Supplier Development in Indian
Organizations
Rashi Taggar 1
1
Lecturer, College of Management,
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University,
Katra, Kakryal, J & K.
E-mail : taggar.rashi@gmail.com
Abstract
The primary aim of this research paper is to examine the
key factors of supplier development which the buyer uses to
help developing the key-input supplier. To address this, an
empirical study was conducted on 150 buyer organizations.
This important dimension was analysed with the help of
statements framed after conducting interviews with the
procurement officials of the select organizations. The use of
factor analysis has helped in extracting important aspects
like direct assistance, support, regulation and business
potential of supplier development. The effect of each key
aspect on supplier development has been examined. This
paper provides an insight into various factors accountable
for developing the supplier for strategic development of
relationship between the buyer and the supplier. This
positive relationship development leads to benefit both the
partners. So this research can be of practical use to the
organizations attempting to focus on supplier development
soastomaintainstrategic dyadic relationshipinthe longrun.
Keywords:
Dyadic relationship, key-input supplier, supplier
development
Introduction
There is a change in trend – it is not the traditional
purchasing department anymore, but the concept of whole
supply chain. Organizations strive to achieve sustainable
and profitable supply chains that respond quickly to
market changes. For this required sustainability, the
organizations are focusing on relationship development
26 Bi-annual Journal of Asian School of Business Management, Vol. VI, Issue I, January 2013
with the other members of the supply chain, the
need of the hour being mutual business
perspective where a win-win situation exists. This
collaboration perspective is the basic requirement
to develop the partner and further the dyadic
relationship of buyer and supplier.
The relational view also says that investments are
made by buyers in the development of suppliers in
order to accrue tangible benefits such as reduced
cost, greater quality and flexibility and more
reliable delivery. When Harley Davidson started
taking help from its key input suppliers, the
output of bikes was increased and also the
inventory period could reduce from 15 to 6.5
days. M&M's suppliers' technical assistance has
helped in co-des igning the vehicles
manufactured. These two companies have made
the relational investments and also procured the
benefits from entering into such strategic
relationship.
Review of Literature
Various empirical studies have shown the
assessment and importance of Supplier
Development. A number of studies have been
attempted regarding this important dimension of
buyer supplier relationship across the world and it
is imperative to offer an account of the studies so
undertaken by different researchers and
academicians.
For the first time the term 'supplier development'
was used by Leenders (1966) to describe efforts
by manufacturers to increase the number of viable
suppliers and improve suppliers' performance
whi le disc ussi ng a ca se of Ca nadi an
manufacturer. Further study of Honda Motor
Company by Hahn et al. (1990) emphasized on
phases of supplier development followed by the
company for improving performance.
Krause and Ellram (1997) explored the success
factors in supplier development via survey which
solicited buyers' perceptions about a single
instance of supplier development performed by
their firms. The results of this exploratory study
suggested that buying firms often directly
involve them sel ves in their suppliers'
performance and capabilities problems.
According t o Krause (1999), suppl ier
development broadly refers to any effort by a
buying firm to improve a supplier's performance
and/or capabilities to meet the buying firm's
short- and/or long-term supply needs and
according to Handfield et al. (2000) supplier
development involves those activities a buyer
firm undertakes to increase supplier capabilities
and/ or performance. Choi and Choi (2002)
studied the change in trend of dealing with
suppliers in Korea after the economic crisis and
found that to meet the impending economic
challenges in the aftermath of the Asian economic
crisis, many organizations in Korea turned to
supplier development. The shortage of funds led
to reduction of the supply base so as to focus on a
few suppliers for development by providing them
independence and technology up gradation.
Working together cooperatively in this fashion
led to reduction in development lead time and no
additional testing of products developed. The
authors believe that Korean companies took the
right measures after the crisis to establish a more
balanced supply chain. Supplier Development
was pioneered in the automotive industry such as
Toyota and Honda which are the masters at
supplier development initiatives. (Wagner et al
2003). Humphreys et al. (2004) examined the role
of supplier development in the context of
buyer–supplier performance from a buying firm's
perspective and concluded that transaction-
specific supplier development, trust, supplier
strategic objectives and effective
communications significantly contributed to the
prediction of buyer–supplier performance
improvement. Wagner (2006) examined the
relationship between supplier development,
improvements and the support of the customer
firm's competitive strategy with the resource-
based view and the relational view as theoretical
explanatory perspectives. The results showed

