INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVINESS IN ENTREPRENEURIAL SMEs Authors Karen L. Orengo Serra, Ph.D. Professor Faculty of Business Administration University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Nora Picón Garcia, Ph.D. Candidate Faculty of Business Administration University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus e-mail: [email protected] Abstract

The current study aims to describe the relationship between innovation and business competitiveness from the distributor’s perspective and in the context of manufacturerdistributor relationships. Specifically, the study examines three cases of Puerto Rican distributors of professional premium aesthetic products in the United States and Caribbean markets. A qualitative methodological case study approach was used. A semi-structured questionnaire combined with personal interviews, official industry reports and previously published studies in peer-reviewed journals were the main sources of primary and secondary data. Sal’s Beauty Supply, Distribuidora de Cosméticos Europeos, and Eurocontrol, Inc were studied as representative cases of cooperative innovation relationships between distributor and manufacturer. Findings suggest that the strong relationships developed over time with manufacturers enable distributors to provide input into product innovations, which are eventually adopted and implemented by international manufacturers. Key words: cooperative innovation, distributor-manufacturer relationships, aesthetic industry, SMEs, _________________________________________________________________

KAREN L. ORENGO SERRA is professor of International Business at the Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus. Her research interests are internationalization of SMEs in the context of economic integration policies, business networks, entrepreneurial strategic orientations of SMEs, and born-global firm’s internationalization. Her most recent investigations are published on: Business Journal for Entrepreneurs (2008); McGraw-Hill Interamericana (textbook, 2007), and CePA-Cambridge-Brick House Publishing, Mass (book, 2007). [email: [email protected]]

1

NORA B. PICON GARCIA is Ph.D. candidate and Teacher Assistant of International Business at Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. Her main academic research interests are Entrepreneurship and Home Based Business, Innovation, Business and Industry development and orientation. Other subjects she intends to research on are cross cultural and market overlapping aspects of transaction cost, trust, risk and infrastructure in service industries. [email: [email protected]]

INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVINESS IN ENTREPRENEURIAL SMEs Introduction

During the last couple decades, innovation has been extensively discussed as an essential element of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Innovation combined with an entrepreneurial culture, and business relationships has been associated with SME growth, performance, competitiveness and internationalization (Wolff & Pett, 2006; Runyand, R., & Drogue, C., & Swinney, J., 2008; Andersson & Johansson, 2008; Armario, J.M., Ruiz, D.M., & Armario, E.M., 2008; Renko, Carsrud, & Brannback, 2009; Kara, A., Spillan, J.E., DeShields, O.W., Jr., 2005). The majority of previous studies have focused on manufacturing and service companies, while few have focused on innovation from the distributor’s perspective. The few studies that are available on this topic focus on cooperative innovation and business relationships (Walters and Rainbird, 2007; Anderson and Narus, 1984; Wang and Kess, 2006; Eusang and Lilien, 1988).

The current study aims to describe the relationship between innovation and business competitiveness from the distributor’s perspective and in the context of the manufacturerdistributor relationship. Specifically, the study examines the case of Puerto Rican 2

distributors of professional non-mass aesthetic products in the United States and Caribbean markets. Innovation is not directly controlled by the distributor however, distributor input is critical to manufacturer product innovations. The distributor, therefore, plays an important role not only in the diffusion of innovation outcomes but also in the development of new products making the present study interesting and original.

Review of Literature

In the value chain, innovation has contributed to the evolution of the role of the distributor from its traditional supply-based function toward a market-oriented function (Brockman and Morgan, 1999). Under the new market-focused approach, three trends appear: an increasing connection of marketing to distribution decisions where the “efficient consumer response” determines new product decisions as part of distribution functions; an increasing integration of channel member activities, where all channel members work together to identify and respond to the end customer needs; and finally, the increasing responsiveness of channel members to market demand (Broackman and Morgan, 1999). This evolution requires the development of trust and cooperation across channel players. The present study considers the level of trust and cooperation between distributors and manufacturers an important indicator of innovation outcomes and competitiveness. Through this perspective, the concept of cooperative innovation between channel members emerges. Cooperative innovation “combines elements of process and product innovation management within a network structure to create a product service response that neither partner could create using its own resources” (Walters and Rainbird, 2007).

