), “Small Businesses and Exporting:A Literature Review,” International Small Business Journal, 6(January–March), 42–61.

Miller, Danny and Jean-Marie Toulouse (1986), “Strategy,Structure, CEO Personality and Performance in Small Firms,”American Journal of Small Business, 10 (3), 47–62.

Mizruchi, Mark S. and Lisa C. Fein (1999), “The Social Con-struction of Organizational Knowledge: A Study of the Usesof Coercive, Mimetic, and Normative Isomorphism,” Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4), 653–83.


Morgan, Neil A., Anna Kaleka, and Constantine S. Katsikeas(2004), “Antecedents of Export Venture Performance: ATheoretical Model and Empirical Assessment,” Journal ofMarketing, 68 (January), 90–108.

O’Grady, Shawna and Henry W. Lane (1996), “The PsychicDistance Paradox,” Journal of International Business Studies,27 (2), 309–333.

Peñaloza, Lisa and Mary C. Gilly (1999), “Marketer Accultur-ation: The Changer and the Changed,” Journal of Marketing,63 (July), 84–104.

Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, andNathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases inBehavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature andRecommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

——— and Dennis W. Organ (1986), “Self-Reports in Organi-zational Research: Problems and Prospects,” Journal of Man-agement, 12 (4), 531–44.

Priem, Richard L., Douglas W. Lyon, and Gregory G. Dess(1999), “Inherent Limitations of Demographic Proxies in TopManagement Team Heterogeneity Research,” Journal ofManagement, 25 (6), 935–53.

Prime, Nathalie, Claude Obadia, and Irena Vida (2009), “Psy-chic Distance in Exporter–Importer Relationships: AGrounded Theory Approach,” International Business Review,18 (2), 184–98.

Roccas, Sonia, Lilach Sagiv, Shalom H Schwartz, and ArielKnafo (2002), “The Big Five Personality Factors and PersonalValues,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (6),789–801.

Rokeach, Milton (1973), The Nature of Human Values. NewYork: The Free Press.

Ruekert, Robert W. (1992), “Developing a Market Orientation:An Organizational Strategy Perspective,” International Jour-nal of Research in Marketing, 9 (3), 225–45.

Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), “Universals in the Content andStructure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Testsin 20 Countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psy-chology, Vol. 25, M.P. Zanna, ed. Orlando: Academic Press,1–65.

——— (2005), “Robustness and Fruitfulness of a Theory ofUniversals in Individual Human Values,” in Valores e Com-portamento nas Organizações (Values and Behavior in Orga-nizations), A. Tamayo and J.B. Porto, eds. Brasilia, Brazil:Vozes, 56–95.

——— (2006), “Basic Human Values: Theory, Measurement,and Applications,” Revue Française de Sociologie, 47 (4),249–88.

——— and Anat Bardi (2001), “Value Hierarchies Across Cul-tures: Taking a Similarities Perspective,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (3), 268–90.

——— and Wolfgang Bilsky (1990), “Toward a Theory of theUniversal Content and Structure of Values: Extensions andCross-Cultural Replications,” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 58 (5), 878–91.

——— and Tammy Rubel (2005), “Sex Differences in Value Pri-orities: Cross-Cultural and Multimethod Studies,” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 89 (6), 1010–1028.

——— and Lilach Sagiv (1995), “Identifying Culture-Specificsin the Content and Structure of Values,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26 (1), 92–116.

———, Markku Verkasalo, Avishai Antonovsky, and LilachSagiv (1997), “Value Priorities and Social Desirability: MuchSubstance, Some Style,” British Journal of Social Psychology,36 (1), 3–18.

Shane, Scott, S. Venkataraman, and Ian MacMillian (1995),“Cultural Differences in Innovation Championing Strategies,”Journal of Management, 21 (5), 931–52.

Short, Jeremy C., David J. Ketchen Jr., and Timothy B. Palmer(2002), “The Role of Sampling in Strategic ManagementResearch on Performance: A Two-Study Analysis,” Journal ofManagement, 28 (3), 363–85.

Simmonds, Kenneth and Helen Smith (1968), “The First ExportOrder: A Marketing Innovation,” British Journal of Market-ing, 2 (2), 93–100.

Sinkula, James, William Baker, and Thomas Noordewier(1997), “A Framework for Market-Based OrganizationalLearning: Linking Values, Knowledge, and Behavior,” Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (4), 305–318.

Sousa, Carlos M.P. and Frank Bradley (2006), “Cultural Dis-tance and Psychic Distance: Two Peas in a Pod?” Journal ofInternational Marketing, 14 (1), 49–70.

——— and Jorge Lengler (2009), “Psychic Distance, MarketingStrategy and Performance in Export Ventures of BrazilianFirms,” Journal of Marketing Management, 25 (5–6),591–610.

