creating strategic commitment in franchise systems establishing the link between leadership,...

8/9/2019 Creating Strategic Commitment in Franchise Systems Establishing the Link Between Leadership, Organizational Structure, And Performance

1/13

Creating strategic commitment in franchise systems: establishing thelink between leadership, organizational structure, and performance

David Berkowitz* and Brent M. Wren

The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, USA

In this paper, we address the issue of strategic commitment in franchise systems byexploring the impact of several structural and leadership characteristics. Specifically,we examine the role of leadership style, organizational openness, and organizationalstructure in the strategic commitment–performance relationship. Our analysis is

accomplished through the use of traditional survey research methods with sevenfranchise systems in multiple industries in the United States. We demonstrate thatmore committed franchisees execute the corporate strategy and have more opencommunication, which leads to greater performance. Finally, we formulate a set of normative recommendations for how franchisors and franchisees can better organize,communicate, and execute.

Keywords: franchising; strategic commitment; performance; leadership; organizationalstructure

Nous abordons dans cet article la question de l’engagement strategique dans lessystemes de franchise en etudiant l’impact de plusieurs caracteristiques structurelles et

de leadership. Nous examinons plus particulierement le r ̂ole du style de leadership, del’ouverture organisationnelle, et de la structure organisationnelle dans la relationstrategique engagement – performance. Notre analyse est r ealisee en utilisant desmethodes d’enqûete classiques aupr es de sept systemes de franchise dans diversesindustries des Etats-Unis. Nous d emontrons que les franchises les plus engagesexecutent la strategie d’entreprise et ont une communication plus ouverte, ce quiconduit a des performances superieures. Nous formulons enfin un ensemble derecommandations normatives concernant la maniere dont les franchiseurs et lesfranchises peuvent assurer une meilleure organisation, communication et execution.

Mots cles: le franchisage; engagement strategique; performances; leadership; structureorganisationnelle

Introduction

Franchising is one of the most recognizable and important forms of strategic alliance, and is

proving adaptable to a wide number of industries and professions. Many small businesses

looking to expand their unique style or concept will look at franchising as an alternative to

expansion. However, choosing to franchise brings a set of unique challenges. Specifically,

the loss of strategic control is paramount. Franchisors no longer determine all of the strategic

actions that are taken at a local level. The franchisee will need to operate strategically at the

local level in order to meet competitive pressures. Therefore, while franchising offers numer-

ous advantages over other forms of business, franchisee relationships and improved strategic

Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 2013

Vol. 26, No. 5, 481–492, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2013.876763

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2013.876763http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2013.876763


2/13

planning are vital to the success of the franchise system. Franchised channels of distribution

face several obstacles which make these relationships difficult to manage effectively.

One of the primary issues is that the franchisor and franchisee often have strategic

goals which are not always congruent. However, commitment to super-ordinate goals

rather than acting in self-interest is crucial to system performance. Since the performance

of both parties is essential to the implementation of a strategy, it is of particular impor-

tance to understand how the franchisor and the franchisee come to a mutual understanding

of and commitment to a strategy. While the franchisor may develop corporate level strate-

gies, it is ultimately the franchisee that is responsible for implementing them. If he/she

does not agree with, or is not committed to, corporate strategies, then execution of the

franchisor’s strategy will be limited.

In this paper, we address the issue of strategic commitment in franchise systems by

exploring the impact of several structural and leadership characteristics. We provide valu-

able guidance for the firm that is looking to franchise. Specifically, we examine the role of

leadership style, organizational openness, and organizational structure in the strategic

commitment–performance relationship. While each of the constructs has been welldefined and used previously in the literature, no single study has sought to incorporate

them in a single model in a franchise setting. We expect to demonstrate that more com-

mitted franchisees execute the corporate strategy and have more open communication,

which leads to greater performance. In the following section, we will discuss the rationale

for the inclusion of the study variables and define hypothesized relationships. Finally, we

expect to formulate a set of normative recommendations for how franchisors and franchi-

sees can better organize, communicate, and execute.