3

Wang and Kess (2006) found that the relationship between distributor and manufacturer in the Chinese market is correlated with product improvement and innovation. The authors conclude that the distributor-manufacturer relationship is a “product-tied relationship”, where product innovation affects performance improvement in distributor relationships (Wand et al., 2006). In addition, sales results in the Chinese market are closely related to product improvement and the original idea of the product design; the cooperative relationship will become increasingly weak, even to the point of termination, if there is no innovation outcome or if product innovation does not keep pace with market expectations. Anderson and Narus (1984) developed a model of distributor–manufacturer working relationship where both actors have managerial positions. The study revealed that relationships can be developed and maintained when manufacturers provide outcomes (e.g., quality products and improvements, discounts, support services) that meet or exceed distributor expectations. For the manufacturer, “effectively positioning their provided outcomes, can gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace through more cooperative, satisfied, and productive distributors” (Anderson et al., 1984). The present study is the first to indirectly address product innovation from the distributor’s perspective and in the context of cooperative relationships. Yuan and Woodman (2010) state that there are certain indispensable facts for an employee have an innovative behavior and therefore an innovative output in its workplace. They analyze the productivity and a social politics perspective which makes an employee to have an innovative input. This investigation only uses the perspective of productivity of (Yuan et al., 2010).

Industry Overview 4

The Global Cosmetic and Beauty Industry is segmented into two factions (premium and mass products) based on brand prestige, price and distribution channel. In 2007, the mass segment represented 67% of all sales while the premium segment represented 33% (Bernstein Research, 2009). Between 2002 and 2007, the increase in skin care products accounted for 41% of total Global Cosmetic and Beauty Industry growth (Bernstein Analysis, 2009). In the premium segment of the industry, 88% of total sales are generated within developed countries. The current study focuses on premium aesthetic products which are subjected to pre-market health-related audit by state authorities. Contrary to mass beauty products, which are sold in pharmacies, supermarkets and wholesale stores, premium products are sold through distributors and authorized retailers. For the most part, premium products are not attractive to large companies because the target market is comparably small. Although some SMEs outsource certain services, they are mostly vertically integrated (Newman, 2008).

Methodology

A qualitative methodological based approach was used in the current case study. According to Yin (1989), the case study approach is appropriate in qualitative analysis as it allows a more complete understanding of the subject under investigation. Through case study the subject can be appreciated as a holistic entity, whose attributes can be understood in full through a simultaneous analysis of all aspects. In addition, qualitative analysis allows an abundance of information which quantitative analysis cannot express due to its

5

restrictive nature. Using inductive logic the present study aims to describe the relationship between innovation and competition from the perspective of the distributor.

The triangulation of data technique was used to obtain diversified and reliable information and to better understand the subject under analysis. A semi-structured questionnaire combined with personal interviews, official industry reports and previously published studies in peer-reviewed journals were the main sources of primary and secondary data. Data analysis involved pattern matching and explanation building as proposed by Yin (1989). In addition, we proposed a qualitative scale to measure the relationship between innovation and business competitiveness, along with a matrix positioning approach to summarize the main findings. Innovation was measured using the following dimensions:

innovative product, price, attractiveness to customers, quality

results, and technical support. Competitiveness as a result of innovation was analyzed using the subsequent constructs: increase in customers, reduction of costs, an increase in profit margin, and exclusivity of adopted innovation. The variables of innovation and business competitiveness were based on previous literature and completed questionnaires submitted to distributors during a trade fair held on October 31 to November 1, 2010, at the Puerto Rico Convention Center in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

In addition to the case study method, a basic statistical analysis was included to describe distributor vision and awareness about innovation and competitiveness. The questionnaire was given to 33 distributors of premium aesthetic products, at the San Juan Beauty Show, in Puerto Rico; an annual meeting of distributors of skin care products, cosmetologists and hairstylists. Fifteen of the 33 distributors completed the questionnaire. 6

The final sample, therefore, is not representative of the entire Skin Care distributor industry; only those distributors that agreed to respond to the questionnaire, prepared for the annual meeting, and were interviewed were included in this study. However, the sample had a fairly high response rate of 45% (15/33).

