Technology Motivation in E-marketing Adoption ...

Journal of Transnational Management

ISSN: 1547-5778 (Print) 1547-5786 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtnm20

Technology Motivation in E-Marketing Adoption Among Malaysian Manufacturers Abdul Rahim Abu Bakar & Zafar U. Ahmed To cite this article: Abdul Rahim Abu Bakar & Zafar U. Ahmed (2015) Technology Motivation in E-Marketing Adoption Among Malaysian Manufacturers, Journal of Transnational Management, 20:2, 126-152, DOI: 10.1080/15475778.2015.1038949 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15475778.2015.1038949

Published online: 04 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 67

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wtnm20 Download by: [Prince Sultan College]

Date: 16 November 2015, At: 03:32

Journal of Transnational Management, 20:126–152, 2015 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1547-5778 print=1547-5786 online DOI: 10.1080/15475778.2015.1038949

Technology Motivation in E-Marketing Adoption Among Malaysian Manufacturers ABDUL RAHIM ABU BAKAR Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Downloaded by [Prince Sultan College] at 03:32 16 November 2015

ZAFAR U. AHMED Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait

E-marketing technology adoption and use continues to vary, despite widespread acceptance of the Internet in corporate environments. This study aims to explore the role of technology motivation in the adoption of e-marketing technology among firms. A survey was sent to 1,700 corporate managers in Malaysia based on the Federation of Malaysian Manufactures (FMM) directory. The unit of analysis was the Strategic Small Business Unit (SBU). The results revealed that technology motivation influences e-marketing technology adoption. The findings also support previous studies on the influence of management support in firm’s technology adoption. Our results support findings of similar studies that management support is an important internal determinant of technology adoption. This article helps to fill the gap in the literature and provide a clearer understanding of the motivations for adoption of technology for e-marketing purposes. KEYWORDS adoption, e-business, e-marketing, market orientation, motivation, technology

INTRODUCTION Despite the widespread acceptance of the Internet in corporate environments, the extent of the more inclusive e-business technology adoption and use

Received January 2015; revised February 2015; accepted April 2015. Address correspondence to Abdul Rahim Abu Bakar, Marketing Department, College of Business Administration, Prince Sultan University, P.O. Box 66833, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected] 126


Technology Motivation in E-Marketing Adoption

127

continues to vary between firms (Woodside, Gupta, & Cadeaux, 2004) and countries (Durbhakula & Kim, 2011). E-business adoption is an instance of a research field in information technology (IT) acceptance and use, but because it involves a setting that combines technology adoption with marketing elements, it is distinct from other IT adoption (Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006). The development of e-business capability is crucial because it is not only rapidly changing the way that companies buy, sell, and deal with customers, but it is also becoming a more central part of their business strategies (Abu-Musa, 2004). The adoption and successful implementation of technology creates sustainable competitive advantages for firms, offers a means for adapting to rapidly changing markets, and enhances business operation. The technology adoption is critical for leveraging applicable systems in the practice of customer-centric marketing (Kim & Pae, 2007; Kyobe, 2004). However, little research has been devoted to developing comprehensive models that examine the interrelationships between factors that influence the diffusion of customer-centric technology adoption (Avlonitis & Panagopoulos, 2005; Papastathopoulou, Avlonitis, & Panagopoulos, 2007; Peltier, Zhao, & Schibrowsky, 2012). A spin-off of e-business, e-marketing is a recent technology that has received substantial attention in the industry. Surveys conducted by Barwise and Farley (2005) have led them to claim that e-marketing technology is ‘‘starting to come of age.’’ Day and Bens (2005) argued that leading companies were adopting e-marketing to extend their competitive advantage in marketing. Nevertheless, Chen and Lien (2013) argued that despite the explosive development of new technologies, organizations adopt them at a rather slower rate. This argument echoes El-Gohary (2012) who stated that e-marketing technology is still a relatively new concept, particularly for organizations operating in developing countries that have limited resources and strong competition. Therefore, companies could not afford to make unwise investments or wrong decisions, which resulted in the poor uptake of e-marketing technology among firms. Coherently, this article is focusing on identifying the factors that determine firms’ e-marketing technology adoption. While Barwise and Farley (2005) viewed e-marketing technology as merely comprised of Internetbased advertising and communication technologies, this article follows the broader and more generic definition adopted by Brodie, Winklhofer, Coviello, and Johnston (2007). E-marketing is defined as using the Internet and other interactive technologies to create and mediate dialogue between the firm and identified customers. This may include, and is supported by, other interactive technologies related to customer relationship management, sales activity, research, analysis, and planning (Brodie et al., 2007). A review of the literatures showed that e-marketing and e-business is being used interchangeably because e-business is a generic term that comprises many different technologies (Brodie et al., 2007; Hertwig, 2012; Liu & Vijayaraman, 2007).