Theoretical foundations

The structural model is presented in Figure 1. In the following sections, relevant literature

supporting the model will be presented and hypothesized relationships will be discussed.

482 D. Berkowitz and B.M. Wren


3/13

Strategic commitment–performance

The development of shared strategic commitment to organizational goals and strategies is

critical in ensuring effective implementation and subsequent performance (Hambrick

1983; Mintzberg and Waters 1985; DiPietro et al. 2008). Mintzberg and Waters (1985)

state that, ‘when the members of an organization share a common vision and identify sostrongly with it that they pursue it as an ideology, then they are bound to exhibit patterns

in their behavior, so that clear realized strategies can be identified’ (262). The implication

here is that when corporate strategic plans are developed through a process of mutual

input, internalization of corporate goals, and shared perspectives, organizational members

develop a cohesive attitude toward the superordinate goals of the organization (Blake and

Mouton 1961).

Strategic commitment also ensures that organizational members are devoting full

attention to the intended strategy rather than alternative strategies (Porter 1980; Guth and

MacMillan 1986; Wooldridge and Floyd 1990; Floyd and Wooldridge 1992). Without

commitment, those responsible for implementation may give the strategy low priority,

create implementation obstacles, or even sabotage the strategy (Guth and MacMillan

1986; Wooldridge and Floyd 1990). Finally, DiPietro et al. (2008) argue that even though

the franchisor has control the franchisee must commit to be successful. In keeping with

the logic just presented, the following hypothesis will be examined:

Hypothesis 1: Franchisee strategic commitment will have a positive effect on

performance.

Openness–individual consideration–strategic commitment

The concepts of openness and individual consideration have a long history in the commu-nications, organizational behavior, and leadership literatures, where they have been

shown to affect organizational culture and performance of individuals (Duncan 1972;

Spekman and Stern 1979; Hall 1980; Dwyer and Welsh 1985; Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh

1987). Openness is a term used to characterize an organizational climate of communica-

tion, trust, creativity, and participation. All members feel as though they are part of the

organization and have some degree of control over its future. Individual consideration

refers to a situation where a leader coaches followers based on their needs and ‘spends

time treating each employee in a caring and unique way’ (Northouse 2013, 193). The end

result is that followers have a will and aspirations for self-development and have intrinsic

motivation to work toward organizational goals.

The overriding consensus is that participation in decision-making results in increased

organizational commitment (Morris and Steers 1980; Mathieu and Zajac 1990). This find-

ing is echoed in the marketing channels literature by Anderson, Lodish, and Weitz (1987),

who suggest that feedback and mutual participation are crucial to achieving goal compati-

bility and subsequent commitment to goal achievement. In an exploratory study, Frazer

et al. (2013) propose that information dissemination has a positive effect. Specifically,

one franchisor in their study was quoted with the following ‘. . . being a good franchisor is

about communicating. . .’ Thus, reducing the angst experienced by franchisees. This is

consistent with our belief that openness contributes to better understanding.

The end result is a better understanding of and commitment to the goals of the organi-

zation. Through this process, members come to feel as though they are part of the organi-zation and have some degree of control over its future. Without the ability to rigorously

d l di ll l h i i h li f h

Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 483


4/13

activities will be lessened (Schweiger, Sandberg, and Ragan 1986). Based on this discus-

sion, the following hypothesis was tested:

Hypothesis 2: Higher levels of openness will lead to higher levels of individual

consideration.

The concept of individual consideration suggests that franchise leaders can stimulate

appropriate actions by providing coaching and support to each follower as an individual

(Matey 1991). This attention tends to create a sense of self-worth and perceived impor-

tance, thereby increasing the franchisee’s desire to achieve organizational goals. Koza

and Dant (2007) report that good management skills benefit all members of the system

and allow for achievement beyond individual performance. We would also suggest that

the management skill mostly relies on the ability to lead.

