Assisgment Bussnines The primary purpose
The primary purpose of this study is to determine the influence of selected factors on
small business owners’ perceived obstacles to strategic planning in Louisiana small businesses.
Research Objectives
The following specific objectives were formulated to guide this research study:
1. To describe small businesses in Louisiana based on the following characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of full-time and part-time employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization, i.e., Limited Liability Corporation, Subchapter S
Corporation, Partnership, etc.;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
2. To describe small businesses in Louisiana based on the perceived degree to which the
organization conducts strategic planning.
3. To describe Louisiana small businesses owners’ perceptions regarding the following
obstacles to strategic planning:
a) The perceived quality of the organization’s employees;
b) The perceived degree to which the organization’s leadership has knowledge of the
planning process;
c) The perceived available time the organization has to strategically plan.
4. To determine if a relationship exists between Louisiana small business owners' perceived
obstacles to strategic planning and the following variables:
a) Industry in which the small business is positioned in;
b) Structure of the organization, i.e., Limited Liability Corporation, Subchapter S
Corporation, Partnership, etc.;
c) Years the organization has been in business;
d) Current number of full-time and part-time employees on the organization's payroll;
e) The perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning;
f) Existence of a written long-term plan.
5. To determine if a model exists explaining a significant portion of the variance in
Louisiana small business owners' perceived degree to which the small business conducts
strategic planning based on the following characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of full-time and part-time employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization, i.e., Limited Liability Corporation, Subchapter S
Corporation, Partnership, etc.;
e) The perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning;
f) The perceived quality of the organization’s employees;
g) The perceived degree to which the organization’s leadership has knowledge of the
planning process;
h) The perceived available time the organization has to strategically plan;
i) Existence of a written long-term plan;
Objective One
The first objective of this study is to describe Louisiana small businesses on the following
characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
The Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory survey included four screening
questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer to determine the eligibility of the participant to
continue the survey. The screening questions included: 1) Are you a publically traded company?
This question required a “no” response. 2) Does your company have 501 or more employees?
This criterion question required a “no” response. 3) Do you possess the title of owner, co-owner,
CEO, President, or VP? This criterion question required a “yes” response. 4) Does your company
have a physical location in Louisiana? This criterion question required a “yes” response. The
researcher received 75 total responses, of which 70 met the participation criteria.
Years the Organization has been in Business
The first variable by which respondents were described was the number of years the
business had been in operation (age). Louisiana small business respondents were asked to enter
the age, in years, of the small business. The mean age reported was 21.03 years (SD=15.35). The
business ages reported ranged from a low of 1 year to a high of 66 years. The most common ages
were 6 years, 15 years, and 32 years, with four respondents each.
Industry in which the Small Business is Positioned
Another variable by which respondents were described was the industry in which the
organization was positioned. Of the 70 respondents, 57% were positioned in one of four
industries. The largest group was Professional Services (n=22, 31.4%), followed by Construction
(n=8, 11.4%), Retail (n=5, 7.1%), and Distribution (n=5, 7.1%) (see Table 5). Table
5 Industries in Which Small Businesses in Louisiana were Positioned
Industry Frequency Percent
Professional Services 22 31
Construction 8 11
Othera 7 10
Distribution 5 7.1
Retail 5 7.1
Oil & Gas 4 5.7
Information Tech 3 4.3
Healthcare 3 4.3
Insurance 3 4.3
Real Estate 2 2.9
Bio Tech / Bio Med 1 1.4
Automotive 1 1.4
Software Development 1 1.4
Entertainment 1 1.4
Fabricated Products 1 1.4
Transportation 1 1.4
Printing & Publishing 1 1.4
Finance 1 1.4
Total 70 100
aNo specific response was requested
Current Number of Employees on the Organization's Payroll
To report the number of employees of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were
asked to enter the number of employees currently on the payroll of their business. The mean
number of employees reported was 19.43 (SD=31.74). The minimum number of employees
reported was 0; the maximum number of employees reported was 175. Of the respondents,
52.8% employed seven or less employees. The respondents most frequently reported having four
or fewer employees (n=29, 41.4%) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Number of Employees on the Payroll of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Number of Employees Frequency Percent
0-4 29 41.4
5-7 8 11.4
8-10 3 4.3
11-16 11 15.7
22-27 6 8.5
33-39 4 5.7
50-55 3 4.3
58-75 2 2.9
85-101 2 2.9
140-175 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Note. Mean = 19.43, Range 0-175, Mode = 1
Structure of the Organization
To report the legal structure of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were asked to
select the structure of their business from the following options: 1) Subchapter C-Corporation
(C-Corp), 2) Subchapter S-Corporation (S-Corp), 3) Sole Proprietorship, 4) Partnership, and 5)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Of the 70 respondents, 54.3% identified the structure of
their organization as a Limited Liability Corporation (n=38). The structure that was reported by
the smallest number of respondents was Partnership (n=2, 2.9%) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Legal Structure of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Legal Structure Frequency Percent
Limited Liability Corporation 38 54.3
Subchapter S Corporation 18 25.7
Subchapter C Corporation 7 10.0
Sole Proprietorship 5 7.1
Partnership 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Existence of a Written Long-Term Plan
Study participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they had a written long-term
plan. Of the respondents 34.3% (n=24) stated that they did have a written long-term plan. The
remaining 46 respondents (65.7%) stated that they did not have a written long-term plan.
Objective Two
The second objective of the study is to describe small businesses in Louisiana on the
perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning. A component of The
Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory, the Perceived Degree to which the
Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, included 15 items derived from a content
analysis of the literature. The items were: 1) Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future, 2) Our organization develops new products or
services, 3) Our organization identifies market needs, 4) Our organization’s leadership identifies
customer problems, 5) Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses,
6) Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot, 7)
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals, 8) Our organization’s
leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios, 9) Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths, 10) Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses, 11) Our organization’s
leadership understands its opportunities, 12) Our organization’s leadership understands its
threats, 13) Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends, 14) Our organization has a
plan to acquire new customers, and 15) Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial
objectives. Each item was measured using a 6-point Likert-type response scale. The response
options were strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly
agree. The higher the point value, the higher the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning.
When analyzing the mean and standard deviation for each item on the Perceived Degree
to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, the researcher found that “Our
organization’s leadership identifies customer problems” had the highest overall level of
agreement with a mean of 5.14 (SD=.95). The item with the lowest level of agreement, “Our
organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios,” had a mean of 4.04 (SD=1.28).
The reliability of the 15-item scale as measured by the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was a=.87. To
aid in the interpretation of the data, the researcher developed an interpretive scale for the
responses to the 15 items. The interpretive scale had the following categories: 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree. Overall, 11 of the 15 items were classified as “agree.”
The remaining four items were classified as “slightly agree.” The means and standard deviations
for the items are reported in Table 8.
To further analyze the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic
Planning Scale, the researcher conducted a factor analysis to determine if underlying constructs
existed in the scale. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Test, the researcher first examined items for
normality and then for the measure of sampling adequacy (MSAs). The overall MSA was
adequate; however, when the MSA’s for individual items were examined, one item had an MSA
that was lower than the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2006). The item, “Our organization develops
new products or services,” had an MSA of .47. Consequently, this item was eliminated from
further analysis. After removal of this item, the factor analysis was conducted again and all data
met the assumption for the use of factor analysis. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation was used in conducting the factor analysis.
Table 8 The Perceived Degree to Which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning among
Business Owners / Managers in Louisiana
Mean Standard
Deviation
Interpretive
Scale
Category
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer
problems.
5.14 .95 A
Our organization identifies market needs. 5.03 .92 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths.
4.93 1.01 A
Our organization provides solutions to the customer
that competitors cannot.
4.91 1.03 A
Our organization’s leadership explores industry
trends.
4.76 .92 A
Our organization has a plan to acquire new
customers.
4.74 1.06 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
weaknesses.
4.70 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet
financial objectives.
4.70 1.12 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
opportunities.
4.66 .88 A
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of
competitors' weaknesses.
4.61 1.43 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. 4.60 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to
reach long-term goals.
4.36 1.22 AS
Our organization develops new products or services. 4.30 1.40 AS
Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future.
4.16 1.18 AS
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple
future scenarios.
4.04 1.28 AS
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree
To determine the number of factors to be extracted, the researcher used the Latent Root
criterion and the scree plot technique. The factor analysis was first computed without restrictions
on the number of factors extracted. The default minimum value of one was used on the latent
root measure. The scree plot was examined in order to identify the optimum number of factors
for extraction. The researcher identified the most pronounced bend in the scree plot curve. From
this examination, the optimum number of factors was determined to be two, plus or minus one.
Each of these three factor structures factor was then examined for three criteria. First, extracted
factors were examined for each analysis to determine if it met the minimum acceptable loading
criteria as identified by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). Hair et al. (2006)
suggested that .30 would meet the criterion for exploratory research. Secondly, each of the
analysis was examined for inefficient factors or factors containing only one or two items.
Constructs with only one item are of little use to the researcher as the purpose of the analysis is
to identity underlying constructs in the data. Lastly, the researcher examined each analysis for the
presence of significant cross-loadings. If an item loads significantly on multiple factors, it is
possible that the respondents perceived the item differently. Due to the factor loadings, the
number of inefficient factors and the number of substantial cross-loadings, the optimum number
of factors was determined to be one. The loadings for this factor ranged from .802 to .415. The
Eigenvalue for the factor was 6.01 and the factor explained 42.89% of the variance (see Table 9).
The researcher computed overall score for the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning based on the results of the factor analysis. This score was computed
based on the mean of the 14 items in the factor scale.
Table 9 Factor Loadings of Items in the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts
Strategic Planning Scale
Component
Our organization’s leadership understands its opportunities. .802
Our organization identifies market needs. .801
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial objectives. .774
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals. .736
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios. .732
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer problems. .680
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. .674
Our organization’s leadership understands its strengths. .664
Our organization has a plan to acquire new customers. .623
Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses. .613
Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends. .514
Our organization’s leadership understands how present developments will look
in the future.
.496
Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot. .488
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses. .415
Note. Eigenvalue = 6.01, Percent of variance explained = 47.89%
The mean Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score was
4.67 (SD=69), with values ranging from 2.29 to 6.00. Frequencies of the scores in the
interpretive categories are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score
Score Frequency Percent
1.00-1.49 1 1.40
1.50-2.49 3 4.30
2.50-3.49 19 27.1
3.50-4.49 39 55.7
4.50-5.49 8 11.4
5.50-6.00 0 0
70 100.0
Note. Mean = 4.67, Standard Deviation = .69
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.50-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.50-2.49 =
disagree, and 1.00-1.49 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD
= strongly disagree
Objective One
The first objective of this study is to describe Louisiana small businesses on the following
characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
The Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory survey included four screening
questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer to determine the eligibility of the participant to
continue the survey. The screening questions included: 1) Are you a publically traded company?
This question required a “no” response. 2) Does your company have 501 or more employees?