The questionnaire consisted on 27 semi-structured questions. The first nine questions were focused on demographic information. Questions 10 through 19 addressed industry and market strategies and behavior. Questions 20 to 27 focused on relationships between innovation practices, business competitiveness, and manufacturer-distributor relationships.

Analysis of total sample

Fifty percent of those interviewed were owners of the distribution company, while the rest were managers. Sixty-seven percent of distributors reported taking courses in aesthetics and /or cosmetology, while the rest reported taking college-level courses. It is interesting to note that distributors (5 distributors or 38 percent) who had operated in the Puerto Rican market for one to three years represent new lines of aesthetic and beauty products while those who had operated in the market for 17 to 40 years represent older professional aesthetic lines.

7

The main variables affecting the decision to enter the beauty product distribution business were family members, friends and courses in the field of beauty and cosmetics. Only three respondents indicated that their interest in the business was related to money. Seventy three percent of distributors employ at least one esthetician, indicating that professional knowledge is important for business operation. This is in agreement with prior literature which emphasizes that the aesthetics industry is highly competitive and the constant flow of knowledge is necessary for successful innovation and dissemination.

The only locally-owned distributor to expand operations overseas was the oldest participating distributor (46 years in operation). This distributor exports its products to Florida, Dominican Republic and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Distributors with 1 to 3 years of operation are headquartered in the United States, covering New York, Miami, Texas, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and several Caribbean countries. Of these nine distributors, three are beginning to penetrate the Puerto Rican market and two of them travel twice a year to participate in local trade fairs.

All but one distributor have more than one product line. Constant innovation is necessary to be competitive and if a manufacturer fails to diversify and innovate frequently, distributors are forced to search for relationships with other manufacturers who are at the forefront of innovation. In this context, the distributor controls the supply of constant innovation through the acquisition of products from several manufacturers. All but two distributors (87%) obtain products directly from the manufacturer. The two distributors that are excluded are subsidiaries of distribution of foreign manufacturers that have their distribution centers in Puerto Rico and Colombia, respectively. Eight of the interviewed 8

distributors carry European products, five carry American products, and three carry products from Spain, Asia, America and Colombia. Nine distributors responded that they have been forced to participate in the innovative process of the products they distribute.

Distributors indicated that for a product to be successful it must be innovative, low cost, attractive to clients, and high quality. Eight of fifteen distributors (53%) find innovativeness, low cost and attractiveness to customers as the three most important variables of an innovation. Of these eight, six agree that the product must also ensure quality results, while three indicated that mentoring and training is another feature to consider in adopting innovation. The majority of distributors (93%) agree that innovation outcome is best measured through increase in customer base. Of these, five added that an increase in profit margin is an important indicator in measuring innovation outcome. One respondent stated that an increase in profit margin is the only useful variable in measuring innovation outcome.

Distributors consider themselves to be relatively proactive in innovation adoption. Seventy-three percent of interviewed distributors agree that innovation comes exclusively from contract between manufacturer and distributor. All distributors agree that the exclusivity of an innovation is directly related to competitiveness of the distributor. This does not necessarily imply greater profits but may instead be seen as an increase in new customers. However, many respondents noted that innovations are not always beneficial to business. In fact, some innovations lead to a turnover of customers who had been loyal to certain products.

9

Cases Studies

Three distributors were further analyzed. These distributers were selected based on the following criteria: years in business, degree of autonomy, cooperative relationship with manufacturer, and premium product portfolio variety. Access to in-depth personal interviews and follow-up interviews were also taken into account during the selection process. The cases are: Case A: Sal’s Beauty Supply; Case B: Distribuidora de Cosméticos de Puerto Rico and Case C: Eurocontrol, Inc. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the variables under analysis and criteria used in the case selection process.