Hypothesis 3: Higher levels of individual consideration will lead to improvements in

strategic commitment among franchisees.

Leadership–individual consideration

Leadership in a franchise organization is different than in a traditional company since

planning and implementation responsibilities are separated by both geographic and struc-

tural control distances. In these situations, leaders must be willing to suspend their need

for control in favor of a more coordinative role (McGill, Slocum, and Lei 1992). The tra-

ditional emphasis on control rather than coordination tends to limit the amount of open-

ness, creativity, and commitment in an organization because employees do not feel that

their input matters.

Leaders must follow a more transformational approach which seeks to develop the

personal mastery/efficacy of their employees (Seltzer and Bass 1990; Senge 1990;

McGill, Slocum, and Lei 1992; Kiernan 1993). The element of the transformational lead-

ership literature seem most relevant to franchise organizations seeking to develop strate-

gic commitment is inspirational leadership. Inspirational leadership suggests that

leaders must talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished, and discuss the

actions necessary to be successful (Hater and Bass 1988). By doing so, inspirational lead-

ers transmit a sense of mission, and stimulate a sense of purpose among employees.

Second, because of their ability to motivate employees intrinsically and create a sense

of empowerment, inspirational leaders cause employees to exert extra effort toward their

work activities and report higher levels of commitment (Seltzer and Bass 1990). When

franchise leaders can talk inspirationally to franchisees and communicate to them individ-ually, franchisees feel more responsibility and their sense of attachment to the goals and

strategies of the system should be enhanced (Buchanan 1974; Salancik and Pfeffer 1977).

Based on this literature, the following hypotheses are tested:

Hypothesis 4: Franchise leaders who demonstrate higher levels of inspirational leader-

ship will generate greater feelings of individual consideration among franchisees.

Organizational structure–strategic commitment

Within the marketing and management literature, organizational structure is typically

assessed by measuring the level of formalization (the existence of formalized rules and procedures) and centralization (the extent to which decision-making authority is located

i l l l) ( ki k lk d i ) li i i



5/13

generally thought to improve effectiveness because it gives the decision-maker the ability

to plan, coordinate, and control all activities (Hage 1965; Ruekert, Walker, and Roering

1985). Centralized control also allows for the development and dissemination of a consis-

tent message by upper management. The result is greater perceived competence and

inspiration on the part of followers.

The role of formalization is a little less clear. Many studies have demonstrated that

formalization leads to greater efficiency because the predefined rules and procedures

serve to routinize repetitive activities and transactions (Pugh et al. 1968; Ruekert, Walker,

and Roering 1985). However, recent evidence has suggested that the benefits of a formal

control may not be universal, due to the potential limitations placed on employee behav-

ior and commitment at the local level.

High levels of formalization (lack of local control) can constrain strategic commitment

in at least two ways. First, while high levels of formalization might serve to increase the

control of some channel members, it necessarily decreases the amount of self-control and

autonomy of others (John 1984). This has been shown to decrease the amount of satisfac-

tion and motivation on the part of the latter party (Blaumer 1964; Hage and Aiken 1967;Dewar and Werbel 1979). The loss of autonomy further serves to create frustration and

feelings of neglect among channel members. As this occurs, the extent of shared beliefs

decreases and organizational members will be less committed to the implementation of cor-

porate strategies (John 1984). Maxwell and Steele (2003) show that feeling important and

organizational dependence allowed hotel managers to have higher levels of commitment.

The second way in which formalization affects commitment is through the lack of

involvement in the planning process. This separation from the planning process can affect

the organizational member’s awareness of the salient details and purposes of organiza-

tional strategies. Research has shown that when organizations are highly formalized,

salespeople develop uncertainty about how to do their job (Behrman and Perreault 1984).If organizational members do not understand the organizational strategies they may be

unwilling or unable to take actions which are consistent with them. Thus, local control

affects channel member strategic commitment through their awareness of corporate strat-

egies and their willingness to act toward the implementation of those strategies (commit-

ment) (Cadotte and Stern 1979).