128

A. R. Abu Bakar and Z. Ahmed

There have been streams of research identifying the factors that influence firm technology adoption, applying a proliferation of models with mixed results (refer to Sila [2013] for a review of these models). Within these models, the technology-organization-environment adoption model is perhaps the widely accepted model among researchers (Bordonaba-Juste, Lucia-Palacios, & Polo-Redondo, 2012; Durbhakula & Kim, 2011; Hernandez, Jimenez, & Martin, 2009; Lian, Yen, & Wang, 2014). However, these models do not adequately consider the nature of innovation and how it affects a firm’s motivations for adoption (Sadowski, Maitland, & Dongen, 2002). Benbasat and Barki (2007) argued for a deepening of adoption research by providing variables that can explain what makes technology useful to end-users. They argued that research should include ‘‘why’’ people find technology worth using. We argue e-marketing applications fulfill different adoption motives. Therefore, compatibility with a firm’s needs is a critical variable in predicting whether a technology will be adopted (Sarrina Li, 2003; Vishwanath, 2009). In addition, much of the discourse surrounding technology that is surrounded by extravagant publicity in their debut is usually based on speculation and incomplete information, which can blur the distinction between what the technology can actually do and what potential users imagine (Hedman & Gimpel, 2010). This fallacious perception of the benefits insinuated by the technology creates a mismatch between the firm’s expectations and reality. Thus, it is important that firm’s motivation for e-marketing adoption is studied. To help fill this gap in the literature, this study hopes to provide a clearer understanding of the motivations for e-marketing adoption. To test our hypothesized model a survey was sent to Malaysian firms. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results.

LITERATURE REVIEW Conceptualizations of Technology Motivation In determining the factors that influence firms to adopt new technology, various adoption models have been suggested within the innovation and IT field. Sila (2013) reviewed 77 empirical studies in B2B e-commerce adoption and suggested that 47 of these studies used at least one theory as a framework (out of the 25 theories sampled). In his review of the literature, the author identified various sets of variables that influence a firm’s propensity to adopt an innovation such as management, organizational, innovation, and a firm’s business environment characteristics. At the same time, scores of innovation studies have used Rogers’ (1995) seminal work on attributes of innovation, which are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability, and trialability as their theoretical basis (e.g., Al-Qirim, 2005; Chong, 2006).



