The mediating role of trust in the relationship between key account management programs and commitment a dealer perspective

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HOCHIMINH CITY NG THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TRUST IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KEY ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND COMMITMENT: A DEALER PERSPECTIVE MASTER THESIS Ho Chi Minh City – 2012 NG THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TRUST IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KEY ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND COMMITMENT: A DEALER PERSPECTIVE MASTER THESIS In Business Administration Ology code: 60340102 Supervisor Mai Trang Ho Chi Minh City – 2012 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to give my sincere thanks to Dr Nguy n Th Mai Trang, who had dedicatedly instructed me to approach every particular matter from the research method guidance to intensive support and valuable suggestions for the final completion of this thesis I would also like to express my gratefulness to the respected teachers from the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City for their devotions in training and education We inherited much knowledge and experiences thanks to them I truly appreciate the helps of my colleagues, my friends in eMBA class course K19, and my partners This research could not be completed successfully if such helps of knowledge and field work data collection were not supported by them My special thanks are given to my beloved family and my wife, Phạm Ngọc P ươ g Trúc who has encouraged me much to complete this thesis Ho Chi Minh City, October 2012 Nguy n Hải Đô ii TABLE OF CONTENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i TABLE OF CONTENT ii LIST OF FIGURES v LIST OF TABLES v ABSTRACT Chapter INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research background 1.2 Problem statement 1.3 Research questions 1.4 Research objectives 1.5 Research Methodology and Scope 1.6 Structure of the research Chapter LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 2.2 High-technology attributes and their effects 2.2.1 High technology attributes 2.2.2 Effects of high-tech attributes: 10 2.3 Trust 12 2.4 Key Account Management (KAM) programs 12 2.4.1 Responsiveness 13 2.4.2 Information 14 2.4.3 Logistics 15 2.4.4 Tailor-made promotions 16 2.5 Commitment 16 ii 2.6 Conceptual Model 17 2.7 Summary of hypotheses 18 Chapter 19 METHODOLOGY 19 3.1 Introduction 19 3.2 Research design 19 3.3 Measurement 19 3.3.1 Independent variables 21 3.3.1.1 Responsiveness 21 3.3.1.2 Information 21 3.3.1.3 Logistics 22 3.3.1.3 Tailor-made promotions 22 3.3.2 Dependent variables 23 3.3.2.1 Trust 23 3.3.2.2 Commitment 24 3.4 Questionnaire translation 24 3.4 Pilot study 25 3.5 Main study 25 3.6 Research sampling 26 3.6.1 Sample size 26 3.6.2 Selecting the samples 26 3.6.3 Collecting data 27 3.7 Statistical tools 28 3.7.1 Cleaning data process 28 3.7.2 Reliability 28 3.7.3 Explanatory Factor Analysis 28 3.7.4 Regression analysis 29 ii 3.8 Conclusion 29 Chapter 30 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 30 4.1 Introduction 30 4.2 Data cleaning 30 4.3 Description of the qualified respondents 30 4.4 Reliability Test of measurement 31 4.5 Exploratory Factor Analysis 32 4.6 Analysis of correlations 37 4.7 Test of Hypotheses 37 4.7.1 Test the appropriateness of model and assumptions for MLR 37 472 e effects of KAM P o ams’ facto s o t st (H1, H2a, H2b, H3, a d H4) 38 4.7.3 The effect of Trust on Commitment .41 4.8 Conclusions 42 Chapter 43 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 43 5.1 Findings of the study 43 5.2 Practical implications 46 5.3 Contributions of the study 47 5.4 Limitations and recommendations for future research 48 LIST OF REFERENCES 49 APPENDIX IA: QUESTIONNAIRE (Vietnamese version) 53 APPENDIX IB: Results of the quantitative pilot study 55 APPENDIX II: Descriptive statistics of variables 57 APPE IX III: Meas eme t scales eliabilit of o i i al model’s va iables 58 APPENDIX IV: Measurement scales eliabilit of adj sted model’s ew va iables 61 ii APPENDIX