Based on the preceding discussion, the following hypotheses are tested:

Hypothesis 5: High levels of centralization will have a positive effect on perceived level

of inspiration leadership.

Hypothesis 6: Higher levels of centralization will lead to lower levels of local control.

Hypothesis 7: Higher levels of local control will have a positive effect on strategic

commitment.

Research methodology

Our analysis is accomplished by the use of traditional survey research methods with seven

franchise systems in multiple industries in the United States.

Thus, specific items were selected from the above constructs and modified to meet the

constructs under investigation of the current study. The item list (62 items) was reduced to a more manageable number (35 items) after review and analysis. Attitudinal items

d l f i h d i d



6/13

with the recommendations of Churchill (1979). In addition, the order of the items was

randomly assigned.

Sample

The hypothesized research model was tested with data gathered from approximately 459

franchisees, representing seven (7) firms across five (5) product/service industries. This

sampling frame was drawn from the International Franchising Association’s (IFA) mem-

bership list. The IFA is an organization of 800-plus franchisors who have joined together

to promote franchising in the United States and abroad.

Study measures

The measurement of study constructs was accomplished via the use of both previously

established and original scale items. Whenever possible, existing scales have been used

or modified slightly for the purposes of the present study. Table 1 contains a summary of

measurement scales.

Reliability and unidimensionality

Reliability is regarded as the consistency or repeatability of the response. Of the many

coefficients, Cronbach’s alpha is probably the best known. A better measure of the consis-

tency with which an item measures an underlying construct, within the confirmatory fac-

tor analysis approach, is that proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981), which expresses

the proportion the observed variance of the total (Peter 1979). Below both methods of

analysis are presented.

Each factor was analyzed (except for the performance measures) and reliability was

assessed. After review of each individual construct, some items were eliminated. The

result was six factors. The rotated factor solution explains 63.3% of the cumulative vari-

ance. The factor analysis was accomplished using Principle Components analysis with a

Varimax Rotation and Kaiser Normalization. The rotation converged in 6 iterations.

There are two measures to help determine if the factor analysis is warranted. First is

the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (MKO) measure of sampling adequacy. This index compares

the magnitudes of the observed correlation coefficients to the magnitudes of the partial

correlation coefficients (refer to SPSS User’s Guide). Specifically, larger values indicate

that a factor analysis is appropriate. For our analysis the MKO is .872 which is a largevalue and thus it is appropriate to use factor analysis.

The second indicator of the strength is the Bartlett’s test of sphericity. This test meas-

ures the relationship among variables. More specifically it is used to test the null

Table 1. Summary of measurement scales.

Scale Source

Strategic commitment New scaleOpenness New scale

Local control Hage and Aiken (1967)Centralization Hage and Aiken (1967)Leadership Bass and Avolio (1993)



7/13

hypothesis that the variables in the population correlation matrix are uncorrelated. In our

analysis, the observed significance level is .000. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis

which supports the conclusion that the strength of the relationship among variables is

strong and it is appropriate to use factor analysis.

Since we had two new constructs being introduced, we analyzed the factor loadings to

ensure that all items were correctly loading on a single factor. It is not uncommon to elimi-

nate items that load on multiple factors. This practice allows researchers to develop scales

that are valid and reliable. For items that loaded on two or more factors, we constrained our

evaluation to loadings that were greater than .4. If an item loaded on two or more factors

with each loading being greater than .4, it was considered cross-loaded. For the Strategic

Communication construct this required that we eliminate 1 item from our scale. For the

Open Communication construct we eliminated 3 items. In each case, we were left with scales

that were reasonable in size and were reliable. This created two new scales in the process.