This criterion question required a “no” response. 3) Do you possess the title of owner, co-owner,
CEO, President, or VP? This criterion question required a “yes” response. 4) Does your company
have a physical location in Louisiana? This criterion question required a “yes” response. The
researcher received 75 total responses, of which 70 met the participation criteria.
Years the Organization has been in Business
The first variable by which respondents were described was the number of years the
business had been in operation (age). Louisiana small business respondents were asked to enter
the age, in years, of the small business. The mean age reported was 21.03 years (SD=15.35). The
business ages reported ranged from a low of 1 year to a high of 66 years. The most common ages
were 6 years, 15 years, and 32 years, with four respondents each.
Industry in which the Small Business is Positioned
Another variable by which respondents were described was the industry in which the
organization was positioned. Of the 70 respondents, 57% were positioned in one of four
industries. The largest group was Professional Services (n=22, 31.4%), followed by Construction
(n=8, 11.4%), Retail (n=5, 7.1%), and Distribution (n=5, 7.1%) (see Table 5). Table
5 Industries in Which Small Businesses in Louisiana were Positioned
Industry Frequency Percent
Professional Services 22 31
Construction 8 11
Othera 7 10
Distribution 5 7.1
Retail 5 7.1
Oil & Gas 4 5.7
Information Tech 3 4.3
Healthcare 3 4.3
Insurance 3 4.3
Real Estate 2 2.9
Bio Tech / Bio Med 1 1.4
Automotive 1 1.4
Software Development 1 1.4
Entertainment 1 1.4
Fabricated Products 1 1.4
Transportation 1 1.4
Printing & Publishing 1 1.4
Finance 1 1.4
Total 70 100
aNo specific response was requested
Current Number of Employees on the Organization's Payroll
To report the number of employees of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were
asked to enter the number of employees currently on the payroll of their business. The mean
number of employees reported was 19.43 (SD=31.74). The minimum number of employees
reported was 0; the maximum number of employees reported was 175. Of the respondents,
52.8% employed seven or less employees. The respondents most frequently reported having four
or fewer employees (n=29, 41.4%) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Number of Employees on the Payroll of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Number of Employees Frequency Percent
0-4 29 41.4
5-7 8 11.4
8-10 3 4.3
11-16 11 15.7
22-27 6 8.5
33-39 4 5.7
50-55 3 4.3
58-75 2 2.9
85-101 2 2.9
140-175 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Note. Mean = 19.43, Range 0-175, Mode = 1
Structure of the Organization
To report the legal structure of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were asked to
select the structure of their business from the following options: 1) Subchapter C-Corporation
(C-Corp), 2) Subchapter S-Corporation (S-Corp), 3) Sole Proprietorship, 4) Partnership, and 5)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Of the 70 respondents, 54.3% identified the structure of
their organization as a Limited Liability Corporation (n=38). The structure that was reported by
the smallest number of respondents was Partnership (n=2, 2.9%) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Legal Structure of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Legal Structure Frequency Percent
Limited Liability Corporation 38 54.3
Subchapter S Corporation 18 25.7
Subchapter C Corporation 7 10.0
Sole Proprietorship 5 7.1
Partnership 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Existence of a Written Long-Term Plan
Study participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they had a written long-term
plan. Of the respondents 34.3% (n=24) stated that they did have a written long-term plan. The
remaining 46 respondents (65.7%) stated that they did not have a written long-term plan.
Objective Two
The second objective of the study is to describe small businesses in Louisiana on the
perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning. A component of The
Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory, the Perceived Degree to which the
Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, included 15 items derived from a content
analysis of the literature. The items were: 1) Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future, 2) Our organization develops new products or
services, 3) Our organization identifies market needs, 4) Our organization’s leadership identifies
customer problems, 5) Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses,
6) Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot, 7)
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals, 8) Our organization’s
leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios, 9) Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths, 10) Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses, 11) Our organization’s
leadership understands its opportunities, 12) Our organization’s leadership understands its
threats, 13) Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends, 14) Our organization has a
plan to acquire new customers, and 15) Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial
objectives. Each item was measured using a 6-point Likert-type response scale. The response
options were strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly
agree. The higher the point value, the higher the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning.
When analyzing the mean and standard deviation for each item on the Perceived Degree
to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, the researcher found that “Our
organization’s leadership identifies customer problems” had the highest overall level of
agreement with a mean of 5.14 (SD=.95). The item with the lowest level of agreement, “Our
organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios,” had a mean of 4.04 (SD=1.28).
The reliability of the 15-item scale as measured by the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was a=.87. To
aid in the interpretation of the data, the researcher developed an interpretive scale for the
responses to the 15 items. The interpretive scale had the following categories: 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree. Overall, 11 of the 15 items were classified as “agree.”
The remaining four items were classified as “slightly agree.” The means and standard deviations
for the items are reported in Table 8.
To further analyze the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic
Planning Scale, the researcher conducted a factor analysis to determine if underlying constructs
existed in the scale. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Test, the researcher first examined items for
normality and then for the measure of sampling adequacy (MSAs). The overall MSA was
adequate; however, when the MSA’s for individual items were examined, one item had an MSA
that was lower than the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2006). The item, “Our organization develops
new products or services,” had an MSA of .47. Consequently, this item was eliminated from
further analysis. After removal of this item, the factor analysis was conducted again and all data
met the assumption for the use of factor analysis. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation was used in conducting the factor analysis.
Table 8 The Perceived Degree to Which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning among
Business Owners / Managers in Louisiana
Mean Standard
Deviation
Interpretive
Scale
Category
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer
problems.
5.14 .95 A
Our organization identifies market needs. 5.03 .92 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths.
4.93 1.01 A
Our organization provides solutions to the customer
that competitors cannot.
4.91 1.03 A
Our organization’s leadership explores industry
trends.
4.76 .92 A
Our organization has a plan to acquire new
customers.
4.74 1.06 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
weaknesses.
4.70 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet
financial objectives.
4.70 1.12 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
opportunities.
4.66 .88 A
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of
competitors' weaknesses.
4.61 1.43 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. 4.60 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to
reach long-term goals.
4.36 1.22 AS
Our organization develops new products or services. 4.30 1.40 AS
Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future.
4.16 1.18 AS
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple
future scenarios.
4.04 1.28 AS
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree
To determine the number of factors to be extracted, the researcher used the Latent Root
criterion and the scree plot technique. The factor analysis was first computed without restrictions
on the number of factors extracted. The default minimum value of one was used on the latent
root measure. The scree plot was examined in order to identify the optimum number of factors
for extraction. The researcher identified the most pronounced bend in the scree plot curve. From
this examination, the optimum number of factors was determined to be two, plus or minus one.
Each of these three factor structures factor was then examined for three criteria. First, extracted
factors were examined for each analysis to determine if it met the minimum acceptable loading
criteria as identified by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). Hair et al. (2006)
suggested that .30 would meet the criterion for exploratory research. Secondly, each of the
analysis was examined for inefficient factors or factors containing only one or two items.
Constructs with only one item are of little use to the researcher as the purpose of the analysis is
to identity underlying constructs in the data. Lastly, the researcher examined each analysis for the
presence of significant cross-loadings. If an item loads significantly on multiple factors, it is
possible that the respondents perceived the item differently. Due to the factor loadings, the
number of inefficient factors and the number of substantial cross-loadings, the optimum number
of factors was determined to be one. The loadings for this factor ranged from .802 to .415. The
Eigenvalue for the factor was 6.01 and the factor explained 42.89% of the variance (see Table 9).
The researcher computed overall score for the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning based on the results of the factor analysis. This score was computed
based on the mean of the 14 items in the factor scale.
Table 9 Factor Loadings of Items in the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts
Strategic Planning Scale
Component
Our organization’s leadership understands its opportunities. .802
Our organization identifies market needs. .801
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial objectives. .774
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals. .736
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios. .732
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer problems. .680
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. .674
Our organization’s leadership understands its strengths. .664
Our organization has a plan to acquire new customers. .623
Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses. .613
Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends. .514
Our organization’s leadership understands how present developments will look
in the future.
.496
Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot. .488
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses. .415
Note. Eigenvalue = 6.01, Percent of variance explained = 47.89%
The mean Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score was
4.67 (SD=69), with values ranging from 2.29 to 6.00. Frequencies of the scores in the
interpretive categories are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score
Score Frequency Percent
1.00-1.49 1 1.40
1.50-2.49 3 4.30
2.50-3.49 19 27.1
3.50-4.49 39 55.7
4.50-5.49 8 11.4
5.50-6.00 0 0
70 100.0
Note. Mean = 4.67, Standard Deviation = .69
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.50-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.50-2.49 =
disagree, and 1.00-1.49 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD
= strongly disagree Objective One
The first objective of this study is to describe Louisiana small businesses on the following
characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
The Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory survey included four screening
questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer to determine the eligibility of the participant to
continue the survey. The screening questions included: 1) Are you a publically traded company?
This question required a “no” response. 2) Does your company have 501 or more employees?
This criterion question required a “no” response. 3) Do you possess the title of owner, co-owner,
CEO, President, or VP? This criterion question required a “yes” response. 4) Does your company
have a physical location in Louisiana? This criterion question required a “yes” response. The
researcher received 75 total responses, of which 70 met the participation criteria.
Years the Organization has been in Business
The first variable by which respondents were described was the number of years the
business had been in operation (age). Louisiana small business respondents were asked to enter
the age, in years, of the small business. The mean age reported was 21.03 years (SD=15.35). The
business ages reported ranged from a low of 1 year to a high of 66 years. The most common ages
were 6 years, 15 years, and 32 years, with four respondents each.
Industry in which the Small Business is Positioned
Another variable by which respondents were described was the industry in which the
organization was positioned. Of the 70 respondents, 57% were positioned in one of four
industries. The largest group was Professional Services (n=22, 31.4%), followed by Construction
(n=8, 11.4%), Retail (n=5, 7.1%), and Distribution (n=5, 7.1%) (see Table 5). Table
5 Industries in Which Small Businesses in Louisiana were Positioned
Industry Frequency Percent
Professional Services 22 31
Construction 8 11
Othera 7 10
Distribution 5 7.1
Retail 5 7.1
Oil & Gas 4 5.7
Information Tech 3 4.3
Healthcare 3 4.3
Insurance 3 4.3
Real Estate 2 2.9
Bio Tech / Bio Med 1 1.4
Automotive 1 1.4
Software Development 1 1.4
Entertainment 1 1.4
Fabricated Products 1 1.4
Transportation 1 1.4
Printing & Publishing 1 1.4
Finance 1 1.4
Total 70 100
aNo specific response was requested
Current Number of Employees on the Organization's Payroll
To report the number of employees of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were
asked to enter the number of employees currently on the payroll of their business. The mean
number of employees reported was 19.43 (SD=31.74). The minimum number of employees
reported was 0; the maximum number of employees reported was 175. Of the respondents,
52.8% employed seven or less employees. The respondents most frequently reported having four
or fewer employees (n=29, 41.4%) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Number of Employees on the Payroll of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Number of Employees Frequency Percent
0-4 29 41.4
5-7 8 11.4
8-10 3 4.3
11-16 11 15.7
22-27 6 8.5
33-39 4 5.7
50-55 3 4.3
58-75 2 2.9
85-101 2 2.9
140-175 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Note. Mean = 19.43, Range 0-175, Mode = 1
Structure of the Organization
To report the legal structure of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were asked to
select the structure of their business from the following options: 1) Subchapter C-Corporation
(C-Corp), 2) Subchapter S-Corporation (S-Corp), 3) Sole Proprietorship, 4) Partnership, and 5)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Of the 70 respondents, 54.3% identified the structure of
their organization as a Limited Liability Corporation (n=38). The structure that was reported by
the smallest number of respondents was Partnership (n=2, 2.9%) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Legal Structure of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Legal Structure Frequency Percent
Limited Liability Corporation 38 54.3
Subchapter S Corporation 18 25.7
Subchapter C Corporation 7 10.0
Sole Proprietorship 5 7.1
Partnership 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Existence of a Written Long-Term Plan
Study participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they had a written long-term
plan. Of the respondents 34.3% (n=24) stated that they did have a written long-term plan. The
remaining 46 respondents (65.7%) stated that they did not have a written long-term plan.