V: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 62 APPENDIX VI: Test of MLR assumptions 70 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Proposed research model 18 Figure 3.1: The process of the study 20 Figure 4.1: Adjusted research model 36 Figure 4.2: Results of model 40 Figure 4.3: Results of model 42 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Responsiveness Scale 21 Table 3.2: Information Scale 21 Table 3.3: Logistics Scale 22 Table 3.4: Tailor-made promotions Scale 22 Table 3.5: Tailor-made promotions Scale 23 Table 3.6: Commitment Scale 24 Table 4.1: Characteristics of the samples 31 able 2: S mma of C o bac ’s Alp a of meas eme t scales 32 Table 4.3: Rotated Component Matrix 34 able 4: S mma of C o bac ’s Alp as wit ew 35 Table 4.5: Correlation matrix 37 Table 4.6: Multiple Linear Regression: Model Summary 39 Table 4.7: Multiple Linear Regression: Model ANOVA 39 Table 4.8: Multiple Linear Regression: Model Coefficients 39 Table 4.9: Multiple Linear Regression: Model Summary 41 Table 4.10: Multiple Linear Regression: Model ANOVA 41 Table 4.11: Multiple Linear Regression: Model Coefficients 41 Table 5.1: The effects of sub-dimensions of Key Account Programs on Trust 45 ABSTRACT In a fast-changing environment of high-tech industry in Vietnam, the role of key account management programs has been realized to be truly important as it builds strong commitment between suppliers and dealers This study aims at exploring the effects of ke acco t ma a eme t p o ams’ facto s to t st a d co seq e tl , t st’s effect to commitment A survey was conducted with a sample of 202 respondents who are purchasing managers, owners and shop/floor managers represents for key accounts in the hightech industry Exploratory factor analysis and multiple linear regression was employed to analyze the data It was found that Marketing and Sales Information, Product Information, Responsiveness and Logistics have positive effects on Trust while Tailor-made Promotions was not significantly related to Trust Finally, Trust has a positive effect on Commitment The results of this study suggest that suppliers should invest more resources in exchange information with dealers, especially marketing and sales information; responsiveness, logistics and product information are also deserved to invest time and effort in order to enhance trust and consequently consolidate commitment This study contributes to the extant literature on key account management programs and is the first kind to explore in the high-tech industry in Vietnam Keywords: Key account management programs, trust, commitment, Vietnam, high-tech industry Chapter INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research background Under the changes of economic environment and fierce competition, in the business to business field, suppliers have employed Key Account Management (KAM) programs to their business customers These programs are designed to serve strategic or key customers who contribute a large portion in terms of sales and profit Such key accounts play such a more important role than traditional ones (minor accounts) (Pardo, 1997) Key Account Management (KAM) has been received so many interests as most of sales turnover generated by key customers (Shapiro and Moriarty, 1982; Cespedes, 1992) For enterprises who deal in high-tech industry, key accounts play a strategic role in their short and long run Such strategic customers deserve to be paid more attention by suppliers Suppliers have the sound reasons to invest more resources in the key resellers in order to develop a close and valuable relationship, and maintain high trust between the dyad These activities are included in a strategic working design called Key Account Management Program Literature has shown that a variety of researches investigating the effects of key account management program on trust and consequently on commitment Researches by Kumar, 1996; Geyskens et al , 1998 showed that building a program like key account teams will lead to a high level of trust, and then will lead to a long term commitment between the dyad This will generate a win-win relationship for a long run