One final confirmation of a six-factor solution is the scree plot. The scree plot is used

to help determine the appropriate number of factors for an analysis. The scree plot resem-

bles an elbow and factors in the solution that are after the point of the bend are not consid-ered. The plot shows that a six-factor solution is appropriate for this analysis.

The first test of reliability used is calculation of Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach 1951).

Cronbach’s alpha is regarded as the lower bound on reliability for a set of congeneric

measures (Bollen 1989). It assumes each of the items within the scale contributes equally

to the underlying trait (Zeller and Carmines 1980). Two drawbacks to alpha are as fol-

lows: (1) it underestimates the reliability of congeneric measures and (2) it is not for use

with single indicators. The alphas are reported in Table 2. As indicated by the reliabilities,

the measures are relatively homogeneous for the construct they purport to measure. Typi-

cally, reliabilities greater than .7 are considered adequate for measurement analysis

(Nunnally 1978). The second test used was a confirmatory factor analysis of the measure-ment model. For this test of reliability, each item was used for each of the constructs and

fit to a model that is presented later.

Analysis of measurement model

AMOS 4 (Arbuckle 1999) was used for the analysis of the measurement model. For indi-

cators used in the measurement model, Bollen (1989) suggests that the Squared Multiple

Correlation is a straightforward measure of reliability. According to Fornell and Larcker

(1981), the magnitude of this coefficient should be greater than .5, which implies that

more than 50% of the variance of the items is related to the trait being measured. Theaverage SMCs for each construct are reported in Table 2. All of the constructs except the

Strategic Commitment construct either meet or are very close to meeting the standard set

by Fornell and Larcker (1981).

Table 2. Scale reliability.

Factor Number of items Alpha Average SMC

Openness 3 .822 .616Inspirational leadership 4 .85 .548Consideration 7 .903 .570

Local control 4 .749 .499Centralization 3 .67 .416Strategic commitment 7 .817 .356



8/13

Overall model fit

Following the a priori specification of the dimensions, a confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) approach was used to analyze model fit, convergent, and discriminant validity.

The overall model is hypothesized to have six constructs. The overall model results are

reported in Table 3. The RMSEA is .062 and its associated p-value ( P¼

.000) indicatesthat the data fit the model reasonably well (Pedhazur and Pedhazur-Schmelkin 1991;

Joreskog and Sorbom 1992).

However, reliance on just one statistic has been criticized by some (see for instance,

Fornell and Larcker 1981). Other measures of interest are the reported in Table 3 as well.

Each measure along with the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation RMSEA (.062)

is within the acceptable limits. The point estimate of the RMSEA is of .062 and the upper

confidence limit of .066 are well under the .08 value suggested by Browne and Cudeck

(1993) and is considered to be representative of good model fit (Joreskog and Sorbom

1992). A final indicator of the good fit is an ECVI for the model that is 3.52, which is less

than the value for the saturated model (3.565). Thus, we can conclude that the model fits

well and represents a close approximation in the population (Joreskog and Sorbom 1992).

Validity of the measures

Traditionally, validity is the degree to which you measure what you intend to measure.

Many types of validity have been expressed including (but not limited to) content, con-

struct, convergent, discriminant, predictive, etc. Each of these is, in some fashion,

assessed by correlations of the items (or set of items) with other items, or sets of items.

Rather than a single, agreed upon definition and coefficient to measure the ‘validity’ of a

scale, various evidences are provided each of which may have a separate definition and coefficient.

Within the CFA approach, it is not necessary to administer a separate set of scales to

determine the validity; it is possible to provide evidence of validity without doing so. For

example, Venkatraman (1989) considers each of the indices of model fit previously dis-

cussed evidence of unidimensionality and convergent validity (953). Bollen (1989)

presents several ways that might be indicated; two of which are the standardized and

unstandardized parameter estimates of the relationship between the indicator (item) and

the latent variable; the t -values for each of these are significant at the p < .05 level.