Objective Two
The second objective of the study is to describe small businesses in Louisiana on the
perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning. A component of The
Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory, the Perceived Degree to which the
Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, included 15 items derived from a content
analysis of the literature. The items were: 1) Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future, 2) Our organization develops new products or
services, 3) Our organization identifies market needs, 4) Our organization’s leadership identifies
customer problems, 5) Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses,
6) Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot, 7)
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals, 8) Our organization’s
leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios, 9) Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths, 10) Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses, 11) Our organization’s
leadership understands its opportunities, 12) Our organization’s leadership understands its
threats, 13) Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends, 14) Our organization has a
plan to acquire new customers, and 15) Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial
objectives. Each item was measured using a 6-point Likert-type response scale. The response
options were strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly
agree. The higher the point value, the higher the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning.
When analyzing the mean and standard deviation for each item on the Perceived Degree
to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, the researcher found that “Our
organization’s leadership identifies customer problems” had the highest overall level of
agreement with a mean of 5.14 (SD=.95). The item with the lowest level of agreement, “Our
organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios,” had a mean of 4.04 (SD=1.28).
The reliability of the 15-item scale as measured by the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was a=.87. To
aid in the interpretation of the data, the researcher developed an interpretive scale for the
responses to the 15 items. The interpretive scale had the following categories: 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree. Overall, 11 of the 15 items were classified as “agree.”
The remaining four items were classified as “slightly agree.” The means and standard deviations
for the items are reported in Table 8.
To further analyze the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic
Planning Scale, the researcher conducted a factor analysis to determine if underlying constructs
existed in the scale. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Test, the researcher first examined items for
normality and then for the measure of sampling adequacy (MSAs). The overall MSA was
adequate; however, when the MSA’s for individual items were examined, one item had an MSA
that was lower than the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2006). The item, “Our organization develops
new products or services,” had an MSA of .47. Consequently, this item was eliminated from
further analysis. After removal of this item, the factor analysis was conducted again and all data
met the assumption for the use of factor analysis. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation was used in conducting the factor analysis.
Table 8 The Perceived Degree to Which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning among
Business Owners / Managers in Louisiana
Mean Standard
Deviation
Interpretive
Scale
Category
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer
problems.
5.14 .95 A
Our organization identifies market needs. 5.03 .92 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths.
4.93 1.01 A
Our organization provides solutions to the customer
that competitors cannot.
4.91 1.03 A
Our organization’s leadership explores industry
trends.
4.76 .92 A
Our organization has a plan to acquire new 4.74 1.06 A
customers.
Our organization’s leadership understands its
weaknesses.
4.70 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet
financial objectives.
4.70 1.12 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
opportunities.
4.66 .88 A
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of
competitors' weaknesses.
4.61 1.43 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. 4.60 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to
reach long-term goals.
4.36 1.22 AS
Our organization develops new products or services. 4.30 1.40 AS
Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future.
4.16 1.18 AS
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple
future scenarios.
4.04 1.28 AS
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree
To determine the number of factors to be extracted, the researcher used the Latent Root
criterion and the scree plot technique. The factor analysis was first computed without restrictions
on the number of factors extracted. The default minimum value of one was used on the latent
root measure. The scree plot was examined in order to identify the optimum number of factors
for extraction. The researcher identified the most pronounced bend in the scree plot curve. From
this examination, the optimum number of factors was determined to be two, plus or minus one.
Each of these three factor structures factor was then examined for three criteria. First, extracted
factors were examined for each analysis to determine if it met the minimum acceptable loading
criteria as identified by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). Hair et al. (2006)
suggested that .30 would meet the criterion for exploratory research. Secondly, each of the
analysis was examined for inefficient factors or factors containing only one or two items.
Constructs with only one item are of little use to the researcher as the purpose of the analysis is
to identity underlying constructs in the data. Lastly, the researcher examined each analysis for the
presence of significant cross-loadings. If an item loads significantly on multiple factors, it is
possible that the respondents perceived the item differently. Due to the factor loadings, the
number of inefficient factors and the number of substantial cross-loadings, the optimum number
of factors was determined to be one. The loadings for this factor ranged from .802 to .415. The
Eigenvalue for the factor was 6.01 and the factor explained 42.89% of the variance (see Table 9).
The researcher computed overall score for the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning based on the results of the factor analysis. This score was computed
based on the mean of the 14 items in the factor scale.
Table 9 Factor Loadings of Items in the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts
Strategic Planning Scale
Component
Our organization’s leadership understands its opportunities. .802
Our organization identifies market needs. .801
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial objectives. .774
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals. .736
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios. .732
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer problems. .680
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. .674
Our organization’s leadership understands its strengths. .664
Our organization has a plan to acquire new customers. .623
Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses. .613
Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends. .514
Our organization’s leadership understands how present developments will look
in the future.
.496
Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot. .488
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses. .415
Note. Eigenvalue = 6.01, Percent of variance explained = 47.89%
The mean Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score was
4.67 (SD=69), with values ranging from 2.29 to 6.00. Frequencies of the scores in the
interpretive categories are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score
Score Frequency Percent
1.00-1.49 1 1.40
1.50-2.49 3 4.30
2.50-3.49 19 27.1
3.50-4.49 39 55.7
4.50-5.49 8 11.4
5.50-6.00 0 0
70 100.0
Note. Mean = 4.67, Standard Deviation = .69
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.50-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.50-2.49 =
disagree, and 1.00-1.49 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD
= strongly disagree Objective One
The first objective of this study is to describe Louisiana small businesses on the following
characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
The Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory survey included four screening
questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer to determine the eligibility of the participant to
continue the survey. The screening questions included: 1) Are you a publically traded company?
This question required a “no” response. 2) Does your company have 501 or more employees?
This criterion question required a “no” response. 3) Do you possess the title of owner, co-owner,
CEO, President, or VP? This criterion question required a “yes” response. 4) Does your company
have a physical location in Louisiana? This criterion question required a “yes” response. The
researcher received 75 total responses, of which 70 met the participation criteria.
Years the Organization has been in Business
The first variable by which respondents were described was the number of years the
business had been in operation (age). Louisiana small business respondents were asked to enter
the age, in years, of the small business. The mean age reported was 21.03 years (SD=15.35). The
business ages reported ranged from a low of 1 year to a high of 66 years. The most common ages
were 6 years, 15 years, and 32 years, with four respondents each.
Industry in which the Small Business is Positioned
Another variable by which respondents were described was the industry in which the
organization was positioned. Of the 70 respondents, 57% were positioned in one of four
industries. The largest group was Professional Services (n=22, 31.4%), followed by Construction
(n=8, 11.4%), Retail (n=5, 7.1%), and Distribution (n=5, 7.1%) (see Table 5). Table
5 Industries in Which Small Businesses in Louisiana were Positioned
Industry Frequency Percent
Professional Services 22 31
Construction 8 11
Othera 7 10
Distribution 5 7.1
Retail 5 7.1
Oil & Gas 4 5.7
Information Tech 3 4.3
Healthcare 3 4.3
Insurance 3 4.3
Real Estate 2 2.9
Bio Tech / Bio Med 1 1.4
Automotive 1 1.4
Software Development 1 1.4
Entertainment 1 1.4
Fabricated Products 1 1.4
Transportation 1 1.4
Printing & Publishing 1 1.4
Finance 1 1.4
Total 70 100
aNo specific response was requested
Current Number of Employees on the Organization's Payroll
To report the number of employees of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were
asked to enter the number of employees currently on the payroll of their business. The mean
number of employees reported was 19.43 (SD=31.74). The minimum number of employees
reported was 0; the maximum number of employees reported was 175. Of the respondents,
52.8% employed seven or less employees. The respondents most frequently reported having four
or fewer employees (n=29, 41.4%) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Number of Employees on the Payroll of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Number of Employees Frequency Percent
0-4 29 41.4
5-7 8 11.4
8-10 3 4.3
11-16 11 15.7
22-27 6 8.5
33-39 4 5.7
50-55 3 4.3
58-75 2 2.9
85-101 2 2.9
140-175 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Note. Mean = 19.43, Range 0-175, Mode = 1
Structure of the Organization
To report the legal structure of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were asked to
select the structure of their business from the following options: 1) Subchapter C-Corporation
(C-Corp), 2) Subchapter S-Corporation (S-Corp), 3) Sole Proprietorship, 4) Partnership, and 5)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Of the 70 respondents, 54.3% identified the structure of
their organization as a Limited Liability Corporation (n=38). The structure that was reported by
the smallest number of respondents was Partnership (n=2, 2.9%) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Legal Structure of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Legal Structure Frequency Percent
Limited Liability Corporation 38 54.3
Subchapter S Corporation 18 25.7
Subchapter C Corporation 7 10.0
Sole Proprietorship 5 7.1
Partnership 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Existence of a Written Long-Term Plan
Study participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they had a written long-term
plan. Of the respondents 34.3% (n=24) stated that they did have a written long-term plan. The
remaining 46 respondents (65.7%) stated that they did not have a written long-term plan.
Objective Two
The second objective of the study is to describe small businesses in Louisiana on the
perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning. A component of The
Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory, the Perceived Degree to which the
Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, included 15 items derived from a content
analysis of the literature. The items were: 1) Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future, 2) Our organization develops new products or
services, 3) Our organization identifies market needs, 4) Our organization’s leadership identifies
customer problems, 5) Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses,
6) Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot, 7)
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals, 8) Our organization’s
leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios, 9) Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths, 10) Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses, 11) Our organization’s
leadership understands its opportunities, 12) Our organization’s leadership understands its
threats, 13) Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends, 14) Our organization has a
plan to acquire new customers, and 15) Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial
objectives. Each item was measured using a 6-point Likert-type response scale. The response
options were strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly
agree. The higher the point value, the higher the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning.
When analyzing the mean and standard deviation for each item on the Perceived Degree
to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, the researcher found that “Our
organization’s leadership identifies customer problems” had the highest overall level of
agreement with a mean of 5.14 (SD=.95). The item with the lowest level of agreement, “Our
organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios,” had a mean of 4.04 (SD=1.28).