High technology industry is highly dynamic; it changes very fast as the speed of technology circle Technological products become obsolete in a very short period, APPENDIX II: Descriptive statistics of variables N R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Statistic 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 Minimum Statistic Maximum Statistic 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 Std Mean Deviation Skewness Statistic Statistic Statistic Std Error 4.26 4.28 4.15 4.04 4.16 4.19 4.88 5.02 4.09 4.34 4.62 4.52 4.46 3.74 4.27 4.13 4.36 4.22 4.32 3.65 4.18 4.08 4.08 3.96 4.06 3.99 4.06 3.80 3.89 4.08 4.19 4.46 4.69 4.46 5.06 4.54 4.42 979 917 940 913 902 961 838 1.007 915 1.050 796 780 811 958 726 850 842 963 908 1.069 865 821 819 775 991 709 703 779 778 797 796 754 878 853 965 754 724 -1.180 -.747 -1.028 -.395 -.493 -.668 -1.207 -.630 -.335 -.304 -1.368 -1.208 -1.241 -.011 -.783 -.652 -1.170 -1.125 -1.154 -.159 -.364 -.811 -.807 -.182 004 -.656 -.778 -.148 -.577 -.629 -.600 -.991 -.783 -.833 -.790 -1.263 -1.471 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 Kurtosis Statistic 813 383 235 -.336 279 -.431 4.115 2.083 023 160 2.835 2.391 1.519 -.556 376 -.381 1.505 272 318 -.472 192 395 410 665 283 899 1.296 -.461 257 020 737 2.517 1.535 1.074 2.490 3.000 2.668 Std Error 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 APPENDIX III: Measurement scales reliability of original model’s variables Responsiveness Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 949 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item Deleted if Item Deleted R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 20.83 17.388 20.80 17.752 20.94 17.871 21.04 17.535 20.92 17.914 20.89 17.321 Scale Statistics Mean Variance 25.08 Std Deviation 25.132 Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted 831 847 803 884 839 861 941 939 944 935 940 938 N of Items 5.013 Information Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 891 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item Deleted if Item Deleted I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 Corrected ItemTotal Correlation 30.79 23.519 30.65 22.029 31.58 22.662 31.33 22.064 31.05 22.664 31.15 23.046 31.22 23.634 31.93 23.408 Scale Statistics Mean 35.67 Variance 29.425 Std Deviation 5.424 640 675 680 635 808 770 651 550 N of Items Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted 880 877 876 883 866 870 879 890 Logistics Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 883 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item Deleted if Item Deleted L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 17.03 9.681 17.17 8.648 16.94 8.046 17.08 7.301 16.99 7.985 Scale Statistics Mean Variance 21.30 Std Deviation 12.650 Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted 540 655 815 849 748 895 873 836 825 851 N of Items 3.557 Tailor-made Promotions Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 889 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach’s Alpha Item Deleted if Item Deleted Total Correlation if Item Deleted P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 24.35 23.82 23.92 23.92 24.04 23.94 24.01 16.029 16.369 17.212 16.790 16.819 16.186 17.557 602 745 652 726 773 647 719 Scale Statistics Mean 28.00 Variance 22.328 Std Deviation 4.725 N of Items 887 865 876 868 863 878 871 Trust Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 867 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item Deleted if Item Deleted T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 15.97 16.23 16.14 15.95 15.84 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 7.044 6.346 6.687 6.181 5.879 585 705 604 733 831 Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted 864 836 861 828 802 Scale Statistics Mean Variance 20.03 Std Deviation 9.721 N of Items 3.118 Commitment Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 922 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item Deleted if Item Deleted C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 23.17 12.748 22.94 11.762 23.17 12.293 22.57 12.197 23.09 12.758 23.21 12.882 Scale Statistics Mean 