that appropriate supplier development activities
are powerful to substantially back up the
customer firm's differentiation as well as cost
leadership strategy. The author also expressed
that supplier development in channel research is a
widely neglected inter-firm relationship
management practice, and should therefore
receive more attention from practice and
research. Wagner (2006) defined supplier
development as supporting the supplier in
enhancing the performance of their products and
services or improving the supplier's capabilities.
A growing body of research suggests that
maintaining cooperative relationships with
strategic suppliers can improve a buying
organization's performance (van der Vaart and
van Donk, 2008). Suppliers are not dealt with
short term perspective but now the suppliers have
become strategic for the sustainability and
profitability of the organizations. Buyers could
reap benefits not only in the short-term but also in
the long-term by managing suppliers strategically
(Talluri & Narasimhan, 2004). According to Shah
(2009), successful dyadic relationship building
involves the following three elements:
1. Designing relationship with cooperation and
trust
2. Managing and nurturing relationships
3. Redesigning relationship with change in
environment
Successful relationships aim to integrate channel
policy to avoid redundancy and overlap while
seeking a level of cooperation that allows
participants to be more effective at lower cost
levels (Lassar and Zinn 1995). The imperfect
nature of industrial markets also favors the use of
more sophisticated mechanisms of relationship
governance than mere competitive bidding to
dri ve l earning and innovation, within
partnerships and business networks (Ahmadjian
& Lincoln 2001; Knight 2002).
According to the Capgemini report, most of the
27
companies surveyed said they were effectively
carrying out a range of supplier collaboration
activities, including the use of information
systems (89 per cent), open-innovation
environments (80 per cent) and involvement in
the innovation process (79 per cent). The report
also found that manufacturers are increasingly
turning to collaborative business models,
processes and technologies to gain competitive
advantage in their innovation efforts across all
parts of the value chain, including through
supplier, R&D and customer collaboration. This
collaboration perspective is the basic
requirement to develop the partner and further the
dyadic relationship of buyer and supplier.
The relational view also says that investments are
made by buyers in the development of suppliers
in order to accrue tangible benefits such as
reduced cost, greater quality and flexibility and
more reliable delivery. Buying firms in
manufacturing industries, including automotive
and electronics, have four primary competitive
priorities in their end-markets: cost, quality,
delivery time and reliability and flexibility (Ward
et. al. 1998).
A study by Krause et. al. (2007) investigated the
relationship between U.S. buying firms' supplier
development efforts, commitment, social capital
accumulation and performance improvement.
Performance outcomes in quality, delivery and
flexibility appeared to depend more on supplier
development than cost performance outcomes.
Supplier development research has concentrated
on developed countries, such as the US, Europe,
and Japan (Krause et al., 2000; Krause et al.,
2007; Sanchez-Rodriguez et al., 2005; Wagner,
2006; Sako, 2004).
Researchers have empirically investigated a
variety of research issues related to supplier
development activities. These issues include
critical factors of supplier development (Krause
and Ellram, 1997); the process of supplier
28 Bi-annual Journal of Asian School of Business Management, Vol. VI, Issue I, January 2013
development (Hartley and Choi, 1996; Krause et
al., 1998); the factors that influence buying firms'
involvement in developing their suppliers
(Krause, 1999); and the effect of technical
support provided to suppliers. (Krause, 1997;
Prahinski and Benton, 2004) and buyers (Krause
et al., 2000).
All of these studies, however, are from developed
nations where the trend to invest in supplier
development is at its boom and also these buyer-
supplier dyads are reaping benefits from this
dimension. In developing nations, however, the
concept of a balanced supply chain is still at a
nascent stage. So in a country like India,
developing the supplier takes a completely
different perspective with emphasis on different
aspects.
With this backdrop, the present study is
conducted by taking into consideration not one
industry but many industries, so as to analyze the
present situation existing in buying organizations
of North India and their relationship orientation
towards their key input supplier. By this study the
dimension of supplier development from the
buyers' perspective is studied so as to find further
the important factors involved and the
significance of these factors individually to the
dimension taken. Deriving these factors can help
in understanding their importance to rationally
use them in maintaining and developing the
dyadic relationship as supplier development has
the target of creating a supply base that provides
sustainable competitive advantage (Krause et al.,
1998). Supplier development and its factors
significantly correlate with the perceived buyer-
supplier performance outcomes (Humphreys et
al., 2004). Partnerships succeed when they
develop dyadic relations through investments in
assets and shared know-how (Dyer and Singh,
1998). Supplier development efforts improve the
performance of both suppliers and buyers
(Krause et al., 2000; Prahinski and Benton, 2004)
and these activities improve the relational skills
of dyadic relationship (Krause et al., 1998). Such
is the importance of supplier development
activities that the dyadic relationship between the
buyer and supplier can improve leading to
positive performance outcome for the benefit of
whole supply chain.
Objectives of The Study
To find the key factors considered important by
the buyer for developing the supplier to enhance
the quality of relationship between the two.
Research Methodology
The primary data has been taken in this
descriptive research from seven different
industries. 150 organizations (Chart 1) from these
industries were surveyed with the use of
questionnaire developed after the interview
process from fourteen organizations (two
organizations from each sector). The data
collected was further analysed by using the
statistical package SPSS 15.
DataAnalysis
The interview was conducted with the
procurement officials of 14 organizations so as to
find out the various ways used by the buyer in
developing the supplier. These ways were
constructed in the form of items to be asked in the
questionnaire. The buyers were also asked how
much they agree that they are involved in
developing the supplier. The answer to this
statement has been used in associating its
relationship with the factors extracted (by the use
of regression analysis).
Reliability of the questionnaire administered has
been checked with the Cronbach's alpha value in
Table 1 which supports that the questionnaire
administered to the buyers is reliable as Cronbach
alpha value is greater than acceptable value of 0.7
(Cronbach and Shavelson 2004). The items
constructed for the questionnaire to check how