The reliability of the 15-item scale as measured by the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was a=.87. To
aid in the interpretation of the data, the researcher developed an interpretive scale for the
responses to the 15 items. The interpretive scale had the following categories: 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree. Overall, 11 of the 15 items were classified as “agree.”
The remaining four items were classified as “slightly agree.” The means and standard deviations
for the items are reported in Table 8.
To further analyze the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic
Planning Scale, the researcher conducted a factor analysis to determine if underlying constructs
existed in the scale. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Test, the researcher first examined items for
normality and then for the measure of sampling adequacy (MSAs). The overall MSA was
adequate; however, when the MSA’s for individual items were examined, one item had an MSA
that was lower than the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2006). The item, “Our organization develops
new products or services,” had an MSA of .47. Consequently, this item was eliminated from
further analysis. After removal of this item, the factor analysis was conducted again and all data
met the assumption for the use of factor analysis. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation was used in conducting the factor analysis.
Table 8 The Perceived Degree to Which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning among
Business Owners / Managers in Louisiana
Mean Standard
Deviation
Interpretive
Scale
Category
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer
problems.
5.14 .95 A
Our organization identifies market needs. 5.03 .92 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths.
4.93 1.01 A
Our organization provides solutions to the customer
that competitors cannot.
4.91 1.03 A
Our organization’s leadership explores industry
trends.
4.76 .92 A
Our organization has a plan to acquire new
customers.
4.74 1.06 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
weaknesses.
4.70 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet
financial objectives.
4.70 1.12 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
opportunities.
4.66 .88 A
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of
competitors' weaknesses.
4.61 1.43 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. 4.60 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to
reach long-term goals.
4.36 1.22 AS
Our organization develops new products or services. 4.30 1.40 AS
Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future.
4.16 1.18 AS
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple
future scenarios.
4.04 1.28 AS
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree
To determine the number of factors to be extracted, the researcher used the Latent Root
criterion and the scree plot technique. The factor analysis was first computed without restrictions
on the number of factors extracted. The default minimum value of one was used on the latent
root measure. The scree plot was examined in order to identify the optimum number of factors
for extraction. The researcher identified the most pronounced bend in the scree plot curve. From
this examination, the optimum number of factors was determined to be two, plus or minus one.
Each of these three factor structures factor was then examined for three criteria. First, extracted
factors were examined for each analysis to determine if it met the minimum acceptable loading
criteria as identified by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). Hair et al. (2006)
suggested that .30 would meet the criterion for exploratory research. Secondly, each of the
analysis was examined for inefficient factors or factors containing only one or two items.
Constructs with only one item are of little use to the researcher as the purpose of the analysis is
to identity underlying constructs in the data. Lastly, the researcher examined each analysis for the
presence of significant cross-loadings. If an item loads significantly on multiple factors, it is
possible that the respondents perceived the item differently. Due to the factor loadings, the
number of inefficient factors and the number of substantial cross-loadings, the optimum number
of factors was determined to be one. The loadings for this factor ranged from .802 to .415. The
Eigenvalue for the factor was 6.01 and the factor explained 42.89% of the variance (see Table 9).
The researcher computed overall score for the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning based on the results of the factor analysis. This score was computed
based on the mean of the 14 items in the factor scale.
Table 9 Factor Loadings of Items in the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts
Strategic Planning Scale
Component
Our organization’s leadership understands its opportunities. .802
Our organization identifies market needs. .801
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial objectives. .774
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals. .736
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios. .732
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer problems. .680
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. .674
Our organization’s leadership understands its strengths. .664
Our organization has a plan to acquire new customers. .623
Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses. .613
Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends. .514
Our organization’s leadership understands how present developments will look
in the future.
.496
Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot. .488
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses. .415
Note. Eigenvalue = 6.01, Percent of variance explained = 47.89%
The mean Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score was
4.67 (SD=69), with values ranging from 2.29 to 6.00. Frequencies of the scores in the
interpretive categories are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score
Score Frequency Percent
1.00-1.49 1 1.40
1.50-2.49 3 4.30
2.50-3.49 19 27.1
3.50-4.49 39 55.7
4.50-5.49 8 11.4
5.50-6.00 0 0
70 100.0
Note. Mean = 4.67, Standard Deviation = .69
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.50-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.50-2.49 =
disagree, and 1.00-1.49 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD
= strongly disagree Objective One
The first objective of this study is to describe Louisiana small businesses on the following
characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
The Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory survey included four screening
questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer to determine the eligibility of the participant to
continue the survey. The screening questions included: 1) Are you a publically traded company?
This question required a “no” response. 2) Does your company have 501 or more employees?
This criterion question required a “no” response. 3) Do you possess the title of owner, co-owner,
CEO, President, or VP? This criterion question required a “yes” response. 4) Does your company
have a physical location in Louisiana? This criterion question required a “yes” response. The
researcher received 75 total responses, of which 70 met the participation criteria.
Years the Organization has been in Business
The first variable by which respondents were described was the number of years the
business had been in operation (age). Louisiana small business respondents were asked to enter
the age, in years, of the small business. The mean age reported was 21.03 years (SD=15.35). The
business ages reported ranged from a low of 1 year to a high of 66 years. The most common ages
were 6 years, 15 years, and 32 years, with four respondents each.
Industry in which the Small Business is Positioned
Another variable by which respondents were described was the industry in which the
organization was positioned. Of the 70 respondents, 57% were positioned in one of four
industries. The largest group was Professional Services (n=22, 31.4%), followed by Construction
(n=8, 11.4%), Retail (n=5, 7.1%), and Distribution (n=5, 7.1%) (see Table 5). Table
5 Industries in Which Small Businesses in Louisiana were Positioned
Industry Frequency Percent
Professional Services 22 31
Construction 8 11
Othera 7 10
Distribution 5 7.1
Retail 5 7.1
Oil & Gas 4 5.7
Information Tech 3 4.3
Healthcare 3 4.3
Insurance 3 4.3
Real Estate 2 2.9
Bio Tech / Bio Med 1 1.4
Automotive 1 1.4
Software Development 1 1.4
Entertainment 1 1.4
Fabricated Products 1 1.4
Transportation 1 1.4
Printing & Publishing 1 1.4
Finance 1 1.4
Total 70 100
aNo specific response was requested
Current Number of Employees on the Organization's Payroll
To report the number of employees of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were
asked to enter the number of employees currently on the payroll of their business. The mean
number of employees reported was 19.43 (SD=31.74). The minimum number of employees
reported was 0; the maximum number of employees reported was 175. Of the respondents,
52.8% employed seven or less employees. The respondents most frequently reported having four
or fewer employees (n=29, 41.4%) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Number of Employees on the Payroll of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Number of Employees Frequency Percent
0-4 29 41.4
5-7 8 11.4
8-10 3 4.3
11-16 11 15.7
22-27 6 8.5
33-39 4 5.7
50-55 3 4.3
58-75 2 2.9
85-101 2 2.9
140-175 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Note. Mean = 19.43, Range 0-175, Mode = 1
Structure of the Organization
To report the legal structure of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were asked to
select the structure of their business from the following options: 1) Subchapter C-Corporation
(C-Corp), 2) Subchapter S-Corporation (S-Corp), 3) Sole Proprietorship, 4) Partnership, and 5)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Of the 70 respondents, 54.3% identified the structure of
their organization as a Limited Liability Corporation (n=38). The structure that was reported by
the smallest number of respondents was Partnership (n=2, 2.9%) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Legal Structure of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Legal Structure Frequency Percent
Limited Liability Corporation 38 54.3
Subchapter S Corporation 18 25.7
Subchapter C Corporation 7 10.0
Sole Proprietorship 5 7.1
Partnership 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Existence of a Written Long-Term Plan
Study participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they had a written long-term
plan. Of the respondents 34.3% (n=24) stated that they did have a written long-term plan. The
remaining 46 respondents (65.7%) stated that they did not have a written long-term plan.
Objective Two
The second objective of the study is to describe small businesses in Louisiana on the
perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning. A component of The
Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory, the Perceived Degree to which the
Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, included 15 items derived from a content
analysis of the literature. The items were: 1) Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future, 2) Our organization develops new products or
services, 3) Our organization identifies market needs, 4) Our organization’s leadership identifies
customer problems, 5) Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses,
6) Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot, 7)
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals, 8) Our organization’s
leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios, 9) Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths, 10) Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses, 11) Our organization’s
leadership understands its opportunities, 12) Our organization’s leadership understands its
threats, 13) Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends, 14) Our organization has a
plan to acquire new customers, and 15) Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial
objectives. Each item was measured using a 6-point Likert-type response scale. The response
options were strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly
agree. The higher the point value, the higher the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning.
When analyzing the mean and standard deviation for each item on the Perceived Degree
to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, the researcher found that “Our
organization’s leadership identifies customer problems” had the highest overall level of
agreement with a mean of 5.14 (SD=.95). The item with the lowest level of agreement, “Our
organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios,” had a mean of 4.04 (SD=1.28).
The reliability of the 15-item scale as measured by the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was a=.87. To
aid in the interpretation of the data, the researcher developed an interpretive scale for the
responses to the 15 items. The interpretive scale had the following categories: 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree. Overall, 11 of the 15 items were classified as “agree.”
The remaining four items were classified as “slightly agree.” The means and standard deviations
for the items are reported in Table 8.
To further analyze the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic
Planning Scale, the researcher conducted a factor analysis to determine if underlying constructs
existed in the scale. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Test, the researcher first examined items for
normality and then for the measure of sampling adequacy (MSAs). The overall MSA was
adequate; however, when the MSA’s for individual items were examined, one item had an MSA
that was lower than the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2006). The item, “Our organization develops
new products or services,” had an MSA of .47. Consequently, this item was eliminated from
further analysis. After removal of this item, the factor analysis was conducted again and all data
met the assumption for the use of factor analysis. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation was used in conducting the factor analysis.
Table 8 The Perceived Degree to Which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning among
Business Owners / Managers in Louisiana
Mean Standard
Deviation
Interpretive
Scale
Category
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer
problems.
5.14 .95 A
Our organization identifies market needs. 5.03 .92 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths.
4.93 1.01 A
Our organization provides solutions to the customer
that competitors cannot.
4.91 1.03 A
Our organization’s leadership explores industry
trends.
4.76 .92 A
Our organization has a plan to acquire new
customers.
4.74 1.06 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
weaknesses.
4.70 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet
financial objectives.
4.70 1.12 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
opportunities.
4.66 .88 A
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of
competitors' weaknesses.
4.61 1.43 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. 4.60 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to
reach long-term goals.
4.36 1.22 AS
Our organization develops new products or services. 4.30 1.40 AS
Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future.
4.16 1.18 AS
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple
future scenarios.
4.04 1.28 AS
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree
To determine the number of factors to be extracted, the researcher used the Latent Root
criterion and the scree plot technique. The factor analysis was first computed without restrictions
on the number of factors extracted. The default minimum value of one was used on the latent
root measure. The scree plot was examined in order to identify the optimum number of factors
for extraction. The researcher identified the most pronounced bend in the scree plot curve. From
this examination, the optimum number of factors was determined to be two, plus or minus one.