Another concern is discriminant validity and convergent validity, which are con-

cerned with evaluation of the indicators and whether they measure the constructs they are

Table 3. AMOS results-fit statistics for measurement model and goodness of fit statistics.

Chi-Square with 486 Degrees of Freedom ¼ 1262.373 ( P ¼ .000)Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ¼ .06290 Percent Confidence Interval for RMSEA ¼ (.058; .066)

P-value for Test of Close Fit (RMSEA < .05)¼ .00Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) ¼ 3.5290 Percent Confidence Interval for ECVI ¼ (3.279; 3.779)

Normed fit index¼ .966Relative fit index ¼ .961

Incremental fit index ¼ .979Tucker–Lewis index¼ .976Comparative fit index ¼ .979



9/13

intended to measure. Campbell and Fiske (1959) require for convergent validity that cor-

relations of different measures of the same trait be statistically significant and sufficiently

large. For discriminant validity, comparisons of the measures in the correlation matrix

are required. Correlations with the other measures of the same construct should be greater

than the correlations between measures of the other constructs. After examination of the

correlation matrix, it was demonstrated that correlations between measures of the same

construct (for example, inspire1 and inspire2 .655) are greater than the correlations

between measures of different constructs (for example, inspire1 and openness1 .156). In

addition, the correlations are large and statistically significant. Therefore, both discrimi-

nant and convergent validity have been demonstrated. Thus, based on the evidence, it is

concluded that the measures developed for this study demonstrate sufficient levels of reli-

ability and validity.

Structural model analysis and results

The standardized regression coefficient results are shown on the structural model diagram

in Figure 2. Since our model fits the data well we also find that our theoretical expecta-

tions are confirmed. All of our hypothesized structural relationships are supported except

for the link between Local Control and Strategic Commitment. While the sign is in the

hypothesized direction (positive) the link is not significant. This is curious. However, we

realize that the relationship could be insignificant due to the fact that local franchisee con-

trol allows for the option of having strategic commitment but only at a level that is con-

gruous with the franchisee’s own strategic direction. Thus, the result could be

confounded, yielding the insignificant result.



10/13

Discussion

The data collected from our research demonstrate that franchisors can have an impact on

strategic commitment of their franchisees and the performance. We demonstrate there is

a link between leadership style, organizational openness, and organizational structure in

the strategic commitment–performance relationship. Our structural model demonstrated that the leadership style has a direct impact on strategic commitment and franchise perfor-

mance. The effect was both positive and significant implying that the leader has the abil-

ity to influence the performance of the franchisees even though the franchisee has some

level of control over their operations.

Specifically, we expected that leadership in a franchise organization is different than

in a traditional company. Franchise leaders must be more interested in coordination rather

than control. Also franchisors must be willing to support franchisees allowing them to be

self-aware and proactive problem-solvers. In the end the franchisors must create an atmo-

sphere that develops a sense of self-worth, empowerment, and dedication. The culture

results in franchisees that are more creative, provide more input into organizational prob-

lems, and tend to be more committed to organizational decisions.

Additionally, the organizational structure has an impact on the commitment and per-

formance of franchisees. We demonstrate that when decision-making is centralized at

one level, it has a negative impact on the local franchise operations. However, there is a

positive impact on the inspirational leadership style.

Openness characterizes an organizational climate of communication, trust, creativity,

and participation. It has a positive impact on consideration which leads to strategic commit-

ment. Thus, members of the franchise system feel as though they are part of the organiza-

tion and have some degree of control over its future. Our results demonstrate that openness

creates a better understanding of and commitment to the goals of the organization.

We find a positive link between strategic commitment and performance. Our notionthat when franchisors and franchisees are committed to the same strategy that perfor-

mance of the organizational system will be enhanced is supported. While we did not have

a significant link from franchisee control to strategic commitment the sign of the parame-

ter was appropriate. Thus, both influences on strategic commitment are avenues for

enhancing system performance.