27.63 Variance 17.638 Std Deviation 4.200 803 848 772 669 801 815 N of Items Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted 905 897 908 926 905 904 APPENDIX V: Measurement scales reliability of adjusted model’s new variables Marketing and Sales Information Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 901 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item Deleted if Item Deleted I1 I2 I5 I6 I7 18.62 18.48 18.88 18.98 19.04 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 8.575 7.674 8.567 8.746 8.958 Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted 880 881 869 875 893 752 767 808 783 691 Scale Statistics Mean Variance 23.50 Std Deviation 12.968 N of Items 3.601 Product Information Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items 845 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Item Deleted if Item Deleted I3 I4 I8 8.08 7.83 8.43 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 3.242 2.917 3.241 Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted 754 796 803 747 704 690 Scale Statistics Mean 12.17 Variance 6.542 Std Deviation 2.558 N of Items APPENDIX V: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) EFA running of independent variables KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 5338.449 Approx Chi-Square 325 df 000 Sig Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Compone nt 817 Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings % of Cumulativ % of Cumulativ % of Cumulativ Total Variance Total Total Variance e% Variance e% e% 12.062 46.391 20.102 46.391 12.062 46.391 46.391 5.227 20.102 2.687 10.334 56.725 2.687 10.334 56.725 4.023 15.475 35.577 1.852 7.124 63.849 1.852 7.124 63.849 3.486 13.407 48.984 1.678 6.455 70.304 1.678 6.455 70.304 3.456 13.293 62.277 1.324 5.091 75.395 1.324 5.091 75.395 3.411 13.118 75.395 914 3.515 78.910 792 3.045 81.954 688 2.646 84.600 509 1.957 86.557 10 484 1.860 88.417 11 388 1.491 89.909 12 376 1.445 91.354 13 338 1.299 92.653 14 287 1.105 93.758 15 262 1.008 94.766 16 223 859 95.626 17 205 789 96.414 18 177 679 97.093 19 170 653 97.747 20 155 595 98.342 21 127 490 98.832 22 115 443 99.275 23 065 250 99.525 24 056 216 99.741 25 035 133 99.874 26 033 126 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotated Component Matrix a Component R4 861 236 084 148 R2 846 062 -.012 238 R3 844 039 090 244 R6 843 228 276 073 R5 828 291 171 -.068 R1 779 208 148 205 P3 018 782 -.013 104 P5 323 742 175 144 P6 137 720 352 -.018 P7 337 702 085 266 P2 236 613 193 298 P4 156 572 129 534 P1 186 518 322 469 L4 272 269 797 306 L5 308 101 743 145 L3 139 093 740 339 L1 -.119 250 685 012 L2 354 095 546 499 I8 107 043 199 833 I3 206 281 084 769 I4 164 237 230 748 I2 257 236 144 130 I6 215 211 188 315 I1 364 302 230 013 I5 114 377 272 321 I7 196 067 489 163 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a Rotation converged in iterations 187 278 045 108 206 243 285 197 143 096 285 272 -.015 031 305 291 249 114 133 249 168 774 736 706 692 631 Component Matrix a Component I5 769 295 086 -.203 R1 751 -.455 -.038 022 R6 735 -.521 -.076 -.035 R4 733 -.567 023 035 P4 732 246 240 258 L4 730 209 -.340 008 I1 729 -.036 102 -.426 P2 728 143 288 059 I6 728 148 -.003 -.214 P5 727 034 423 010 L2 703 082 -.387 174 L5 699 120 -.391 -.265 R5 697 -.556 074 -.163 I3 690 187 -.026 445 P7 685 000 405 186 I2 683 056 085 -.359 R2 681 -.586 -.075 068 L3 679 314 -.427 -.117 I7 668 176 -.251 -.370 I4 664 245 -.137 427 P1 653 210 088 313 R3 614 -.591 -.164 174 P6 602 192 362 -.144 I8 553 257 -.288 505 L1 444 444 -.169 -.326 P3 529 235 605 -.026 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis a components extracted -.288 -.022 195 016 -.083 429 -.227 043 -.413 195 116 211 138 -.266 160 -.389 -.190 139 -.177 -.142 224 013 361 -.236 281 036 Second EFA running of independent variables after removing unqualified variable P4 KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Approx Chi-Square Sphericity df Sig .816 5021.976 300 000 Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Cumulative Cumulative % of Cumulative % of % of Component Total Variance % % % Total Variance Total Variance 11.549 20.787 