129

Within the attributes of innovation, Tornatzky and Klein (1982) conducted a meta-analysis of 75 innovation studies and identified that Rogers’ attribute of relative advantage is the only variable that has been consistently identified as a critical adoption factor (Oliveira & Martins, 2011; Tan, Chong, Lin, & Eze, 2009), the most important factor for IT growth in small firms (Ahmad, Abu Bakar, Faziharudean & Mohamad Zaki, 2014), and an important factor for ERP (enterprise resource planning) adoption (Kamhawi, 2008). Other studies in IT adoption have found relative advantage important for the adoption of various information technologies (Alberto & Fernando, 2007; Ramdani, Kawalek, & Lorenzo, 2009). Researchers have recognized relative advantage as an important perceived characteristic in technology adoption research (Al-Zoubi, Lip Sam, & Hock Eam, 2011; Sila & Dobni, 2012). Relative advantage has been conceptualized as perceived benefits by various researchers (i.e., Kuan & Chau, 2001; Premkumar & Ramamurthy, 1995). A perceived benefit is referred to as the level of recognition of the relative advantage that the particular technology could provide to the organization (Kuan & Chau, 2001). This is consistent with Rogers’ (1995) assertion that ‘‘the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes that has a direct impact on the likelihood of adoption’’ (p. 229). The primary motivation of businesses to adopt new technologies is the anticipated benefits these technologies would bring to the company (Iyanda & Ojo, 2008; Rogers, 2003; Vishwanath, 2009). This argument resonates with Chengalur-Smith and Duchessi’s (1999) synthesis of technology implementation process (TIP) models that proposed the stages in technology acceptance where the final stage consists of management accessing the technology’s benefits for approval. In a recent study by Gupta, Seetharaman, and Raj (2013) on the usage and adoption of cloud computing, their research found that ease of use and convenience and security and privacy are considered to be the top two priorities for SMEs to adopt cloud, followed by cost reduction or cost-saving benefits. Kwon and Zmud (1987) propose that successful information system (IS) implementation occurs when sufficient organizational resources are directed first toward motivation, then toward sustaining the implementation effort. Perceived benefits can be strategic or operational (Kuan & Chau, 2001) and represent the adoption motive through strategic implementation of the respective technology. However, the perceived benefits of a particular technology are largely determined by firm’s knowledge and understanding of how the technology would benefit them (Beatty, Shim, & Jones, 2001; Vishwanath, 2009). Iacovou, Benbasat, and Dexter (1995) findings on the adoption of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) among small firms indicated that non-EDI adopters primarily focused on efficiency benefits (operational) where EDI-capable firms mentioned the potential of EDI to transform interim relationships to allow entry into new and remote markets (suggesting strategic benefits). Similar examples were found in studies comprising of retailers and service providers (Clegg,


130


2001). Lal’s (2002) study on e-business adoption among SME’s in the manufacturing sector found that a majority of ‘‘offline technology-using firms’’ did not consider a significant impact on the competitiveness (strategic perceived benefits) of firms while 91% of ‘‘portal-using’’ firms perceived that e-business technologies significantly strengthen the competitiveness of firm. Velcu’s (2007) study reinforces our argument in which their study reveals that firms driven by technologically led motives versus business-led motives perceive differently toward the benefits of adopting ERP. This context differs with firm’s technology motivation where firm’s motives are manifested either explicitly or implicitly in their strategy, objectives, organizational culture, or management’s decision criteria when adopting a technology. Clark, Jeffrey, and Stephenson (2000) elaborated that expected motivations describe a set of considerations that are notionally of significance to those contemplating technology adoption while stated motivations can be viewed as a framework of considered actions, or decision space. This rationale correlates with Greer’s (1985) interpretations of hospital technology adoption decision systems that are fiscal-managerial, strategic-institutional, and medical-individualistic. Our discussions showed that although achieving mastery of the technology is critical to firm success of adopting a technology, ‘‘technology alone is not the goal’’ or purpose of adoption (Palumbo, 2001). An organization can realize a strategic vision founded on an understanding of the benefits the technology can provide to its customers and itself (Beach, 2007). Various adoption motives have been posited in technology adoption research; among the most popular is the competitive motive, which represents company’s desire to gain or maintain competitive advantage; efficiency and effective motives; depicts a company’s desire to attain internal efficiencies; market growth through expansion of new markets; and better customer service by shorter lead time and more updated information about transaction status (Chengalur-Smith & Duchessi, 1999; Davila, Gupta, & Palmer, 2003; Lal, 2002; Prasad, Ramamurthy, & Naidu, 2001). Chengalur-Smith and Duchessi (1999) found that the motivation for employing the client-server technology in firms comprised of competition, efficiency, and operation are business driven rather than technical in nature. Chen’s (2003) decision criteria also consist of financial (operational) and strategic motives in determining the factors affecting the adoption and diffusion of XML and web services standards for e-business systems. Meanwhile, in the field of resource management innovations, the benefits of enhanced competitiveness (Shrivastava, 1995) and marketing benefits (Zimmer, Stafford, & Stafford, 1994) have been identified as the reasons for adoption.