much the buyers agree (1= strongly disagree to 5=
strongly agree) to use for developing the supplier
are:
1.Special investments made
2.Functional training for skill enhancement
3.Enhancing overall business potential of
supplier
4.Personnel training for better management
5.Helping in eliminating wastes
6.Regularly visiting suppliers' plants/ capacity
location
7.Financial assistance
8.Personnel assistance
9.Purchasing suppliers' capabilities
10.Fixing the problems
The factor analysis (Table 2) was run on items of
supplier development, which yield the rotated
component matrix. The factors with loadings
more than 0.5 were accepted under the factors
categories extracted and named further on the
basis of nature of factors falling under the specific
categories for the dimension as follow:
The first factor extracted consists of four items,
which are financial assistance, personnel
assistance, purchasing supplier's capabilities and
fixing the problems of supplier. Thus collectively
we can name this first factor, represented by F1, as
“Direct Assistance”.
Factor 1: Direct Assistance: (F1) = (Financial,
Personnel, Problem fixing, Purchasing supplier's
capabilities)
The second factor extracted consists of three
it em s, w hic h a re Funct iona l tra ining,
Management training provided to suppliers and
specific special investments made for supplier.
This factor has been named as “Support”.
Factor 2: Support (F2) = (Investments, Functional
29
training, Management Training)
The third factor consists of guiding the supplier
for waste elimination and visiting the supplier's
plant/capacity.
Factor 3: Regulation (F3) = (Guiding waste
elimination, Visiting Supplier's capacity)
The fourth factor includes one item only i.e.
buyer's concern for enhancing supplier's overall
business. This is named as “Business Potential”.
Factor 4: Business potential (F4) = (enhancing
suppliers' overall business)
The regression analysis (Table 3) has been
employed to see the effect of these extracted
factors in supplier development so as to prioritize
them according to the values associated with
them. The Durbin Watson's value of1.8 supports
the assumption as it is falling closer to value 2 as
required for assumption support. As observed,
2
the value of R , a measure of how much of the
variability in outcome is accounted for by the
antecedents, as seen in the model is 0.858which
means that 85.8% percent of the total variance in
development dimension from the factors
considered in buyer supplier relationship has
been explained.
The adjusted R2 for the model helps in
determining the value of shrinkage if the model
were derived from population rather than a
sample. R2- adjusted R2 i.e. 0.858-0.854 = 0.004
or 0.4% less variance in outcome would have
appeared if the whole population is taken. The
value of F is highly significant (p<0.001) and
supports the consideration for the model on the
basis of significance and ability to predict the
significance levels of factors of supplier
development. The regression analysis (Table 5)
has helped in generating the following equation:
Supplier Development =
0.339F1+0.272F2+0.203F3+0.125F4+0.50+μ
(error).
This equation confirms the value addition by each
30 Bi-annual Journal of Asian School of Business Management, Vol. VI, Issue I, January 2013
factor extracted in supplier development
dimension. These factors contribute to the overall
development of the supplier by grafting the use of
assistance, support, regulation and assumption of
overall upkeep of the supplier's business. As
observed in the equation, direct assistance
contributes maximum to the dimension of
supplier development followed by support,
regulation and business potential. Most of the
buyers in our study were indulged in these efforts
of assisting the suppliers in terms of money,
skillful people required to perform at suppliers'
location, providing the solution to problems faced
by the supplier and purchasing suppliers'
capabilities for smooth functioning of the
processes undertaken. Support is provided to the
supplier only when asked or as a solution to the
problems faced by them. This support is in terms
of specific investments for developing the
supplier and providing management and
functional training. Those buyers who have
concern for green management approach, only
those have supported the supplier in eliminating
the waste which also enhances efficiency of the
supply chain. Also frequent visits by the buyer to
inspect supplier's location are not readily
observed by the buyers. Enhancing business
potential of supplier is possible only when the
buyer is developing the supplier in all aspects,
which is still an admirable aspiring effort to be
done by the buyers in Indian context.
Discussion
A survey of 200 Chief Procurement Officers by
the Aberdeen Group suggests that improving
supplier development is a top priority for the best
performing supply management organizations
(Checketts and Bartolini, 2006). Applying the
managerial criteria in the supplier development
and support would improve the quality of
purchased parts, and also would better understand
the weakness of the suppliers. Consequently, the
manufacturer will improve the quality of its
finished goods. Hence, both the manufacturer's
and suppliers' profit will be increased by making
better parts and finished goods than their
competitors', and it will contribute to the tighter
coordination than ever before (Lee et al., 2001).
Although in this study supplier development is
still not the priority of buyers and whatever
development efforts are taken by the buyer, they
are limited to certain area only and also only a
few suppliers (key-input) may be developed by
the buyer.
Krause et al. (1998) suggested that some firms
are reactive in supplier development efforts,
meaning that they attempt to develop their
suppliers after a problem actually occurs. In
contrast, firms wanting to create a first-rate
supply base that can provide a competitive edge
over the long-term adopt a proactive approach;
they identify crucial commodities and the
suppliers of them that require development. In
our study, the problems faced by the supplier in
terms of finance, requirement of skill full
personnel, capability improvement to enhance
the utilization capacity are tried to be solved
when the supplier actually discusses these
problems with the buyer and also the buyer gets
affected with the problem, so the proactive
approach is still lacking in Indian context.
The buyers invest in suppliers' development by
investing in their plant locations and further
providing functional and management training
for process improvement. The ultimate objective
of providing training to suppliers is to improve
suppliers' quality, flexibility and delivery
performance and to reduce their costs (Krause et
al., 1998) by teaching them how to continuously
improve their operations. Krause et al. (2000)
and Krause et al. (2007) have discussed that by
concentrating on training, the supplier
performance improves, thus leading to stronger
buyer performance. Supporting suppliers result
in improved buyer-supplier performance
(Humphreys et al., 2004) and enhanced
product/service quality of the buying firm