In summary, our model shows that performance is linked to strategic commitment

which in turn can be influenced by the franchisor and potentially the franchisee. The lead-

ership style has a positive impact on strategic commitment as well. Inspiration and open-

ness are positive influences. Franchisor mangers’ ability to inspire and be open with

franchisees will lead to positive commitment and performance.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the reviewers and editors for their insightful comments and help in providing guidance with the preparation of this manuscript.

Notes on contributors

Dr David Berkowitz is the Dean of Graduate Studies and professor of marketing at the Universityof Alabama in Huntsville. His research interests include innovation and entrepreneurship.

Dr Brent M. Wren is the associate provost and associate professor of marketing at the Universityof Alabama in Huntsville. His research interests include franchising, market orientation, and



11/13

References

Anderson, E., L. Lodish, and B. Weitz. 1987. “Resource Allocation Behavior in ConventionalChannels.” Journal of Marketing Research 24 (February): 254–262.

Arbuckle, J. 1999. AMOS 4.0. Chicago: Smallwaters.Bass, B. M., and B. J. Avolio. 1993. “Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture.”

Public Administration Quarterly 17 (1): 112–121.Behrman, D., and W. Perreault. 1982. “Measuring the Performance of Industrial Salespersons.”

Journal of Business Research 10 (September): 355–370.Blake, R., and J. Mouton. 1961. “Reactions to Intergroup Competition Under Win-Lose Con-

ditions.” Managerial Science 7: 420–435.Blaumer, R. 1964. Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and His Industry. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Bollen, K. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Browne, M., and R. Cudeck. 1993. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.” In Testing Struc-

tural Equation Models, edited by K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long, 136–162. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Buchanan, B., II. 1974. “Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers inWork Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 19: 533–546.

Cadotte, E., and L. Stern. 1979. “A Process Model of Dyadic Interorganizational Relations inMarketing.” In Research in Marketing , Vol. 3, edited by J. N. Sheth, 127–158. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Campbell, D., and D. Fiske. 1959. “Convergent and Discriminative Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.” Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105.

Churchill, G. 1979. “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.” Jour-nal of Marketing Research 16 (February): 64–73.

Cronbach, L. 1951. “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests.” Psychometrika16 (September): 297–334.

Dewar, R., and J. Werbel. 1979. “Universalistic and Contingency Predictions of Employee Satisfac-tion and Conflict.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 426–448.

DiPietro, R., D. Severt, D. Welsh, and P. Raven. 2008. “Franchisee Leadership Traits vs. Manager

Leadership Traits an Exploratory Study Comparing Hope, Leadership, Commitment and Ser-vice Quality Delivery.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 4 (March):63–78.

Duncan, R. 1972. “Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Uncertainty.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (September): 313–327.

Dwyer, R., P. Schurr, and S. Oh. 1987. “Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships.” Journal of Marketing 51 (April): 11–27.

Dwyer, R., and M. Welsh. 1985. “Environmental Relationships of the Internal Political Economy of Marketing Channels.” Journal of Marketing Research 22 (November): 397–414.

Floyd, S., and B. Wooldridge. 1992. “Managing Strategic Consensus: The Foundation of EffectiveImplementation.” Academy of Management Executive 6 (4): 27–39.

Fornell, C., and D. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Vari-

ables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (February): 39–50.Frazer, L., S. Weaven, J. Giddings, and D. Grace. 2013. “What Went Wrong? Franchisors and Franchisees Disclose the Causes of Conflict in Franchising.” Qualitative Market Research: An

International Journal 15 (1): 87–103.Gaski, J. 1984. “The Theory of Power and Conflict in Channels of Distribution.” Journal of Market-

ing 48 (Summer): 9–29.Guth, W., and I. MacMillan. 1986. “Strategy Implementation Versus Middle Management

‘Self-interest’.” Strategic Management Journal 7 (July-August): 313–327.Hage, J. 1965. “An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly

10 (December): 289–320.Hage, J., and M. Aiken. 1967. “Relationship of Centralization to Other Structural Properties.”

Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (June): 72–92.Hall, W. 1980. “Survival Strategies in a Hostile Environment.” Harvard Business Review 58 (5):

75–85.Hambrick, D. 1983. “Some Tests of the Effectiveness and Functional Attributes of Miles and

Snow’s Strategic Types ” Academy of Management Journal 26: 5 26



12/13

Hater, J., and B. Bass. 1988. “Superior’s Evaluations and Subordinate’s Perceptions of Transforma-tional and Transactional Leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology 73 (1): 695–702.

John, G. 1984. “An Empirical Investigation of Some Antecedents of Opportunism in a MarketingChannel.” Journal of Marketing Research 21 (August): 278–289.

Joreskog, K., and D. Sorbom. 1992. LISREL VII: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by

Maximum Likelihood and Least Squares Methods. Uppsala: Scientific Software, Inc.Kiernan, M. 1993. “The New Strategic Architecture: Learning to Compete in the Twenty-FirstCentury.” Academy of Management Executive 7 (1): 7–21.

Koza, K., and R. Dant. 2007. “Effects of Relationship Climate, Control Mechanism and Communi-cations on Conflict Resolution Behaviors and Performance Outcomes.” Journal of Retailing 83 (3): 279–296.

Matey, D. 1991. “Significance of Transactional and Transformational Leadership Theory on theHospital Manager.” Hospital and Health Services Administration 36: 600–606.

Mathieu, J., and D. Zajac. 1990. “A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (September): 171– 194.

Maxwell, G., and G. Steele. 2003. “Organizational Commitment: A Study of Managers of Hotels.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 15: 362–369.

McGill, M., W. Slocum, and D. Lei. 1992. “Management Practices in Learning Organizations.”Organizational Dynamics (Summer): 5–17.

Mintzberg, H., and J. Waters. 1985. “Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent.” Strategic Manage-ment Journal 6: 257–272.

Morris, J., and R. Steers. 1980. “Structural Influences on Organizational Commitment.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 17: 50–57.

Northouse, P. 2013. Leadership: Theory and Practice. 6th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Pedhazur, E., and L. Pedhazur-Schmelkin. 1991. Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Inte-

grated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Peter, J. 1979. “Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices.”

Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1) (February): 6–17.

Porter, M. 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Companies. NewYork: Free Press.

Pugh, D., D. Hickson, C. Hinings, and C. Turner. 1968. “Dimensions of Organization Structure.” Administrative Science Quarterly 13: 65–105.

Ruekert, R., O. Walker, Jr., and K. Roering. 1985. “The Organization of Marketing Activities: AContingency Theory of Structure and Performance.” Journal of Marketing 49 (Winter): 13–25.

Salancik, G., and J. Pfeffer. 1977. “An Examination of the Need-Satisfaction Models of JobAttitudes.” Administrative Science Quarterly 22: 27–33.

Schweiger, D., W. Sandberg, and J. Ragan. 1986. “Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Deci-sion Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil’s Advocacy, and Con-sensus.” Academy of Management Journal 29: 51–71.

Seltzer, J., and B. Bass. 1990. “Transformational Leadership: Beyond Initiation and Consideration.” Journal of Management 16 (4): 693–703.

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. NewYork: Doubleday/Currency.

Spekman, R., and L. Stern. 1979. “Environmental Uncertainty and Buying Group Structure: AnEmpirical Investigation.” Journal of Marketing 43 (Spring): 54–64.

Venkatraman, N. 1989. “The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (July): 424–444.

Wooldridge, B., and S. Floyd. 1990. “The Strategy Process, Middle Management Involvement, and Organizational Performance.” Strategic Management Journal 11 (March–April): 231–241.

Zeller, R. A., and E. G. Carmines. 1980. Measurement in the Social Sciences. New York:Cambridge University Press.



13/13

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without

permission.

creating strategic commitment in franchise systems establishing the link between leadership,...

Documents