After finalizing the elements of factor through defining of the alpha Cronbach coefficient, we were able to evaluate performance and importance of each elements for analyzing the gap.
Performance of the factor
The statistical hypothesis was defined as following:
H0: μ≤ 3
H1: μ≤ 3
Hypothesis H1 explains that the average of the scores of performances shall be greater than 3, with an accuracy of 95%, and the H0 hypothesis shows that the average should be less or equal to 3. This hypothesis shows a weakness of the firm’s performance in this dimension. The results showed that the t score for performance of staff qualification and encouragement was 11.034 with an average of 4.11 and SD of ±0.870 the degree freedom was 73. Hence, according to
t0 = 11/034 > t0/05,73 = 1/645
and accuracy level (p = 0.000 < 0.05), H0 was rejected and H1 showed improvable performance of the sample firms in relation to staff qualification and encouragement to export and international marketing in sample firms.
Importance of the factor
Statistical hypotheses H0 and H1 were defined as the following:
H0: μ≤ 3
H1: μ≤ 3
t score for importance of staff qualification and encouragement was 39.149 with an average of 5.29 and SD of ±0.504 the degree of freedom was 73.
Thus, according to:
t0 = 39.149 > t0/05,73 = 1/645
and accuracy level (p = 0.000 < 0.05), H0 was rejected and H1 shows high importance of staff qualification and encouragement in relation to export and international marketing in the sample firms.
Ranking and comparisons of performances and importance of elements
As it has shown in
table 1, the first rank for performance of sample firms with regard to evaluated elements was belonged to the proudness for working in the company (with an average performance of 4.67). On the other hand, the lowest rank contained the constant training (with an average performance of 3.24). These indicated that despite being successful in creating a pleasant atmosphere for staff to be proud of working in such companies, there was a significant weakness in the training process continuously in the firms studied.
| Element | Rank | Average Rank | Average Performance |
|---|
| Proudness for working in the company | 1 | 3.73 | 4.67 |
| Staff enthusiasm toward exporting | 2 | 3.11 | 4.33 |
| Management Turnover * | 3 | 3.09 | 4.18 |
| Existence of an “export champion”** | 4 | 3.03 | 4.03 |
| Training constantly | 5 | 2.05 | 3.24 |
Nonetheless, for ranking of elements regarding importance, the responses to the questionnaire involved in an anticipated glimpse, and showed different results.
Table 2 shows that the existence of an expert manager who drives the exporting successfully, so called “an export champion”, was assigned as the first rank. Staff enthusiasm for export consisted the lowest rank. The other elements laid between the extremes.
| Element | Rank | Average Rank | Average Importance |
|---|
| **”Existence of an “export champion | 1 | 3.47 | 5.6 |
| Training constantly | 2 | 3.06 | 5.4 |
| Proudness for working in the company | 3 | 3.16 | 5.37 |
| * Management Turnover | 4 | 2.66 | 5.09 |
| Staff enthusiasm toward exporting | 5 | 2.66 | 5.03 |
| Dimension | Average | | t | Degree of Freedom | p |
|---|
| Staff qualification and encouragement | Importance | 5.29 | 10.483 | 73 | 0.00 |
| performance | 4.11 |
Analyzing the gap between importance and performance
The gap between importance and performance was determined by paired samples t-test.
The main aim of this section was to check for any possible significant gap between the importance (expected level) and performance (current condition) of factor’s elements.
For each element, two statistical hypotheses are defined individually as follows:
H0: μ1 = μ2
H1: μ1 ≠ μ2
Hypothesis H1 states that the average of importance of the factor is relatively different from the average of performances in the same factor. There was a considerable gap between these two in case of lower averages of performance in comparison to importance; this means that the firms were still considered not to be strong enough in this factor and in behind of desired levels.
The average of importance was 5.29 and the average of performance was 4.11. We have the formulai t0 = 10.483 > t0/05,73 = 1/645 and the asymptotic significance was zero (less than 0.05). Overall, the statistical hypothesis H0 was rejected in favor of hypothesis H1 and the gap between importance and performances was attendable. As the average of performance is less than that of importance, the sample firms were weaker than the desired level.