Figure 1: Criteria for Case Analysis Selection

 

Time in Business Trust Experience

Foreign Manufacturers & Domestic Distributors  Internationalization  Low cost entry strategy INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVENESS OF DISTRIBUTORS

 

Autonomy More autonomy Decision making process

 

Time in Business

10

Product Variety Diversification High quality products

Case A: Sal’s Beauty Supply has been operating in the domestic market for 46 years, has expansive and strong business contacts and a good reputation. The business pursues a market-oriented strategy as evidenced by owner-run customer service. The technical support staff is trained by the owner. The market-oriented strategy has increased knowledge within the industry as to enable the distributor to create their own original products and dermocosmetics preparations.

Case B: Distrubuidora de Cosméticos Europeos has been in the local market for 35 years as the exclusive representative of distinguished European brands such as Belnatur, signifying that the company pursues a brand-oriented strategy to reach a wider segment of this niche market. As with Case A, their portfolio of high quality European premium products has positioned the company well in the market.

Case C: Eurocontrol, Inc. has been in the local market for 16 years as the exclusive representative of a leading Spanish manufacturer of premium products. After the owner died in 2002, the family took over the business. The company continues to be one of the exclusive distributors of Casmara Cosmetics, S.A., today known as Casmara Prestige.

Autonomy Case A: The CEO of Case A is the founder and owner of the company allowing him to have total control over operations, priorities and corporate policies. In addition, the CEO is proactive in the innovative decision making process.

11

Case B: As with Case A, the director of Case B is the owner and founder of the company and thus has total autonomy and control of his business. This autonomy allows them to choose which of the manufacturer’s products they want to distribute. Although this distributor has the capability to have a say about product innovation, they choose not to participate. If the manufacturer does not deliver any product the distributor wants they simply stop distributing the brand.

Case C: Three relatives of the owner and founder of Case C manage the business with total control over decision making and company direction.

Foreign Manufacturer & Domestic distribution Case A: Case A facilitates the internationalization of manufacturers through indirect export (foreign low-cost entry strategy) and by offering high quality products recognized worldwide. In turn, the distributor has access to regional trade fairs. In fact, exposure of this distributor at these fairs has allowed the company to penetrate the American and Caribbean markets which represent 7.8% of total sales.

Case B: As with Case A, Case B offers an extensive portfolio of premium leading European brands. Although this brand-oriented strategy is effective and efficient, it forces the manufacturers to lobby with distributors to avoid products that are similar from other manufacturers. It is not part of this distributor strategy to internationalize. However, if an existing client move out of its region area and there is no other supplier of the brands this distributor delivers, they still service that customer. 12

Case C: Case C is similar to Case A and Case B in terms of manufacturer foreign entry, that is: licensing of distribution of Casmara Prestige brand. The manufacturer for Case C requires a quota of sales for each new market and therefore, in contrast to the other two cases, Case C has not sought the opportunity to explore foreign markets. The manufacturer is a family business and today the company is managed by the original owners, making the internationalization process more rigid and closed.

Product Variety Case A: Case A carries a wide variety of products (including non-medical beauty equipment) and product lines. In addition to international lines, Case A carries a private label, manufactured in a foreign country allowing the company to maintain a broad portfolio of innovative and high quality products and equipment. Muster E. Dickson Spa (Italy), Parlux, Vitale and Sal’s, Phitoderm, are some premium lines distributed by Case A.

Case B: As with Case A, Case B carries differentiated and diversified premium products and equipment allowing the company to reach several segments of the market. The technical and professional capabilities of the owner (a professor) as well as her daughter (a dermatologist) facilitate a wide selection of products in the company’s portfolio.

Case C: Case C has a portfolio reduction strategy (product divestment strategy) limited to the production of some of the world's best-selling and easily standardized products. Product divestment strategy beneficially allocates resources when it is necessary 13

to decrease production costs due to market polarization and reduction (Kotler and Keller, 2008). However, the product portfolio is large enough such that it is unnecessary to search for other brands. The distributor-manufacturer relationship has allowed the distributor to participate in the process of research and development of new dermocosmetic preparations through the sharing of information arising from the trust and commitment developed with retailers; this is a trend also evident in Case A and Case B. Competitiveness Table 1: Innovation and Competitiveness Matrix Innovation

Competitiveness

Case A Customer Increase and/or Retention

Product improvement

Low Price

Attractiveness to customer

Quality

Technological support/continued education

X

X

X

X

X

Case B Case C

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Case A Case B Cost Reduction

Case C Case A

X

X

Case B Increase Profits

Case C

X

Case A

X

X

Case B Exclusiveness

Case C

X X

X

X

X

The main factor tying innovation and competitiveness is quality which is vital to attracting customers and customer retention (Table 1). All three cases studied provided quality as a goal in attracting and retaining customers. Therefore, we can conclude that the main goal of distributors in the professional skin industry is to achieve quality as to increase clientele and maintain client loyalty.