46.198 46.198 11.549 46.198 46.198 5.197 20.787 2.637 10.548 56.745 2.637 10.548 56.745 3.696 14.785 35.572 1.816 7.263 64.009 1.816 7.263 64.009 3.472 13.890 49.462 1.607 6.428 70.436 1.607 6.428 70.436 3.403 13.611 63.073 1.317 5.266 75.703 1.317 5.266 75.703 3.157 12.630 75.703 914 3.655 79.358 757 3.027 82.384 674 2.698 85.082 506 2.024 87.106 10 437 1.748 88.854 11 385 1.539 90.393 12 352 1.407 91.800 13 302 1.207 93.008 14 276 1.103 94.111 15 247 989 95.099 16 221 884 95.983 17 205 819 96.802 18 175 702 97.504 19 160 640 98.144 20 127 510 98.654 21 119 477 99.130 22 087 350 99.480 23 057 227 99.707 24 040 160 99.867 25 033 133 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotated Component Matrix a Component R4 865 226 095 189 R2 849 054 -.003 279 R6 845 222 283 110 R3 840 047 086 047 R5 826 293 170 207 R1 776 214 144 247 P3 027 761 -.002 294 P5 315 757 157 206 P6 130 734 336 150 P7 333 708 074 106 P2 242 598 205 294 P1 183 524 318 -.005 L4 273 266 803 036 L5 309 097 751 306 L3 139 091 745 295 L1 -.123 257 678 251 L2 354 092 550 119 I2 258 228 145 777 I6 216 205 189 742 I1 365 296 231 708 I5 112 376 266 699 I7 192 071 484 633 I8 111 034 208 143 I3 200 291 074 260 I4 161 241 226 178 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization a Rotation converged in iterations 134 228 063 253 -.069 211 081 165 -.002 278 278 475 294 130 329 014 492 120 308 003 321 163 823 785 755 Component Matrix a Component I5 766 312 156 -.149 R1 761 -.437 -.049 007 R6 744 -.503 -.077 -.066 R4 739 -.560 -.009 007 I1 734 -.010 214 -.387 L4 731 241 -.306 -.032 I6 727 167 061 -.210 P5 724 031 429 178 P2 717 129 267 138 R5 709 -.536 104 -.145 L5 707 167 -.291 -.329 L2 704 107 -.406 090 R2 689 -.577 -.116 000 I2 684 075 179 -.335 I3 684 182 -.125 449 L3 682 356 -.356 -.185 P7 678 -.017 356 324 I7 675 222 -.126 -.397 I4 657 244 -.227 403 P1 646 205 025 374 R3 627 -.573 -.217 112 P6 601 198 419 027 I8 541 250 -.405 410 L1 446 483 -.040 -.290 P3 511 200 594 137 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis a components extracted -.294 -.025 208 024 -.206 437 -.406 159 031 149 242 115 -.182 -.374 -.311 155 119 -.155 -.177 189 008 338 -.259 293 018 EFA running of Trust KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Approx Chi-Square Sphericity df Sig .793 519.534 10 000 Total Variance Explained Compo nent Total Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Variance Cumulative % Total 3.277 65.545 65.545 709 14.186 79.731 466 9.314 89.045 361 7.218 96.263 187 3.737 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Component Matrix % of Variance Cumulative % 3.277 65.545 65.545 a Component T5 T4 T2 T3 T1 907 842 821 739 725 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis a components extracted EFA running of dependent variable – Commitment KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Approx Chi-Square Sphericity df Sig Compo nent Total 4.395 589 362 256 241 157 882 931.203 15 000 Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Variance Cumulative % Total 73.245 9.808 6.036 4.274 4.014 2.623 73.245 83.053 89.089 93.363 97.377 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis 4.395 % of Variance Cumulative % 73.245 73.245 Component Matrix a Component C2 C6 C1 C5 C3 C4 900 877 873 866 852 760 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis a components extracted APPENDIX VI: Test of MLR assumptions VI.a: Test of linear relationship and heteroskedasticity VI.b: Test of normal distribution of residual parts ...NG THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TRUST IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KEY ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND COMMITMENT: A DEALER PERSPECTIVE MASTER THESIS In Business Administration Ology code:... details, Marketing and Sales Information had a C o bac ’s Alpha of 901 and Product Information had a C o bac ’s Alpha of 845 Table 4.5 showed new variables with C o bac ’s Alphas of their measurement... and plays as a middle role between key account management programs sub-dimensions and commitment Trust is a dependent variable to key account management programs sub-dimensions, but is also an