(Krause et al., 2000). Some buyers provide
training to managers and production employees
of their suppliers to improve the suppliers'
performance (Krause and Scannell, 2002; Modi
and Mabert, 2007).
It is not uncommon for buyers to teach their
suppliers' employees quality improvement skills
or educate them for waste management.(Krause,
1997; Krause et al., 1998).The buyer may send its
employees to the supplier's facility to offer
training or the buyer may invite the supplier to
participate in training that is offered at its
facilities (Modi and Mabert, 2007). Thus visiting
supplier's capacity can provide help to the
supplier in getting better ways of waste
elimination and improving the process. The visits
by the buyer also encourage interaction and
liaison building between the two parties. The
buyer becomes aware of the supplier and vice-
versa which is essential for relationship building
and maintenance.
When buyers help the suppliers not only for their
own benefit in supply chain but also by taking into
consideration the overall enhancement of
business potential of the supplier then the
development initiatives are seen in full bloom.
Development of any supply chain player will
ultim ately improve the efficiency and
responsiveness of whole supply chain proving
beneficial for all the players involved.
Supplier development is considered as the
assisting activities to improve supplier's
operations (Lo and Yeung 2006). Although
supplier development is only one dimension of
improving the dyadic relationship but it certainly
is an important dimension which involves the
important aspects of enhancing not only the
business potential of supplier or buyer but the
whole supply chain.
Conclusion
The primary motivation behind a buyer providing
support to suppliers is to improve a buyer's
product quality and reduce costs through
31
enhance d supplier performance. These
improvements provide a competitive edge by
enabling a buyer to increase its products/services
sales (Hartley and Choi, 1996; Krause et al.,
2000). The buyer providing direct assistance
financially, improving the process design,
guiding to eliminate the waste, extending the
training efforts, regular plant visits have been
considered the ways of developing the supplier.
This aspect of development also encourages
further the collaboration and co-dependency in
which both the parties extend support to each
other to sustain and develop. Collaboration and
co-dependency is achieved through strong
trusting relationships (Rogers 2006). Thus we
can say the dimensions of buyer supplier
relationship are interdependent, focusing on one
will lead to strengthening the others also leading
to a strong buyer supplier relationship.
Further studies can be done to compare these
dimensions in different industries with greater
number of respondents. The cases can be
developed for better understanding of dyadic
relationship and relationship quality issues.
References
Ahmadjian, C.L., Lincoln, J.R., 2001. Keiretsu,
governance, and learning: case studies in
change from the Japanese automotive
industry. Organization Science 12 (6),
683–701.
Capgemini Report
http://www.capge mini.com/ insights-a nd-
resources/by-publication/ collaborating-for-
innovation-2010/#, accessed on 10th August,
2011
Checketts, V. and Bartolini, A., 2006. The CPO's
Strategic Agenda: Management People,
Managing Spend, Aberdeen Group, Inc.,
Boston, MA.
Choi, J.W. and Choi, T.Y., 2002. Supplier
Development in Korea: Rude Awakening
after the Crisis, Business Horizons, July-
32 Bi-annual Journal of Asian School of Business Management, Vol. VI, Issue I, January 2013
August, 43-50
Cronbach, Lee J., and Richard J. Shavelson,
2004. My Current Thoughts on Coefficient
Alpha and Successor Procedures. Educational
and Psychological Measurement 64(3), 391-
418.
Dyer JH, Singh H. 1998. The relational view:
cooperative strategy and sources of inter-
organizational competitive advantage.
Academy of Management Review 23: 660-
679
Hahn, C. K., C. A. Watts. and K.Y. Kim, 1990,
The supplier development program: A
conceptual model. International Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management 26(2),
2-7
Hartley, J.L. and Choi, T.Y., 1996. Supplier
development: customers as a catalyst of
process change. Business Horizons 39(4), 37-
44.
Humphreys, P.K, Li, W.L., Chan, L.Y., 2004. The
impact of supplier development on buyer-
supplier performance. Omega 32 (2), 131-
144.
Knight, L., 2002. Network learning: exploring
learning by inter-organizational networks.
Human Relations 55(4), 427-454.
Krause, D.R; Ellram, L.M., 1997. Success factors
in supply development. International Journal
of physical distribution and logistics
management 27(1), 39-52.
Krause, D.R., Handfield, R.B. and Scannell, T.V.,
1998. An empirical investigation of supplier
deve lopm ent: reactive and strategic
proce sses. Journal of Operations
Management 17, 39-58.
Krause, D.R.,1999. The antecedents of buying
firms' efforts to improve suppliers. Journal of
Operations Management 17, 205-24.
Krause, D.R., Scannell, T.V. and Calantone, R.J.,
2000. A st ruc tura l a na lysis of the
effectiveness of buying firms' strategies to
improve supplier performance. Decision
Sciences 31, 33-55.
Krause, D.R. and Scannell, T., 2002. Supplier
development practices: product and service
based industry comparisons. Journal of
Supply Chain Management 38(2), 13-21.
Krause, Daniel R., Robert B. Handfield, and
Beverly B. Tyler. 2007. The relationships
between supplier development, commitment,
social capital accumulation, and performance
improvement. Journal of Operations
Management 25, 528-545.
Lassar, W and Zinn, W, 1995. Informal Channel
Relationships in Logistics. Journal of
Business Logistics 16(1), 81-106
Lee, E., Ha, S. and Kim, S., 2001. Supplier
Se le c ti on a nd Ma na gem e nt S yst e m
considering Relationships in Supply Chain
Management, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management 48(3), 307-318
Leenders, M. R.,1966. Supplier Development.
Journal of Purchasing 24, 47-62
Lo, V.H.Y and Yeung, A., 2006. Managing quality
effectively in supply chain: A preliminary
study. Supply Chain management: An
International journal 11(3), 208-215.
Modi, S. and Mabert, V., 2007, Supplier
development: improving supplier
performance through knowledge transfer,
Journal of Operations Management 25, 42-64.
Prahinski, C. and Benton, W.C., 2004. Supplier
evaluations: communication strategies to
improve supplier performance. Journal of
Operations Management 22, 39-62.
Rogers, P. A., 2006. Optimising supplier
management and why co-dependency equals
mutual success. Journal of Facilities