14

The

distributors

use

product

improvement,

attractiveness

to

customers,

technological support and continued education to enhance quality which ultimately leads to survival in the industry. Low prices are the least important factor considered (see Table 1). While lowering prices is beneficial, quality cannot be sacrificed. The most important goal cited to increase competitiveness was to increase clientele and maintain client loyalty. An increase in profits is always desirable but is only achieved through delivering a quality product and quality service and not by cost reduction. Production of products is very expensive to the manufacturer and therefore the distributor must sacrifice cost reduction to obtain a higher quality product.

As mentioned previously, quality is critical in the aesthetics industry and anything interfering with quality must be sacrificed. An increase in profits can be expected as a result of high sales volume, and large orders from existing clients or the addition of new clients. Table 2:Innovation Proactiveness Trigger Case B

Dissatisfaction status quo

Case A X

Case C X

Comment Trigger for active role

Quality performance expected

X

X

X

Required to any kind of innovation to happen

Innovative Capability

X

X

X

Required to any kind of innovation to happen

Innovative Behaviour

Table 2 demonstrates the role of several constructs adapted from Yuan and Woodman (2010) on the innovative behaviour of the distributor. 15

Case A: The distributor in Case A imports several brand products. However, due to dissatisfaction with existing products, the distributor chose to invest in creating a private label and is therefore in control of innovation. This strategy is considered to be a high risk since it requires high capital investment in a niche market which already has a variety of brands available. To dissipate the high risk, he distributes several stable brands.

Case B: While the distributor in Case B possesses all the characteristics necessary for a proactive role in innovation, they choose to maintain a reactive strategy, which presents less risk. Unlike Case A, Case B is satisfied with the innovations delivered by the manufacturers. Because Case B does not control product innovation, they represent several brand names. If for any reason a manufacturer stops delivering the expected quality, the distributor is able to stop distributing the brand while continuing with other brands.

Case C: The distributor in Case C was dissatisfied with existing products and therefore chose to take a proactive role in innovation by suggesting formulations (some of which have been created and put on the market) to manufacturers. The distributor only carries one brand, and is therefore especially interested in the success of the manufacturer's products. Table 3: Strategy Choice

Innovation Attitude

High

Risk Low

Proactive Case A

Case B

Reactive

Case C

16

Table 3 displays data gathered from interviews and information based on Table 2. Dissatisfaction with existing products triggers a proactive role in product innovation. An innovative role, whether reactive or proactive, requires quality performance and innovative capabilities. After a decision has been made on whether to be proactive or reactive toward innovation the distributor must chose either a high or low risk strategy. In the case where a distributor creates new formulations, a decision must be made on whether to share the formulation with the manufacturer or establish a separate manufacturer on its own and deliver the newly created innovation.

Findings, conclusions and future directions

Distributors in the beauty and aesthetics industry must increase clientele and maintain clientele loyalty by delivering high quality products to stay competitive. Increases in orders from loyal clients and new clients ultimately lead to an increase in profits. All three case studies import European products and therefore competitiveness cannot be attained through cost reduction. Distributors are therefore willing to pay a premium for quality products. Due to the niche market nature of premium products, exclusiveness is vital for distributor survival. Respondents cited quality as the most crucial factor for survival; other innovations such as product improvement and attractiveness to customers are only achieved through quality improvement. Technological support and continued education (training) also act to enhance product quality. Low price was also cited as an acceptable innovation outcome as long as it does not affect quality.

