The survey of SME owners and managers was conducted in December 2010–August 2011, 7500 entrepreneurs were approached and 1464 responses received (response rate 19,52%). For evaluations scale 1–10 was used, where 1 — not significant; 10 — very significant.
Survey results indicated that SME owners and managers evaluated the role of business communication on enterprises management rather different, maximum evaluation 10 points gave 21,57%
respondents, minimum evaluation 1 point 3,92%, 8 and more points were given by 54,9% respondents (see Figure 1.).
Figure 1. SME owners and managers evaluation of communication significance on company management •(Source: SME owners, managers survey
in 2010 December — 2011 August (n=1464) Estimation scale 1–10 (where 1 — not significant, 10 — very significant)
Business communication evaluations arithmetic mean was 7,16, standard error of mean was 0,067 (in scale 1–10), most of the evaluations of entrepreneurs were 8 and 10 (mode), 50% entrepreneurs evaluated communication significance on company management with 8 and more points (median). The full possible scale for evaluations was used, but still evaluation was quite homogeneous — standard deviation 2,501 (see Table 1.), coefficient of variability was 34,93%.
There were differences how role of business communication evaluated micro, small and medium sized enterprises owners and managers in Latvia. Empirical research indicated that communication’s role higher was evaluated by medium sized managers, the evaluations were more homogeneous (with smaller variability) than evaluations of micro and small enterprises owners and managers (see Figure 2.).
The medium sized enterprises managers evaluations of business communication role arithmetic mean was 8,13, standard error of mean 0,105 (in scale 1–10), most of the evaluations was 8 (mode), 50% entrepreneurs evaluated communication significance on company management with 8 and more points (median). The evaluation was homogeneous — standard deviation 1,540. The micro enterprises
Table 1. Statistical indicators of SME owners, managers’ estimation of communication significance on company management
Source: SME owners, managers survey in 2010 December — 2011 August (n=1464) Estimation scale 1 — 10 (where 1 — not significant, 10 — very significant)
*Number of respondents who answered this question
Figure 2. SME owners and managers evaluation of communication significance on company management in companies with different number of
employees (less than 10, between 10 and 50, between 50 and 250). (Source:
SME owners, managers survey in 2010 December — 2011 August (n=1464) Estimation scale 1–10 (where 1 — not significant, 10 — very significant)
owners evaluations of business communication were lower than medium size managers, arithmetic mean was 6,94 points, standard error of mean was 0,101, frequently evaluation was 10 (mode), 50%
entrepreneurs evaluated communication significance on company management with 8 and more points (median). It indicates that this role is evaluated really very high. The evaluations of micro enterprises owners had lager variation (standard deviation 2,919) than evaluations of small and medium size owners and managers. The lowest evaluation of business communication role gave small size enterprises owners and managers, arithmetic mean was 6,80 points, standard error of mean was 0,090, most often evaluation was 8 (mode), 50%
entrepreneurs evaluated communication significance on company management with 7 and more points (median). The evaluation was homogeneous — standard deviation 1,472. Entrepreneurs from this group has used evaluations from 3 to 10 (in 1–10 point scale), it means that no one has used the lower possible evaluations. Even more it is for bigger enterprises: the lowest point there given was 5, all indicators of central tendency or location has very high values:
arithmetic mean: 8,13, median and mode 8 (see Table 2.).
Table 2. Statistical indicators of SME owners and managers evaluation of communication significance on company management
in companies with different number of employees
Analysis of variance has shown that mean differences of micro, small and medium size enterprises owners and managers evaluation of communication influence on company management is statistical significant (p= 0,000).
Survey results indicate that business communication on company management wider used managers of medium sized companies than managers of micro and small sized companies. Research results also showed that medium sized company also are more innovative than micro and small sized companies (see Table 3.).
Table 3. Statistical indicators of SME owners and managers evaluation of innovative activity of companies with different number of employees
Source: SME owners, managers survey in 2010 December — 2011 August (n=1464) Estimation scale 1 — 10 (where 1 — not significant, 10 — very significant)
* Number of respondents who answered this question
Analysis of variance has shown that mean differences of micro, small and medium size enterprises owners and managers evaluation of innovative activity of companies is statistical significant (p=0,000).
The statistical significant differences are between micro, small size companies and medium size companies.