Management 4(1), 40-50
Sanchez-Rodriguez, C., Hemsworth, D., and
Martinez-Lorente, A., 2005. The effect of
supplier development initiatives on
purchasing performance: a structural model.
Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 10(5), 289-301.
Sako, M., 2004. Supplier development at Honda,
Nissan and Toyota: Comparative case studies
of organizational capability enhancement.
Industrial and Corporate Change 13(2), 281-
308.
Shah, J., 2009. Supply Chain Management:
Texts and Cases. Pearson Education
Talluri, S., &Narasimhan, R., 2004. A
methodology for strategic sourcing.
European Journal of Operational Research
33
154, 236-250.
Van der Vaart, T., Van Donk, D.P., 2008. A critical
review of survey-based research in supply
chain integration. International Journal of
Production Economics 111(1), 42-55.
Wagner, B.A; Fillis, I., and Johansson, U., 2003.
An exploratory study of SME local sourcing
and supplier development in the grocery retail
sector. International journal of Retail and
Distribution management 33(10), 716-73.
Wagner, S.M., 2006. Supplier development
practices: An exploratory study. European
journal of marketing 40(5/6), 554-571.
Ward, P., McCreery, J. K. Ritzman, L. P. and
Sharma, D., 1998. Competitive priorities in
operations management. Decision Sciences
29(4), 1035-1046
34 Bi-annual Journal of Asian School of Business Management, Vol. VI, Issue I, January 2013