17

In order to be competitive and maintain a strong image, distributors of premium aesthetic products must focus on product innovation. While distributors do not participate directly in the innovative process, a strong relationship with retailers and trust developed over time with manufacturers allow participation in product innovation. Experience, market knowledge, technical training and education are other factors affecting distributor participation in product innovation. In the current study distributor participation in product innovation could be categorized as either: 1) passive innovation agent, in which the distributor gives suggestions and feedback about products and treatments, but does not play an active role in product innovation; or 2) active innovation agent, in which the distributor is involved with the generation of new ideas, new dermocosmetics formulation, packing, promotion and other marketing strategies. All three cases studied were involved to some extent in product innovation. Case A and Case C are active innovation agents while Case B plays a passive innovation agent role. In Case A, the distributor actively participates not only in his own private label premium products but also in other international manufacturing brands that he represents.

While distributors possess the ability to have active input into innovation, manufacturers in general do not endorse this strategy. The distributor must therefore make a concerted effort to contribute. In most cases, manufacturers use distributors to globalize their innovations and for market expansion. The manufacturer relies on distributors to disclose product innovations to retailers, since distributors are relatively well trained and knowledgeable. In addition, products are sold to certified retailers. The typical distributor has proficient knowledge of the industry, has been in the industry for many years and has a

18

long and strong relationship with its manufacturers. In addition, the distributor often has an academic background in science.

For the most part, manufacturers maintain distributors as passive innovation agents (the minimum required for survival), minimizing distributor knowledge resources. The main reason for manufacturers to use distributors as passive innovation agents is because they need to satisfy international niche markets with high-end premium products. Manufacturers feel that passive participation of distributors is sufficient to obtain the input necessary to be innovative in the global cosmetic industry.

The present case analysis found that a long and close relationship between distributor and manufacturer is necessary but not sufficient for distributor participation in innovation. References

Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1984). “A Model of the Distributor’s Perspective of Distributor-Manufacturer Working Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, 48, 62-74. Beise-Zee, Rian, and Rammer, Christian (2006). “Local User-Producer Interaction in Innovation and Export Performance of Firms”, Small Business Economics, 27: 207-222. Bernstein Research (2009). LVMH -Louis Vuitton & Moët Hennessy- King of the Luxury Jungle, N.Y., Bernstein Research Publications. Brockman, B.K. and Morgan, R.M. (1999). “The Evolution of Managerial Innovations in Distribution: what prospects for ECR?”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 27(10), 397-. Chailan, C. (2008). “Brands Portfolio and Competitive Advantage: an Empirical Study”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(4), 254-264. EuroImpact Trade Show Catalog (2004). Exhibitors, EuroImpact Miami, FL. 19

ICEX, (2005). “El Mercado de la Perfumería en Puerto Rico”, in Informe del Instituto de Comercio Exterior de España, 4-45. ICEX. (2010). “Spanish Cosmetics: a wide range of exclusive, quality products”, in Cosmoprof Bologna 2010 Spain Brochure, ICEX, 2-80. Johannessen, J-A., Olsen, B., and Lumpkin, G. T. (2001). “ Innovation as newness: What is new, how new, and new to whom?”, European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(1), 20-31. Kuratko, Donald F. and Hodgetts, Richard M. (2004). Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process and Practice. 6th edition. Thompson South-Western. Kotler, P. and Lane, K. (2006). Marketing Management. 12th edition. Pearson, PrenticeHall. Newman, K. (2008). “Skin Care’s Big Impact”, Global Cosmetic Industry Magazine, 2-4. San Juan Beauty Show Expositor Guide. (2005) Lista de Expositores, San Juan Beauty Show. Verhees, Frans J.H.M., and Meulenberg Matthew T.G. (2004). “Market Orientation, Innovativeness, Product Innovation, and Performance in Small Firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 134-154, April. Walters, D. and Rainbird, M. (2007). “Cooperative Innovation: a Value Chain Approach”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(5), 595-607. Wang, L. and Kess, P. (2006). “Partnering Motives and Partner Selection: Cases studies of Finnish Distributor relationships in China”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 36(6), 466-478. Wolff, J.A., and Pett, T.L. (2006). “Small-Firm Performance: Modelating the Role of Product and Process Improvements”, Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2): 268284, April. Yuan F., and Woodman R.W (2010). “The Role of Performance and Image Outcome Expectation”, Academy Management Journal, 53(2): 323-342.

20