Authors used multi ple regression analysis to explore the relationshi ps between dependent variable company innovativeness and independent variables business communication, training, skilled workforce. Regression model
õ = 0,071+ 0,251 x1 + 0,362 x2 + 0,142x3, R2 = 0,399
Source: SME owners, managers survey in 2010 December — 2011 August (n=1464) Estimation scale 1–10 (where 1 — not significant, 10 — very significant)
* Number of respondents who answered this question
where: õ — theoretical value of evaluation of company innovative activity;
x1 — evaluation of training role;
x2 — evaluation of business communication role;
x3 — evaluation of skilled workforce role.
The regression model indicates that evaluation of company innovative activity is influenced by included factors. All included factors are statistically significant with high probability. To avoid multicolinearity, authors have checked correlation among the factors included in the regression equation:
roi > rij, roj > rij, rok > rik, rok > rjk,
where: o — dependent variable (evaluation of company innovative activity),
i, j, k — independent variables (training, communication, skilled workforce) , indicates that the correlation coefficients with dependent variable are bigger than with independent variables. Results of multivariate regression analysis is included in table 4.
Table 4. Results of multivariate regression analysis
Source: SME owners, managers survey in 2010 December — 2011 August (n=1464) Estimation scale 1 — 10 (where 1 — not significant, 10 — very significant)
* Number of respondents who answered this question
Data of the table 4 indicates that all included independent variables have statistically significant regression coefficients with high probability, R square indicates that model could be used for analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Business communication is an important factor for effective entrepreneurshi p realisation. Development of information and communication technologies offers new approaches and more effective tools for business communication.
Research results identify that owners and managers of micro and small enterprises evaluate role of communication lower than medium size managers. It is one of the factors that statistically significant with high probability affects innovativeness of micro and small companies.
REFERENCES
2009/2010 Communication ROI Study Report, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 2010. 18 p.
European Commission recommendation 2003/361/EC concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, 6 May 2003, Official Journal of the European Union, 20.5.2003.
Greenber S., Gauvreau L., Hnottavange-Telleen T., Finley R., Marsteller S. Meeting CCS communication challenges head-on: Integrating communications, planning, risk assessment, and project management, Energy Procedia, Vol. 4, 2011, pp. 6188-6193.
Griffin R.W. Management, 8th edit.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 808 p.
Griffith D. A. The role of communication competencies in international business relationship development, Journal of World Business, Vol. 37, 2002, pp. 256-265.
Jean R.J., Zolin R., Sinkovics R.R., Kim D. Drivers and Performance Outcomes of Relationship Learning for Suppliers in Cross-Border Customer–Supplier Relationships: The Role of Communication Culture, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2010, pp. 63-85.
Jo S., Shim S.W. Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of management communication on trusting relationshi ps, Public Relations Review, Vol. 31, 2005, pp. 277-280.
Jorfi H., Jorfi S., Yaccob H.F.B., Shah I.M. Relationships among Strategic Management, Strategic Behaviors, Emotional Intelligence, IT-business Strategic Alignment, Motivation, and Communication Effectiveness, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6, No. 9, 2011, pp. 30-37.
Kupritz V.W., Cowell E. Productive Management Communication: Online and Face-to-Face, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2011, pp. 54-82.
Large R.O. External communication behaviour of purchasers—effects on, supplier management performance, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 11, 2005, pp. 28-41.
Megginson, L., C., Byrd, M., J., Megginson, W., L. Small Business Management 5th ed., McGraw-Hill Companies, 2006, 518 p.
Perry D.C., Maureen T., Marya D.L. Internet-Based Communication in Crisis Management, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003, pp. 206-232.
Spanos Y. E., Prastacos G. P., Poulymenakou A. The relationshi p between information and communication technologies adoption and management, Information &
Management, Vol. 39, 2002, pp. 659-675.
Thomas G.F., Zolin R., Hartmen J.L. The Central Role of Communication in Developing Trust and Its Effect on Employee Involvement, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2009, pp. 287-310.
Valackiene A. Efficient Corporate Communication: Decisions in Crisis Management, Commerce of Engineering Decisions, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2010, pp. 99-110.
Zornoza A., Ri poll P., Peiro J.M. Conflict Management in Groups that Work in Two Different Communication Contexts: Face-To-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication, Small Group Research, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2002, pp. 481-508.
Gindra KasnauskienX, Vilnius university