Annexure:
Chart 1: Frequency distribution of Buyer organizations (N=150)

60

40

20

0
Chemical Electronics Auto Textile Construction Metal
Food
Processing

Series1 15 19 13 50 25 18 10

Table 1: Reliability values

Scale Cronbach's No. of

Alpha Items
Development .823 10
 35

Table 2: Rotated Component Matrix- Development

Component
1 2 3 4
Dv1 .107 .861 .031 .029
Dv2 .196 .768 .220 .153
Dv3 .159 .140 .010 .959
Dv4 .167 .645 .180 .089
Dv5 .044
- .272 .874 .148
Dv6 .500 .080 .756 .197
Dv7 .797 .139 .249 .338
Dv8 .817 .256 .074 .025
Dv9 .776 .262 .119 .081
Dv10 .687 .512 .137 .009

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 3: Regression Analysis

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson

1 .926 .858 .854 .29357 1.8
36 Bi-annual Journal of Asian School of Business Management, Vol. VI, Issue I, January 2013
Table 4: ANOVA

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 75.697 4 18.924 219.594 .000

Residual 12.496 145 .086

Total 88.193 149

The model is significantly able to predict the outcome variable as the F-ration is high enough and thus
significant (p<.001).

Table 5: Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig.

Model B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error

1 (Constant) .050 .089 .571 .569
F1 (7,8,9,10) .339 .028 .441 12.111 .000

F2 (1,2,4) .272 .026 .371 10.326 .000

.203 .025 .285 8.241 .000

F3(5,6)

F4(3) .125 .020 .209 6.405 .000

Copyright of ASBM Journal of Management is the property of Asian School of Business
Management (ASBM) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.