———, Francisco J Martinez-Lopez, and Filipe Coelho (2008),“The Determinants of Export Performance: A Review of theResearch in the Literature Between 1998 and 2005,” Inter-national Journal of Management Reviews, 10 (4), 343–74.

Srivastava, Abhishek, Edwin A. Locke, and Kathryn M. Bartol(2001), “Money and Subjective Well-Being: It’s Not theMoney, It’s the Motives,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 80 (6), 959–71.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (2001), “The Role of NationalCulture in International Marketing Research,” InternationalMarketing Review, 18 (1), 30–44.


———, Frenkel ter Hofstede, and Michel Wedel (1999), “ACross-National Investigation into the Individual and NationalCultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness,” Journalof Marketing, 63 (April), 55–69.

Styles, Chris (1998), “Export Performance Measures in Aus-tralia and the United Kingdom,” Journal of InternationalMarketing, 6 (3), 12–36.

Thomas, James B., Shawn M. Clark, and Dennis A. Gioia (1993),“Strategic Sensemaking and Organizational Performance: Link-ages Among Scanning, Interpretation, Action, and Outcomes,”Academy of Management Journal, 36 (2), 239–70.

Vandenberg, Robert J. and Charles E. Lance (2000), “A Reviewand Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Sug-gestions, Practices, and Recommendations for OrganizationalResearch,” Organizational Research Methods, 3 (1), 4–70.

Verhoef, Peter C., Franses Philip Hans, and Janny C. Hoekstra(2002), “The Effect of Relational Constructs on CustomerReferrals and Number of Services Purchased from a Multiser-vice Provider: Does Age of Relationship Matter?” Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 202–216.

Very, Philippe, Michael Lubatkin, Roland Calori, and JohnVeiga (1997), “Relative Standing and the Performance ofRecently Acquired European Firms,” Strategic ManagementJournal, 18 (8), 593–614.

Wang, Sheng, Tony W. Tong, Guoli Chen, and Hyondong Kim(2009), “Expatriate Utilization and Foreign Direct InvestmentPerformance: The Mediating Role of Knowledge Transfer,”Journal of Management, 35 (5), 1181–1206.

Weiss, Allen M. and Jan B. Heide (1993), “The Nature of Orga-nizational Search in High Technology Markets,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 30 (May), 220–33.

White, J. Chris, P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Peter A. Dacin(2003), “Market Situation Interpretation and Response: TheRole of Cognitive Style, Organizational Culture, and Informa-tion Use,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (July), 63–79.

Williams, Robin M. (1968), “The Concept of Values,” in TheInternational Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 16,David L. Sills, ed. New York: The Free Press, 283–87.

Yamin, Mohammad and Rudolf R. Sinkovics (2006), “OnlineInternationalisation, Psychic Distance Reduction and the Vir-tuality Trap,” International Business Review, 15 (4), 339–60.

Zou, Shaoming, Charles R. Taylor, and Gregory E. Osland(1998), “The EXPERF Scale: A Cross-National GeneralizedExport Performance Measure,” Journal of International Mar-keting, 6 (3), 37–58.

THE AUTHORS

Carlos M.P. Sousa is Lecturer of Marketing at the UCDMichael Smurfit Graduate Business School, UniversityCollege Dublin. His research interests are in the areas ofinternational marketing strategy, determinants of com-pany performance, the measurement and impact of psy-chic distance and cultural distance on internationalactivities, and cultural influences on international mar-keting strategies. He has published in Journal of Inter-national Marketing, Journal of World Business, Inter-national Business Review, European Journal ofMarketing, International Journal of ManagementReviews, International Small Business Journal, Journalof Marketing Management, and Academy of MarketingScience Review, among others.

Emilio Ruzo is Associate Professor of Marketing andMarket Research, Business Management Faculty ofLugo, University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). Heholds a doctorate in business administration from theUniversity of Santiago de Compostela. His researchinterests include competitive market analysis, inter-national marketing strategy, brand equity, consumerbehavior, entrepreneurship, and family business. Hisresearch has been published in International Journal ofMarket Research, Journal of World Business, and otherjournals.

Fernando Losada is Associate Professor of Marketingand Market Research, Business Management Faculty ofLugo, University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). Heholds a doctorate in business administration from theUniversity of Santiago de Compostela. His researchinterests include international marketing strategy,competitive market analysis, consumer behavior, entre-preneurship, and family business. His research has beenpublished in International Journal of Market Research,Journal of World Business, and other journals.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the anonymous JIM reviewers fortheir valuable comments and suggestions. The authorsalso thank Shalom H. Schwartz for his advice and com-ments during the development of this article.

Documents

B2B marketing