Each of these three factor structures factor was then examined for three criteria. First, extracted
factors were examined for each analysis to determine if it met the minimum acceptable loading
criteria as identified by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). Hair et al. (2006)
suggested that .30 would meet the criterion for exploratory research. Secondly, each of the
analysis was examined for inefficient factors or factors containing only one or two items.
Constructs with only one item are of little use to the researcher as the purpose of the analysis is
to identity underlying constructs in the data. Lastly, the researcher examined each analysis for the
presence of significant cross-loadings. If an item loads significantly on multiple factors, it is
possible that the respondents perceived the item differently. Due to the factor loadings, the
number of inefficient factors and the number of substantial cross-loadings, the optimum number
of factors was determined to be one. The loadings for this factor ranged from .802 to .415. The
Eigenvalue for the factor was 6.01 and the factor explained 42.89% of the variance (see Table 9).
The researcher computed overall score for the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning based on the results of the factor analysis. This score was computed
based on the mean of the 14 items in the factor scale.
Table 9 Factor Loadings of Items in the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts
Strategic Planning Scale
Component
Our organization’s leadership understands its opportunities. .802
Our organization identifies market needs. .801
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial objectives. .774
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals. .736
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios. .732
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer problems. .680
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. .674
Our organization’s leadership understands its strengths. .664
Our organization has a plan to acquire new customers. .623
Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses. .613
Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends. .514
Our organization’s leadership understands how present developments will look
in the future.
.496
Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot. .488
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses. .415
Note. Eigenvalue = 6.01, Percent of variance explained = 47.89%
The mean Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score was
4.67 (SD=69), with values ranging from 2.29 to 6.00. Frequencies of the scores in the
interpretive categories are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score
Score Frequency Percent
1.00-1.49 1 1.40
1.50-2.49 3 4.30
2.50-3.49 19 27.1
3.50-4.49 39 55.7
4.50-5.49 8 11.4
5.50-6.00 0 0
70 100.0
Note. Mean = 4.67, Standard Deviation = .69
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.50-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.50-2.49 =
disagree, and 1.00-1.49 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD
= strongly disagree Objective One
The first objective of this study is to describe Louisiana small businesses on the following
characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
The Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory survey included four screening
questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer to determine the eligibility of the participant to
continue the survey. The screening questions included: 1) Are you a publically traded company?
This question required a “no” response. 2) Does your company have 501 or more employees?
This criterion question required a “no” response. 3) Do you possess the title of owner, co-owner,
CEO, President, or VP? This criterion question required a “yes” response. 4) Does your company
have a physical location in Louisiana? This criterion question required a “yes” response. The
researcher received 75 total responses, of which 70 met the participation criteria.
Years the Organization has been in Business
The first variable by which respondents were described was the number of years the
business had been in operation (age). Louisiana small business respondents were asked to enter
the age, in years, of the small business. The mean age reported was 21.03 years (SD=15.35). The
business ages reported ranged from a low of 1 year to a high of 66 years. The most common ages
were 6 years, 15 years, and 32 years, with four respondents each.
Industry in which the Small Business is Positioned
Another variable by which respondents were described was the industry in which the
organization was positioned. Of the 70 respondents, 57% were positioned in one of four
industries. The largest group was Professional Services (n=22, 31.4%), followed by Construction
(n=8, 11.4%), Retail (n=5, 7.1%), and Distribution (n=5, 7.1%) (see Table 5). Table
5 Industries in Which Small Businesses in Louisiana were Positioned
Industry Frequency Percent
Professional Services 22 31
Construction 8 11
Othera 7 10
Distribution 5 7.1
Retail 5 7.1
Oil & Gas 4 5.7
Information Tech 3 4.3
Healthcare 3 4.3
Insurance 3 4.3
Real Estate 2 2.9
Bio Tech / Bio Med 1 1.4
Automotive 1 1.4
Software Development 1 1.4
Entertainment 1 1.4
Fabricated Products 1 1.4
Transportation 1 1.4
Printing & Publishing 1 1.4
Finance 1 1.4
Total 70 100
aNo specific response was requested
Current Number of Employees on the Organization's Payroll
To report the number of employees of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were
asked to enter the number of employees currently on the payroll of their business. The mean
number of employees reported was 19.43 (SD=31.74). The minimum number of employees
reported was 0; the maximum number of employees reported was 175. Of the respondents,
52.8% employed seven or less employees. The respondents most frequently reported having four
or fewer employees (n=29, 41.4%) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Number of Employees on the Payroll of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Number of Employees Frequency Percent
0-4 29 41.4
5-7 8 11.4
8-10 3 4.3
11-16 11 15.7
22-27 6 8.5
33-39 4 5.7
50-55 3 4.3
58-75 2 2.9
85-101 2 2.9
140-175 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Note. Mean = 19.43, Range 0-175, Mode = 1
Structure of the Organization
To report the legal structure of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were asked to
select the structure of their business from the following options: 1) Subchapter C-Corporation
(C-Corp), 2) Subchapter S-Corporation (S-Corp), 3) Sole Proprietorship, 4) Partnership, and 5)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Of the 70 respondents, 54.3% identified the structure of
their organization as a Limited Liability Corporation (n=38). The structure that was reported by
the smallest number of respondents was Partnership (n=2, 2.9%) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Legal Structure of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Legal Structure Frequency Percent
Limited Liability Corporation 38 54.3
Subchapter S Corporation 18 25.7
Subchapter C Corporation 7 10.0
Sole Proprietorship 5 7.1
Partnership 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Existence of a Written Long-Term Plan
Study participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they had a written long-term
plan. Of the respondents 34.3% (n=24) stated that they did have a written long-term plan. The
remaining 46 respondents (65.7%) stated that they did not have a written long-term plan.
Objective Two
The second objective of the study is to describe small businesses in Louisiana on the
perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning. A component of The
Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory, the Perceived Degree to which the
Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, included 15 items derived from a content
analysis of the literature. The items were: 1) Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future, 2) Our organization develops new products or
services, 3) Our organization identifies market needs, 4) Our organization’s leadership identifies
customer problems, 5) Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses,
6) Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot, 7)
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals, 8) Our organization’s
leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios, 9) Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths, 10) Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses, 11) Our organization’s
leadership understands its opportunities, 12) Our organization’s leadership understands its
threats, 13) Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends, 14) Our organization has a
plan to acquire new customers, and 15) Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial
objectives. Each item was measured using a 6-point Likert-type response scale. The response
options were strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly
agree. The higher the point value, the higher the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning.
When analyzing the mean and standard deviation for each item on the Perceived Degree
to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, the researcher found that “Our
organization’s leadership identifies customer problems” had the highest overall level of
agreement with a mean of 5.14 (SD=.95). The item with the lowest level of agreement, “Our
organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios,” had a mean of 4.04 (SD=1.28).
The reliability of the 15-item scale as measured by the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was a=.87. To
aid in the interpretation of the data, the researcher developed an interpretive scale for the
responses to the 15 items. The interpretive scale had the following categories: 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree. Overall, 11 of the 15 items were classified as “agree.”
The remaining four items were classified as “slightly agree.” The means and standard deviations
for the items are reported in Table 8.
To further analyze the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic
Planning Scale, the researcher conducted a factor analysis to determine if underlying constructs
existed in the scale. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Test, the researcher first examined items for
normality and then for the measure of sampling adequacy (MSAs). The overall MSA was
adequate; however, when the MSA’s for individual items were examined, one item had an MSA
that was lower than the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2006). The item, “Our organization develops
new products or services,” had an MSA of .47. Consequently, this item was eliminated from
further analysis. After removal of this item, the factor analysis was conducted again and all data
met the assumption for the use of factor analysis. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation was used in conducting the factor analysis.
Table 8 The Perceived Degree to Which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning among
Business Owners / Managers in Louisiana
Mean Standard
Deviation
Interpretive
Scale
Category
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer
problems.
5.14 .95 A
Our organization identifies market needs. 5.03 .92 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths.
4.93 1.01 A
Our organization provides solutions to the customer
that competitors cannot.
4.91 1.03 A
Our organization’s leadership explores industry
trends.
4.76 .92 A
Our organization has a plan to acquire new
customers.
4.74 1.06 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
weaknesses.
4.70 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet
financial objectives.
4.70 1.12 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
opportunities.
4.66 .88 A
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of
competitors' weaknesses.
4.61 1.43 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. 4.60 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to
reach long-term goals.
4.36 1.22 AS
Our organization develops new products or services. 4.30 1.40 AS
Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future.
4.16 1.18 AS
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple
future scenarios.
4.04 1.28 AS
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree
To determine the number of factors to be extracted, the researcher used the Latent Root
criterion and the scree plot technique. The factor analysis was first computed without restrictions
on the number of factors extracted. The default minimum value of one was used on the latent
root measure. The scree plot was examined in order to identify the optimum number of factors
for extraction. The researcher identified the most pronounced bend in the scree plot curve. From
this examination, the optimum number of factors was determined to be two, plus or minus one.
Each of these three factor structures factor was then examined for three criteria. First, extracted
factors were examined for each analysis to determine if it met the minimum acceptable loading
criteria as identified by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). Hair et al. (2006)
suggested that .30 would meet the criterion for exploratory research. Secondly, each of the
analysis was examined for inefficient factors or factors containing only one or two items.
Constructs with only one item are of little use to the researcher as the purpose of the analysis is
to identity underlying constructs in the data. Lastly, the researcher examined each analysis for the
presence of significant cross-loadings. If an item loads significantly on multiple factors, it is
possible that the respondents perceived the item differently. Due to the factor loadings, the
number of inefficient factors and the number of substantial cross-loadings, the optimum number
of factors was determined to be one. The loadings for this factor ranged from .802 to .415. The
Eigenvalue for the factor was 6.01 and the factor explained 42.89% of the variance (see Table 9).
The researcher computed overall score for the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning based on the results of the factor analysis. This score was computed
based on the mean of the 14 items in the factor scale.
Table 9 Factor Loadings of Items in the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts
Strategic Planning Scale
Component
Our organization’s leadership understands its opportunities. .802
Our organization identifies market needs. .801
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial objectives. .774
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals. .736
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios. .732
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer problems. .680
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. .674
Our organization’s leadership understands its strengths. .664
Our organization has a plan to acquire new customers. .623
Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses. .613
Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends. .514
Our organization’s leadership understands how present developments will look
in the future.
.496
Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot. .488
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses. .415
Note. Eigenvalue = 6.01, Percent of variance explained = 47.89%
The mean Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score was
4.67 (SD=69), with values ranging from 2.29 to 6.00. Frequencies of the scores in the
interpretive categories are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score
Score Frequency Percent
1.00-1.49 1 1.40
1.50-2.49 3 4.30
2.50-3.49 19 27.1
3.50-4.49 39 55.7
4.50-5.49 8 11.4
5.50-6.00 0 0
70 100.0
Note. Mean = 4.67, Standard Deviation = .69
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.50-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.50-2.49 =
disagree, and 1.00-1.49 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD
= strongly disagree Objective One
The first objective of this study is to describe Louisiana small businesses on the following
characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
The Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory survey included four screening
questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer to determine the eligibility of the participant to
continue the survey. The screening questions included: 1) Are you a publically traded company?