Technology Motivation and Technology Adoption Organizational technology adoption, as with any other strategic issue, is an event perceived by decision makers to have a potential impact on the future



131

effectiveness of the organization (Beach, 2007). As argued by Rogers (1995), organizations adopt a new innovation only if it provides significantly better benefits than existing ones. The innovation must provide solutions for existing problems or open up new opportunities to motivate the organization (Premkumar & Ramamurthy, 1995). Kaplan’s (1999) study reveals that a firm’s motivation helps drive every component of the early adoption decision process in firms. Gagnon and Toulouse (1996) inferred that each motivation represents an opportunity for the organization and such opportunities are being widely considered as a clear driver for adoption. Thus, it is coherent that firm’s adoption motives influence firm’s technology adoption through the analysis of anticipated or perceived benefits that the technology would bring to the company. Firm’s technology motives are manifested either explicitly or implicitly in their strategy, objectives, organizational culture, or management’s decision criteria when adopting a technology. Higher managerial understanding of perceived benefits of a respective technology increases the likelihood of the allocation of the managerial, financial, and technological resources necessary to implement the system (Benbasat, 1993, Petroni & Rizzi, 2001). The greater the extent to which these benefits are explored, the bigger the probability of adoption (Iacovou et al., 1995). In the adoption of Internet among SME’s, Mertens, Cragg, and Mills’ (2001) findings revealed that perceived benefits is one factor that influenced firm’s adoption and these were consistent across other different Internet innovations such as e-mail, web browsing, and maintaining a website. In a study of demand chain management (DCM) in manufacturing and services firms, Frohlich and Westbrook (2002) found that the perceived benefits of greater access to new markets influence the adoption of technology. The researchers found that the technology adoption is influenced by factors like performance and market share. Another widely cited example of using DCM to achieve market growth and competitive motives is Dell’s model in computers (Magretta, 1998). By satisfying existing clients, the technology allows companies to win over the most profitable customers in the new markets. In the adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMT), it has been argued that AMTs play a strategic role in improving competitiveness by utilizing the manufacturing function more effectively in overall business strategy. Sohal, Schroder, and Uliana’s (2001) study of 476 manufacturing companies in South Africa revealed that the major forces motivating firms to adopt AMT are obtaining competitive advantage and financial benefits. Finally, Mertens et al. (2001) found that the perceived benefits of efficiency and effectiveness were important determinants in the adoption of Internet among SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises). Although we acknowledge that firm’s adoption motivation may comprise various different motives, we focus on the strategic and marketing-related motives consisting of four components: competitiveness, market growth, effectiveness, and customer retention. These components

132


represent the construct of firm’s overall technology motivation. The various motives contribute toward an overall composite score of technology motivation. Consequently, the first hypothesis is: Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between firm’s technology motivation and e-marketing technology adoption.


Antecedents of Firm’s Technology Motivation Studies on organizational technology adoption have identified various factors that influence firm’s propensity to adopt a technology. As reiterated earlier, Rogers (1995) and Damanpour (1991) identified these sets of variables as management characteristics, organizational characteristics, and firm’s business environment characteristics. In this article, we posit that the antecedents of firm’s technology motivation consist of market orientation and firm’s business environment. Management support moderates the relationship between firm’s technology motivation and e-marketing adoption.

Market Orientation The relationship between market orientation and innovation has been researched and discussed by various authors (Hurley & Hult, 1998; Ku¨ster & Vila, 2011; Moutinho, Coelho, and Marques, 2009). This issue dates back to as early as Drucker’s (1954) suggestion that marketing and innovation are two basic functions of a firm. Thus, as argued by Cambra-Fierro, Hart, Fuster-Mur, and Polo-Redondo (2011) and Garcıá-Zamora, Gonza´lez-Benito, and Munõz-Gallego (2013), it is obvious that Kohli and Jaworski (1990) noted innovations as a central theme in their definition of market orientation. Surprisingly, the noted relationship has been merely intuitive and remains anecdotal due to limited empirical evidence (Hurley & Hult, 1998; Lukas & Ferrell, 2000). Recently, Ngo and O’Cass (2012) highlighted this notion again in the link between market orientation and innovation in which they argued that innovation is a central theme in this relationship. The conceptual foundation of the relationship between market orientation and innovation has been put forward by various researchers (Ku¨ster & Vila, 2011; Mavondo, Chimhanzi, & Stewart, 2005; Radas & Bozíc´, 2009; Silva, Moutinho, Coelho, & Marques, 2009). In Slater and Narver’s (1994) conceptual work, they propose innovation as one of the ‘‘core value-creating capabilities’’ that drives the market orientation-performance relationship. Most research suggests that innovation requires a market orientation for efforts to capitalize on market-driven actions, and a market orientation needs innovation to respond forcefully and quickly to environmental opportunities (Garcıá-Zamora et al., 2013; Hult & Ketchen, 2001). Clearly, market