This question required a “no” response. 2) Does your company have 501 or more employees?
This criterion question required a “no” response. 3) Do you possess the title of owner, co-owner,
CEO, President, or VP? This criterion question required a “yes” response. 4) Does your company
have a physical location in Louisiana? This criterion question required a “yes” response. The
researcher received 75 total responses, of which 70 met the participation criteria.
Years the Organization has been in Business
The first variable by which respondents were described was the number of years the
business had been in operation (age). Louisiana small business respondents were asked to enter
the age, in years, of the small business. The mean age reported was 21.03 years (SD=15.35). The
business ages reported ranged from a low of 1 year to a high of 66 years. The most common ages
were 6 years, 15 years, and 32 years, with four respondents each.
Industry in which the Small Business is Positioned
Another variable by which respondents were described was the industry in which the
organization was positioned. Of the 70 respondents, 57% were positioned in one of four
industries. The largest group was Professional Services (n=22, 31.4%), followed by Construction
(n=8, 11.4%), Retail (n=5, 7.1%), and Distribution (n=5, 7.1%) (see Table 5). Table
5 Industries in Which Small Businesses in Louisiana were Positioned
Industry Frequency Percent
Professional Services 22 31
Construction 8 11
Othera 7 10
Distribution 5 7.1
Retail 5 7.1
Oil & Gas 4 5.7
Information Tech 3 4.3
Healthcare 3 4.3
Insurance 3 4.3
Real Estate 2 2.9
Bio Tech / Bio Med 1 1.4
Automotive 1 1.4
Software Development 1 1.4
Entertainment 1 1.4
Fabricated Products 1 1.4
Transportation 1 1.4
Printing & Publishing 1 1.4
Finance 1 1.4
Total 70 100
aNo specific response was requested
Current Number of Employees on the Organization's Payroll
To report the number of employees of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were
asked to enter the number of employees currently on the payroll of their business. The mean
number of employees reported was 19.43 (SD=31.74). The minimum number of employees
reported was 0; the maximum number of employees reported was 175. Of the respondents,
52.8% employed seven or less employees. The respondents most frequently reported having four
or fewer employees (n=29, 41.4%) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Number of Employees on the Payroll of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Number of Employees Frequency Percent
0-4 29 41.4
5-7 8 11.4
8-10 3 4.3
11-16 11 15.7
22-27 6 8.5
33-39 4 5.7
50-55 3 4.3
58-75 2 2.9
85-101 2 2.9
140-175 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Note. Mean = 19.43, Range 0-175, Mode = 1
Structure of the Organization
To report the legal structure of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were asked to
select the structure of their business from the following options: 1) Subchapter C-Corporation
(C-Corp), 2) Subchapter S-Corporation (S-Corp), 3) Sole Proprietorship, 4) Partnership, and 5)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Of the 70 respondents, 54.3% identified the structure of
their organization as a Limited Liability Corporation (n=38). The structure that was reported by
the smallest number of respondents was Partnership (n=2, 2.9%) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Legal Structure of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Legal Structure Frequency Percent
Limited Liability Corporation 38 54.3
Subchapter S Corporation 18 25.7
Subchapter C Corporation 7 10.0
Sole Proprietorship 5 7.1
Partnership 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Existence of a Written Long-Term Plan
Study participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they had a written long-term
plan. Of the respondents 34.3% (n=24) stated that they did have a written long-term plan. The
remaining 46 respondents (65.7%) stated that they did not have a written long-term plan.
Objective Two
The second objective of the study is to describe small businesses in Louisiana on the
perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning. A component of The
Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory, the Perceived Degree to which the
Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, included 15 items derived from a content
analysis of the literature. The items were: 1) Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future, 2) Our organization develops new products or
services, 3) Our organization identifies market needs, 4) Our organization’s leadership identifies
customer problems, 5) Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses,
6) Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot, 7)
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals, 8) Our organization’s
leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios, 9) Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths, 10) Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses, 11) Our organization’s
leadership understands its opportunities, 12) Our organization’s leadership understands its
threats, 13) Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends, 14) Our organization has a
plan to acquire new customers, and 15) Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial
objectives. Each item was measured using a 6-point Likert-type response scale. The response
options were strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly
agree. The higher the point value, the higher the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning.
When analyzing the mean and standard deviation for each item on the Perceived Degree
to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, the researcher found that “Our
organization’s leadership identifies customer problems” had the highest overall level of
agreement with a mean of 5.14 (SD=.95). The item with the lowest level of agreement, “Our
organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios,” had a mean of 4.04 (SD=1.28).
The reliability of the 15-item scale as measured by the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was a=.87. To
aid in the interpretation of the data, the researcher developed an interpretive scale for the
responses to the 15 items. The interpretive scale had the following categories: 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree. Overall, 11 of the 15 items were classified as “agree.”
The remaining four items were classified as “slightly agree.” The means and standard deviations
for the items are reported in Table 8.
To further analyze the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic
Planning Scale, the researcher conducted a factor analysis to determine if underlying constructs
existed in the scale. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Test, the researcher first examined items for
normality and then for the measure of sampling adequacy (MSAs). The overall MSA was
adequate; however, when the MSA’s for individual items were examined, one item had an MSA
that was lower than the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2006). The item, “Our organization develops
new products or services,” had an MSA of .47. Consequently, this item was eliminated from
further analysis. After removal of this item, the factor analysis was conducted again and all data
met the assumption for the use of factor analysis. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation was used in conducting the factor analysis.
Table 8 The Perceived Degree to Which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning among
Business Owners / Managers in Louisiana
Mean Standard
Deviation
Interpretive
Scale
Category
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer
problems.
5.14 .95 A
Our organization identifies market needs. 5.03 .92 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths.
4.93 1.01 A
Our organization provides solutions to the customer
that competitors cannot.
4.91 1.03 A
Our organization’s leadership explores industry
trends.
4.76 .92 A
Our organization has a plan to acquire new 4.74 1.06 A
customers.
Our organization’s leadership understands its
weaknesses.
4.70 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet
financial objectives.
4.70 1.12 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
opportunities.
4.66 .88 A
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of
competitors' weaknesses.
4.61 1.43 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. 4.60 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to
reach long-term goals.
4.36 1.22 AS
Our organization develops new products or services. 4.30 1.40 AS
Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future.
4.16 1.18 AS
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple
future scenarios.
4.04 1.28 AS
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree
To determine the number of factors to be extracted, the researcher used the Latent Root
criterion and the scree plot technique. The factor analysis was first computed without restrictions
on the number of factors extracted. The default minimum value of one was used on the latent
root measure. The scree plot was examined in order to identify the optimum number of factors
for extraction. The researcher identified the most pronounced bend in the scree plot curve. From
this examination, the optimum number of factors was determined to be two, plus or minus one.
Each of these three factor structures factor was then examined for three criteria. First, extracted
factors were examined for each analysis to determine if it met the minimum acceptable loading
criteria as identified by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). Hair et al. (2006)
suggested that .30 would meet the criterion for exploratory research. Secondly, each of the
analysis was examined for inefficient factors or factors containing only one or two items.
Constructs with only one item are of little use to the researcher as the purpose of the analysis is
to identity underlying constructs in the data. Lastly, the researcher examined each analysis for the
presence of significant cross-loadings. If an item loads significantly on multiple factors, it is
possible that the respondents perceived the item differently. Due to the factor loadings, the
number of inefficient factors and the number of substantial cross-loadings, the optimum number
of factors was determined to be one. The loadings for this factor ranged from .802 to .415. The
Eigenvalue for the factor was 6.01 and the factor explained 42.89% of the variance (see Table 9).
The researcher computed overall score for the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning based on the results of the factor analysis. This score was computed
based on the mean of the 14 items in the factor scale.
Table 9 Factor Loadings of Items in the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts
Strategic Planning Scale
Component
Our organization’s leadership understands its opportunities. .802
Our organization identifies market needs. .801
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial objectives. .774
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals. .736
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios. .732
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer problems. .680
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. .674
Our organization’s leadership understands its strengths. .664
Our organization has a plan to acquire new customers. .623
Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses. .613
Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends. .514
Our organization’s leadership understands how present developments will look
in the future.
.496
Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot. .488
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses. .415
Note. Eigenvalue = 6.01, Percent of variance explained = 47.89%
The mean Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score was
4.67 (SD=69), with values ranging from 2.29 to 6.00. Frequencies of the scores in the
interpretive categories are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score
Score Frequency Percent
1.00-1.49 1 1.40
1.50-2.49 3 4.30
2.50-3.49 19 27.1
3.50-4.49 39 55.7
4.50-5.49 8 11.4
5.50-6.00 0 0
70 100.0
Note. Mean = 4.67, Standard Deviation = .69
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.50-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.50-2.49 =
disagree, and 1.00-1.49 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD
= strongly disagree Objective One
The first objective of this study is to describe Louisiana small businesses on the following
characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
The Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory survey included four screening
questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer to determine the eligibility of the participant to
continue the survey. The screening questions included: 1) Are you a publically traded company?
This question required a “no” response. 2) Does your company have 501 or more employees?
This criterion question required a “no” response. 3) Do you possess the title of owner, co-owner,
CEO, President, or VP? This criterion question required a “yes” response. 4) Does your company
have a physical location in Louisiana? This criterion question required a “yes” response. The
researcher received 75 total responses, of which 70 met the participation criteria.
Years the Organization has been in Business
The first variable by which respondents were described was the number of years the
business had been in operation (age). Louisiana small business respondents were asked to enter
the age, in years, of the small business. The mean age reported was 21.03 years (SD=15.35). The
business ages reported ranged from a low of 1 year to a high of 66 years. The most common ages
were 6 years, 15 years, and 32 years, with four respondents each.