133

orientation relates to innovation and business performance (Cambra-Fierro et al., 2011). A market orientation facilitates understanding of the market through monitoring consumer preferences and competitors’ actions (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), which should support the effective exploitation of innovative initiatives (Berthon, Hulbert, & Pitt, 2004). Given that timely and accurate information is needed to enable firms to become market oriented, it would be expected that such firms would also embrace information technology (Bhuian, Menguc, & Bell, 2005; Roge & Chakrabarty, 2003; Slater & Narver, 2000). Deshpande´, Farley, and Webster (1993) suggested the success of the firm’s innovation is probably the excellent visible manifestation of a firm’s market orientation along with the success of the firm. After finding firm’s performance linked to both market orientation and innovation, the researchers speculate on a causal relationship of market orientation, innovation, and performance. Reiterating the Deshpande´ et al. (1993) earlier statement, Slater and Narver (1994) reason that ‘‘innovation and new product success are more likely to result from being market-driven’’ (p. 25). Jaworski and Kohli (1993) have suggested that a ‘‘market orientation essentially involves doing something new or different in response to market conditions, it may be viewed as a form of innovative behavior’’ (p. 56). Although Jaworski and Kohli (1993) do not deal with innovation explicitly in their model, their subsequent work (Jaworski & Kohli, 1996) suggests that market orientation is an antecedent to innovation. Slater (1997) briefly comments on the idea that ‘‘successful innovation is the product of a market orientated culture coupled with entrepreneurial values’’ (p. 165). In addition, Jaworski and Kohli (1996) recognized that innovation has been inappropriately absent in models of market orientation. Han, Kim, and Srivastava (1998) responded to the previous arguments by providing a systematic framework testing market orientation-innovation-performance relationship using Narver and Slater’s (1990) market orientation framework. They provided empirical evidence that market orientation facilitates an organization’s innovativeness (adoption). Therefore, several authors (e.g., Atuahene-Gima, Slater, & Olson, 2005; De Luca, Verona, & Vicari, 2010; Jaw, Lo, & Lin, 2010; Kok & Biemans, 2009) have defended market orientation as an antecedent of innovation. In this article, we have taken the view that the market orientation and innovation relationship is mediated by technology motivation. Our rationale is based on Hurley and Hult’s (1998) argument that market orientation is a source of new ideas and motivation to respond to the environment. The motivation to respond to the environment may consist of an equal balance-mix of the components of market orientation (Slater & Narver, 1994) or the possibility of an emphasis of one of the components. Deshpande´ et al. (1993), for instance, argued that customer orientation is the most fundamental aspect of a corporate culture. Although a firm is market oriented, its motivation in responding toward the environment depends on its perspective and emphasis.


134


Market orientation can be defined in various perspectives. Kohli and Jaworski (1990), for instance, provide a behavioral definition of market orientation as ‘‘the organization-wide generation of market intelligence, dissemination of its intelligence across departments, and organization-wide responsiveness to it’’ (p. 3). Further distinguish the three behavioral components as customer orientation, competitor orientation, and inter-functional coordination. Although both Narver and Slater’s (1990) and Kohli and Jaworski’s (1990) approaches have been widely employed in the literature, we deemed Narver and Slater’s scale more appropriate for this study. First, it is conceptually and operationally more appealing, because it incorporates the essential aspects of Kohli and Jaworski’s (1990) constructs while accessing organizational cultural factors (Hooley & Cox, 2000; Hunt & Morgan, 1995). Second, researchers (Hooley & Cox, 2000) have noted that Kohli and Jaworski’s (1990) construct more accurately reflects marketing orientation than market orientation. Third, some empirical studies, which have attempted to develop parsimonious versions of a market orientation scale by synthesizing individual items from various scales, find that the synthesized versions draw more items from Narver and Slater’s (1990) instrument (Deshpande´ & Farley, 1998; Pelham, 1997). Finally, researchers have chosen Narver and Slater’s (1990) market orientation scale in their empirical studies of linking market orientation and innovation or e-business technologies (Chang, Jackson, & Grover, 2002; Han et al., 1998). Hence, the previous arguments lead us to the following hypothesis: Hypotheses 2: There is a positive relationship between firm’s market orientation and firm’s technology motivation.