Industry in which the Small Business is Positioned
Another variable by which respondents were described was the industry in which the
organization was positioned. Of the 70 respondents, 57% were positioned in one of four
industries. The largest group was Professional Services (n=22, 31.4%), followed by Construction
(n=8, 11.4%), Retail (n=5, 7.1%), and Distribution (n=5, 7.1%) (see Table 5). Table
5 Industries in Which Small Businesses in Louisiana were Positioned
Industry Frequency Percent
Professional Services 22 31
Construction 8 11
Othera 7 10
Distribution 5 7.1
Retail 5 7.1
Oil & Gas 4 5.7
Information Tech 3 4.3
Healthcare 3 4.3
Insurance 3 4.3
Real Estate 2 2.9
Bio Tech / Bio Med 1 1.4
Automotive 1 1.4
Software Development 1 1.4
Entertainment 1 1.4
Fabricated Products 1 1.4
Transportation 1 1.4
Printing & Publishing 1 1.4
Finance 1 1.4
Total 70 100
aNo specific response was requested
Current Number of Employees on the Organization's Payroll
To report the number of employees of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were
asked to enter the number of employees currently on the payroll of their business. The mean
number of employees reported was 19.43 (SD=31.74). The minimum number of employees
reported was 0; the maximum number of employees reported was 175. Of the respondents,
52.8% employed seven or less employees. The respondents most frequently reported having four
or fewer employees (n=29, 41.4%) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Number of Employees on the Payroll of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Number of Employees Frequency Percent
0-4 29 41.4
5-7 8 11.4
8-10 3 4.3
11-16 11 15.7
22-27 6 8.5
33-39 4 5.7
50-55 3 4.3
58-75 2 2.9
85-101 2 2.9
140-175 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Note. Mean = 19.43, Range 0-175, Mode = 1
Structure of the Organization
To report the legal structure of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were asked to
select the structure of their business from the following options: 1) Subchapter C-Corporation
(C-Corp), 2) Subchapter S-Corporation (S-Corp), 3) Sole Proprietorship, 4) Partnership, and 5)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Of the 70 respondents, 54.3% identified the structure of
their organization as a Limited Liability Corporation (n=38). The structure that was reported by
the smallest number of respondents was Partnership (n=2, 2.9%) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Legal Structure of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Legal Structure Frequency Percent
Limited Liability Corporation 38 54.3
Subchapter S Corporation 18 25.7
Subchapter C Corporation 7 10.0
Sole Proprietorship 5 7.1
Partnership 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Existence of a Written Long-Term Plan
Study participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they had a written long-term
plan. Of the respondents 34.3% (n=24) stated that they did have a written long-term plan. The
remaining 46 respondents (65.7%) stated that they did not have a written long-term plan.
Objective Two
The second objective of the study is to describe small businesses in Louisiana on the
perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning. A component of The
Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory, the Perceived Degree to which the
Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, included 15 items derived from a content
analysis of the literature. The items were: 1) Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future, 2) Our organization develops new products or
services, 3) Our organization identifies market needs, 4) Our organization’s leadership identifies
customer problems, 5) Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses,
6) Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot, 7)
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals, 8) Our organization’s
leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios, 9) Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths, 10) Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses, 11) Our organization’s
leadership understands its opportunities, 12) Our organization’s leadership understands its
threats, 13) Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends, 14) Our organization has a
plan to acquire new customers, and 15) Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial
objectives. Each item was measured using a 6-point Likert-type response scale. The response
options were strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly
agree. The higher the point value, the higher the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning.
When analyzing the mean and standard deviation for each item on the Perceived Degree
to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, the researcher found that “Our
organization’s leadership identifies customer problems” had the highest overall level of
agreement with a mean of 5.14 (SD=.95). The item with the lowest level of agreement, “Our
organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios,” had a mean of 4.04 (SD=1.28).
The reliability of the 15-item scale as measured by the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was a=.87. To
aid in the interpretation of the data, the researcher developed an interpretive scale for the
responses to the 15 items. The interpretive scale had the following categories: 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree. Overall, 11 of the 15 items were classified as “agree.”
The remaining four items were classified as “slightly agree.” The means and standard deviations
for the items are reported in Table 8.
To further analyze the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic
Planning Scale, the researcher conducted a factor analysis to determine if underlying constructs
existed in the scale. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Test, the researcher first examined items for
normality and then for the measure of sampling adequacy (MSAs). The overall MSA was
adequate; however, when the MSA’s for individual items were examined, one item had an MSA
that was lower than the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2006). The item, “Our organization develops
new products or services,” had an MSA of .47. Consequently, this item was eliminated from
further analysis. After removal of this item, the factor analysis was conducted again and all data
met the assumption for the use of factor analysis. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation was used in conducting the factor analysis.
Table 8 The Perceived Degree to Which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning among
Business Owners / Managers in Louisiana
Mean Standard
Deviation
Interpretive
Scale
Category
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer
problems.
5.14 .95 A
Our organization identifies market needs. 5.03 .92 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths.
4.93 1.01 A
Our organization provides solutions to the customer
that competitors cannot.
4.91 1.03 A
Our organization’s leadership explores industry
trends.
4.76 .92 A
Our organization has a plan to acquire new
customers.
4.74 1.06 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
weaknesses.
4.70 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet
financial objectives.
4.70 1.12 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
opportunities.
4.66 .88 A
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of
competitors' weaknesses.
4.61 1.43 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. 4.60 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to
reach long-term goals.
4.36 1.22 AS
Our organization develops new products or services. 4.30 1.40 AS
Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future.
4.16 1.18 AS
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple
future scenarios.
4.04 1.28 AS
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree
To determine the number of factors to be extracted, the researcher used the Latent Root
criterion and the scree plot technique. The factor analysis was first computed without restrictions
on the number of factors extracted. The default minimum value of one was used on the latent
root measure. The scree plot was examined in order to identify the optimum number of factors
for extraction. The researcher identified the most pronounced bend in the scree plot curve. From
this examination, the optimum number of factors was determined to be two, plus or minus one.
Each of these three factor structures factor was then examined for three criteria. First, extracted
factors were examined for each analysis to determine if it met the minimum acceptable loading
criteria as identified by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). Hair et al. (2006)
suggested that .30 would meet the criterion for exploratory research. Secondly, each of the
analysis was examined for inefficient factors or factors containing only one or two items.
Constructs with only one item are of little use to the researcher as the purpose of the analysis is
to identity underlying constructs in the data. Lastly, the researcher examined each analysis for the
presence of significant cross-loadings. If an item loads significantly on multiple factors, it is
possible that the respondents perceived the item differently. Due to the factor loadings, the
number of inefficient factors and the number of substantial cross-loadings, the optimum number
of factors was determined to be one. The loadings for this factor ranged from .802 to .415. The
Eigenvalue for the factor was 6.01 and the factor explained 42.89% of the variance (see Table 9).
The researcher computed overall score for the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning based on the results of the factor analysis. This score was computed
based on the mean of the 14 items in the factor scale.
Table 9 Factor Loadings of Items in the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts
Strategic Planning Scale
Component
Our organization’s leadership understands its opportunities. .802
Our organization identifies market needs. .801
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial objectives. .774
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals. .736
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios. .732
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer problems. .680
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. .674
Our organization’s leadership understands its strengths. .664
Our organization has a plan to acquire new customers. .623
Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses. .613
Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends. .514
Our organization’s leadership understands how present developments will look
in the future.
.496
Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot. .488
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses. .415
Note. Eigenvalue = 6.01, Percent of variance explained = 47.89%
The mean Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score was
4.67 (SD=69), with values ranging from 2.29 to 6.00. Frequencies of the scores in the
interpretive categories are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score
Score Frequency Percent
1.00-1.49 1 1.40
1.50-2.49 3 4.30
2.50-3.49 19 27.1
3.50-4.49 39 55.7
4.50-5.49 8 11.4
5.50-6.00 0 0
70 100.0
Note. Mean = 4.67, Standard Deviation = .69
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.50-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.50-2.49 =
disagree, and 1.00-1.49 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD
= strongly disagree Objective One
The first objective of this study is to describe Louisiana small businesses on the following
characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
The Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory survey included four screening
questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer to determine the eligibility of the participant to
continue the survey. The screening questions included: 1) Are you a publically traded company?
This question required a “no” response. 2) Does your company have 501 or more employees?
This criterion question required a “no” response. 3) Do you possess the title of owner, co-owner,
CEO, President, or VP? This criterion question required a “yes” response. 4) Does your company
have a physical location in Louisiana? This criterion question required a “yes” response. The
researcher received 75 total responses, of which 70 met the participation criteria.
Years the Organization has been in Business
The first variable by which respondents were described was the number of years the
business had been in operation (age). Louisiana small business respondents were asked to enter
the age, in years, of the small business. The mean age reported was 21.03 years (SD=15.35). The
business ages reported ranged from a low of 1 year to a high of 66 years. The most common ages
were 6 years, 15 years, and 32 years, with four respondents each.
Industry in which the Small Business is Positioned
Another variable by which respondents were described was the industry in which the
organization was positioned. Of the 70 respondents, 57% were positioned in one of four
industries. The largest group was Professional Services (n=22, 31.4%), followed by Construction
(n=8, 11.4%), Retail (n=5, 7.1%), and Distribution (n=5, 7.1%) (see Table 5). Table
5 Industries in Which Small Businesses in Louisiana were Positioned
Industry Frequency Percent
Professional Services 22 31
Construction 8 11
Othera 7 10
Distribution 5 7.1
Retail 5 7.1
Oil & Gas 4 5.7
Information Tech 3 4.3
Healthcare 3 4.3
Insurance 3 4.3
Real Estate 2 2.9
Bio Tech / Bio Med 1 1.4
Automotive 1 1.4
Software Development 1 1.4
Entertainment 1 1.4
Fabricated Products 1 1.4
Transportation 1 1.4
Printing & Publishing 1 1.4
Finance 1 1.4
Total 70 100
aNo specific response was requested
Current Number of Employees on the Organization's Payroll
To report the number of employees of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were
asked to enter the number of employees currently on the payroll of their business. The mean
number of employees reported was 19.43 (SD=31.74). The minimum number of employees
reported was 0; the maximum number of employees reported was 175. Of the respondents,
52.8% employed seven or less employees. The respondents most frequently reported having four
or fewer employees (n=29, 41.4%) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Number of Employees on the Payroll of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Number of Employees Frequency Percent
0-4 29 41.4
5-7 8 11.4
8-10 3 4.3
11-16 11 15.7
22-27 6 8.5
33-39 4 5.7
50-55 3 4.3
58-75 2 2.9
85-101 2 2.9
140-175 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Note. Mean = 19.43, Range 0-175, Mode = 1
Structure of the Organization
To report the legal structure of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were asked to
select the structure of their business from the following options: 1) Subchapter C-Corporation
(C-Corp), 2) Subchapter S-Corporation (S-Corp), 3) Sole Proprietorship, 4) Partnership, and 5)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Of the 70 respondents, 54.3% identified the structure of
their organization as a Limited Liability Corporation (n=38). The structure that was reported by
the smallest number of respondents was Partnership (n=2, 2.9%) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Legal Structure of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Legal Structure Frequency Percent
Limited Liability Corporation 38 54.3
Subchapter S Corporation 18 25.7
Subchapter C Corporation 7 10.0
Sole Proprietorship 5 7.1
Partnership 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Existence of a Written Long-Term Plan
Study participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they had a written long-term
plan. Of the respondents 34.3% (n=24) stated that they did have a written long-term plan. The
remaining 46 respondents (65.7%) stated that they did not have a written long-term plan.
Objective Two
The second objective of the study is to describe small businesses in Louisiana on the
perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning. A component of The
Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory, the Perceived Degree to which the
Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, included 15 items derived from a content
analysis of the literature. The items were: 1) Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future, 2) Our organization develops new products or
services, 3) Our organization identifies market needs, 4) Our organization’s leadership identifies
customer problems, 5) Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses,
6) Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot, 7)
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals, 8) Our organization’s
leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios, 9) Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths, 10) Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses, 11) Our organization’s
leadership understands its opportunities, 12) Our organization’s leadership understands its
threats, 13) Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends, 14) Our organization has a
plan to acquire new customers, and 15) Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial
objectives. Each item was measured using a 6-point Likert-type response scale. The response
options were strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly
agree. The higher the point value, the higher the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning.