Business Environment Characteristics In the literature on organizational innovation and information technology adoption the influence of firm’s business environment on the adoption of new technology by firms has been noted. These studies have studied the firm’s business environment as antecedents to a firm’s technology adoption or as a moderating factor (Lin & Ho, 2010; Ramamurthy et al., 2008; Zailania, Iranmanesh, Nikbin, & Jumadi, 2014). For the purpose of this article, we will use environmental hostility to represent a firm’s business environment. Miller and Friesen (1982) defined environmental hostility as unfavorable business climate, featuring intense competition for limited resources or market opportunities. Hostile environments represent ‘‘precarious industry setting, intense competition, harsh, overwhelming business climates, and the relative lack of exploitable opportunities’’ (Covin & Slevin, 1989). Miller and Friesen (1987) found that firms adopt market differentiation strategies to avoid direct competition as means of creating and sustaining distinctiveness.



135

Meanwhile, Parker (1990) observed ‘‘efficiency’’ strategies, characterized by efforts to control costs, were common responses to the intense hostility of the textiles industry. The hostile business environment may affect firm’s demand, supply, and stirs its customer base that influence its performance. To cushion these effects, firm needs a system that predicts, coordinates, and forecasts market trends that will enable the organization to react swiftly and efficiently to market changes (Wu, Mahajan, & Balasubramanian, 2003). Hall’s (1980) study of survival strategies among 64 large manufacturing firms in eight hostile industries found effective cost leadership strategies were observed, supported by investments in modern, automated process technology. In environments where economies of scale exist, firms not subjected to geographical market constraints may be able to reduce cost structures through volume production and compete effectively on a price basis. Edelstein (1992) argues that serving broad geographical markets is important under hostile conditions. Finally, Gagnon and Toulouse (1996) reported that firms adopt technology in order to respond to market demand and to maintain or improve their competitiveness. Thus, a firm’s motivation in responding to the hostile environment may be comprised of creating or sustaining competitiveness, via efficiency, effectiveness, or market growth. Consequently, the following hypotheses are: Hypothesis 3a: There is a positive relationship between firm’s business environment and technology motivation.

A firm’s business environment has been found to be a moderator in the innovation and IT adoption literature. Robertson and Gatignon (1986) and Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) argued that the environment is an important contextual factor influencing innovation adoption. Kamien and Schwartz (1982) elaborate that firms with better resources were found to be aggressive in new technology adoption in a competitive environment. Kerin, Varadarajan, and Peterson (1993), Miller and Friesen (1982) and Ali (1994) stated that intense or extremely low environmental hostility discourages technological pioneering and would normally lead firms to delay technology adoption. On the other hand, moderate environmental hostility pressures firms to set themselves apart from the competition by selectively adopting new products or processes, causing firms to search for new technological capabilities either through internal or external sourcing. Segev (1989) argued that moderate hostility is positively associated with technological pioneering (adoption). Hence, this research will test a firm’s business environment as a moderator between a firm’s technology motivation and technology adoption as a competing model. Subsequently, the following hypothesis is posited: Hypothesis 3b: The positive relationship between firm’s technology motivation and technology adoption will be further

136


strengthened in environment.

the

presence

of

firm’s

business


Moderator Variables—Management Characteristics Management support has often been found to be one of the most important internal determinants of innovation (Somers & Nelson, 2001; Tornatzky & Klein, 1982; Wang & Chen, 2006). Ahmed (1998) pointed out that among the characteristics that distinguish highly innovative firms from less innovative firms is top management commitment financially and emotionally in support of innovation (Meyer & Goes, 1998). Haugh and Robson (2005) found firms that adopted information technology were more likely to have top management committed to the adoption process. In the implementation of intranet systems in firms, Eder and Igbaria (2001) found that management support has a strong influence in the diffusion and infusion of intranet systems in firms. In the adoption of e-commerce technologies, Poon and Swatman (1999) found direct management involvement was common among small business. Beekhuyzen, von Hellens, and Siedle (2005) stressed the unique role of management commitment and perceptions of ICT benefits as an influence in SMEs ICT adoption. Top management must be willing to champion the adoption of information technology (Mombourquette, 2008). Thus, we argue that management support reinforces firm’s technology motivation to adopt e-marketing technology. The previous arguments lead us to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4: The positive relationship between technology motivation and technology adoption will be further strengthened in the presence of management support.

Figure 1 illustrates the research model that illustrates the previous theoretical underpinnings.

FIGURE 1 Research model.


137


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The suggestions of Churchill (1979) and Anderson and Gerbing (1988) were followed in the scale development and validation process. Market orientation, business environment, and management support scales were extracted from previous studies (Slater & Narver, 1994). Qualitative research was undertaken to investigate upper management’s understanding of e-marketing applications and potential reasons for adopting the technology. Managing directors or general managers from nine firms and two senior managers from Malaysian government agencies were interviewed. The information was then used to create an e-marketing technology construct together with existing items from the literature; these items were later reviewed by a panel of marketing academics for relevance, clarity, and conciseness. A pilot survey was conducted and based on the results the layout and ordering of the questions were modified. The resulting survey was mailed to 1,700 corporate managers in Malaysia, based on the Federation of Malaysian Manufactures (FMM) directory. Researchers such as Day and Nedungadi (1994) advise that responses from the most knowledgeable respondent can be more accurate than taking an average of several informants in an organization. Thus, all the questionnaires were addressed personally to the most senior manager of the firm, such as the managing director, general manager, or senior manager. The unit of analysis was the Strategic Business Unit (SBU). All respondents received a package containing an introduction letter (explaining the purpose of the study, requesting their participation, and promising confidentiality), the questionnaire, and a postage-paid return envelope. A summarization of the findings of the research was offered to the respondents as an incentive for response.

RESULTS Of the 1,700 surveys, 116 usable surveys were obtained for a respond rate of roughly 7%. A total 220 questionnaires were returned due to an incorrect address, the company was no longer in business, or the company had relocated. One hundred sixty-two completed questionnaires were received; 7 surveys were discarded due to non-completion, and 39 surveys were excluded as the respondent companies were not Malaysian. In our study, we had decided to focus only on Malaysian-owned companies. One reason for the relatively low response rate could be explained by the busy nature of the senior managers targeted. All respondents were key informants who were knowledgeable concerning their firm, industry, and the phenomenon being studied. This is depicted in the sample composition, which comprised 5.2% owner=manager, 7.2% CEO=president, 20.9% managing director, 22.9% general manager, and 43.8% senior manager=manager. Potential nonresponse bias was assessed by comparing returned questionnaires on key


138


variables (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). No significant differences were found between the early and late respondents (the first 25% of the respondents versus the last 25% of the respondents) on any of the key variables. Table 1 illustrates the firm’s characteristics in the study. According to the Malaysian Ministry of International Trade and Industry classification system, firms with 150 employees or more are considered large whereas firms with less than 150 employees are considered small or medium in size. Firms are also classified by turnover; firms with RM 25 million (1 USD ¼ 3.65 RM) and above are classified as large whereas those below are considered small. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was implemented to summarize the interrelationships of variables and for the purpose of reducing the number of items representing the variables. Adopting the guidelines outlined by Hair et al. (2006) EFA using principal components analysis and varimax rotation was conducted. Variables with low factor loadings (0.3) on more than one factor. The communalities of the variables, representing the amount of variance accounted for the factor solution of each variable, were examined. Factors with low communalities (