When analyzing the mean and standard deviation for each item on the Perceived Degree
to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, the researcher found that “Our
organization’s leadership identifies customer problems” had the highest overall level of
agreement with a mean of 5.14 (SD=.95). The item with the lowest level of agreement, “Our
organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios,” had a mean of 4.04 (SD=1.28).
The reliability of the 15-item scale as measured by the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was a=.87. To
aid in the interpretation of the data, the researcher developed an interpretive scale for the
responses to the 15 items. The interpretive scale had the following categories: 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree. Overall, 11 of the 15 items were classified as “agree.”
The remaining four items were classified as “slightly agree.” The means and standard deviations
for the items are reported in Table 8.
To further analyze the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic
Planning Scale, the researcher conducted a factor analysis to determine if underlying constructs
existed in the scale. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Test, the researcher first examined items for
normality and then for the measure of sampling adequacy (MSAs). The overall MSA was
adequate; however, when the MSA’s for individual items were examined, one item had an MSA
that was lower than the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2006). The item, “Our organization develops
new products or services,” had an MSA of .47. Consequently, this item was eliminated from
further analysis. After removal of this item, the factor analysis was conducted again and all data
met the assumption for the use of factor analysis. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation was used in conducting the factor analysis.
Table 8 The Perceived Degree to Which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning among
Business Owners / Managers in Louisiana
Mean Standard
Deviation
Interpretive
Scale
Category
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer
problems.
5.14 .95 A
Our organization identifies market needs. 5.03 .92 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths.
4.93 1.01 A
Our organization provides solutions to the customer
that competitors cannot.
4.91 1.03 A
Our organization’s leadership explores industry
trends.
4.76 .92 A
Our organization has a plan to acquire new
customers.
4.74 1.06 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
weaknesses.
4.70 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet
financial objectives.
4.70 1.12 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
opportunities.
4.66 .88 A
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of
competitors' weaknesses.
4.61 1.43 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. 4.60 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to
reach long-term goals.
4.36 1.22 AS
Our organization develops new products or services. 4.30 1.40 AS
Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future.
4.16 1.18 AS
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple
future scenarios.
4.04 1.28 AS
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree
To determine the number of factors to be extracted, the researcher used the Latent Root
criterion and the scree plot technique. The factor analysis was first computed without restrictions
on the number of factors extracted. The default minimum value of one was used on the latent
root measure. The scree plot was examined in order to identify the optimum number of factors
for extraction. The researcher identified the most pronounced bend in the scree plot curve. From
this examination, the optimum number of factors was determined to be two, plus or minus one.
Each of these three factor structures factor was then examined for three criteria. First, extracted
factors were examined for each analysis to determine if it met the minimum acceptable loading
criteria as identified by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). Hair et al. (2006)
suggested that .30 would meet the criterion for exploratory research. Secondly, each of the
analysis was examined for inefficient factors or factors containing only one or two items.
Constructs with only one item are of little use to the researcher as the purpose of the analysis is
to identity underlying constructs in the data. Lastly, the researcher examined each analysis for the
presence of significant cross-loadings. If an item loads significantly on multiple factors, it is
possible that the respondents perceived the item differently. Due to the factor loadings, the
number of inefficient factors and the number of substantial cross-loadings, the optimum number
of factors was determined to be one. The loadings for this factor ranged from .802 to .415. The
Eigenvalue for the factor was 6.01 and the factor explained 42.89% of the variance (see Table 9).
The researcher computed overall score for the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning based on the results of the factor analysis. This score was computed
based on the mean of the 14 items in the factor scale.
Table 9 Factor Loadings of Items in the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts
Strategic Planning Scale
Component
Our organization’s leadership understands its opportunities. .802
Our organization identifies market needs. .801
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial objectives. .774
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals. .736
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios. .732
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer problems. .680
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. .674
Our organization’s leadership understands its strengths. .664
Our organization has a plan to acquire new customers. .623
Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses. .613
Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends. .514
Our organization’s leadership understands how present developments will look
in the future.
.496
Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot. .488
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses. .415
Note. Eigenvalue = 6.01, Percent of variance explained = 47.89%
The mean Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score was
4.67 (SD=69), with values ranging from 2.29 to 6.00. Frequencies of the scores in the
interpretive categories are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score
Score Frequency Percent
1.00-1.49 1 1.40
1.50-2.49 3 4.30
2.50-3.49 19 27.1
3.50-4.49 39 55.7
4.50-5.49 8 11.4
5.50-6.00 0 0
70 100.0
Note. Mean = 4.67, Standard Deviation = .69
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.50-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.50-2.49 =
disagree, and 1.00-1.49 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD
= strongly disagree Objective One
The first objective of this study is to describe Louisiana small businesses on the following
characteristics:
a) Years the organization has been in business;
b) Industry in which the small business is positioned;
c) Current number of employees on the organization's payroll;
d) Structure of the organization;
e) Existence of a written long-term plan.
The Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory survey included four screening
questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” answer to determine the eligibility of the participant to
continue the survey. The screening questions included: 1) Are you a publically traded company?
This question required a “no” response. 2) Does your company have 501 or more employees?
This criterion question required a “no” response. 3) Do you possess the title of owner, co-owner,
CEO, President, or VP? This criterion question required a “yes” response. 4) Does your company
have a physical location in Louisiana? This criterion question required a “yes” response. The
researcher received 75 total responses, of which 70 met the participation criteria.
Years the Organization has been in Business
The first variable by which respondents were described was the number of years the
business had been in operation (age). Louisiana small business respondents were asked to enter
the age, in years, of the small business. The mean age reported was 21.03 years (SD=15.35). The
business ages reported ranged from a low of 1 year to a high of 66 years. The most common ages
were 6 years, 15 years, and 32 years, with four respondents each.
Industry in which the Small Business is Positioned
Another variable by which respondents were described was the industry in which the
organization was positioned. Of the 70 respondents, 57% were positioned in one of four
industries. The largest group was Professional Services (n=22, 31.4%), followed by Construction
(n=8, 11.4%), Retail (n=5, 7.1%), and Distribution (n=5, 7.1%) (see Table 5). Table
5 Industries in Which Small Businesses in Louisiana were Positioned
Industry Frequency Percent
Professional Services 22 31
Construction 8 11
Othera 7 10
Distribution 5 7.1
Retail 5 7.1
Oil & Gas 4 5.7
Information Tech 3 4.3
Healthcare 3 4.3
Insurance 3 4.3
Real Estate 2 2.9
Bio Tech / Bio Med 1 1.4
Automotive 1 1.4
Software Development 1 1.4
Entertainment 1 1.4
Fabricated Products 1 1.4
Transportation 1 1.4
Printing & Publishing 1 1.4
Finance 1 1.4
Total 70 100
aNo specific response was requested
Current Number of Employees on the Organization's Payroll
To report the number of employees of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were
asked to enter the number of employees currently on the payroll of their business. The mean
number of employees reported was 19.43 (SD=31.74). The minimum number of employees
reported was 0; the maximum number of employees reported was 175. Of the respondents,
52.8% employed seven or less employees. The respondents most frequently reported having four
or fewer employees (n=29, 41.4%) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Number of Employees on the Payroll of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Number of Employees Frequency Percent
0-4 29 41.4
5-7 8 11.4
8-10 3 4.3
11-16 11 15.7
22-27 6 8.5
33-39 4 5.7
50-55 3 4.3
58-75 2 2.9
85-101 2 2.9
140-175 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Note. Mean = 19.43, Range 0-175, Mode = 1
Structure of the Organization
To report the legal structure of Louisiana small businesses, respondents were asked to
select the structure of their business from the following options: 1) Subchapter C-Corporation
(C-Corp), 2) Subchapter S-Corporation (S-Corp), 3) Sole Proprietorship, 4) Partnership, and 5)
Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Of the 70 respondents, 54.3% identified the structure of
their organization as a Limited Liability Corporation (n=38). The structure that was reported by
the smallest number of respondents was Partnership (n=2, 2.9%) (see Table 7).
Table 7 Legal Structure of Small Businesses in Louisiana
Legal Structure Frequency Percent
Limited Liability Corporation 38 54.3
Subchapter S Corporation 18 25.7
Subchapter C Corporation 7 10.0
Sole Proprietorship 5 7.1
Partnership 2 2.9
Total 70 100
Existence of a Written Long-Term Plan
Study participants were also asked to indicate whether or not they had a written long-term
plan. Of the respondents 34.3% (n=24) stated that they did have a written long-term plan. The
remaining 46 respondents (65.7%) stated that they did not have a written long-term plan.
Objective Two
The second objective of the study is to describe small businesses in Louisiana on the
perceived degree to which the organization conducts strategic planning. A component of The
Perceived Obstacles to Strategic Planning Inventory, the Perceived Degree to which the
Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, included 15 items derived from a content
analysis of the literature. The items were: 1) Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future, 2) Our organization develops new products or
services, 3) Our organization identifies market needs, 4) Our organization’s leadership identifies
customer problems, 5) Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses,
6) Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot, 7)
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals, 8) Our organization’s
leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios, 9) Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths, 10) Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses, 11) Our organization’s
leadership understands its opportunities, 12) Our organization’s leadership understands its
threats, 13) Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends, 14) Our organization has a
plan to acquire new customers, and 15) Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial
objectives. Each item was measured using a 6-point Likert-type response scale. The response
options were strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly
agree. The higher the point value, the higher the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning.
When analyzing the mean and standard deviation for each item on the Perceived Degree
to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Scale, the researcher found that “Our
organization’s leadership identifies customer problems” had the highest overall level of
agreement with a mean of 5.14 (SD=.95). The item with the lowest level of agreement, “Our
organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios,” had a mean of 4.04 (SD=1.28).
The reliability of the 15-item scale as measured by the use of Cronbach’s Alpha was a=.87. To
aid in the interpretation of the data, the researcher developed an interpretive scale for the
responses to the 15 items. The interpretive scale had the following categories: 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree. Overall, 11 of the 15 items were classified as “agree.”
The remaining four items were classified as “slightly agree.” The means and standard deviations
for the items are reported in Table 8.
To further analyze the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic
Planning Scale, the researcher conducted a factor analysis to determine if underlying constructs
existed in the scale. Using the Shapiro-Wilks Test, the researcher first examined items for
normality and then for the measure of sampling adequacy (MSAs). The overall MSA was
adequate; however, when the MSA’s for individual items were examined, one item had an MSA
that was lower than the acceptable level (Hair et al., 2006). The item, “Our organization develops
new products or services,” had an MSA of .47. Consequently, this item was eliminated from
further analysis. After removal of this item, the factor analysis was conducted again and all data
met the assumption for the use of factor analysis. Principal components analysis with varimax
rotation was used in conducting the factor analysis.
Table 8 The Perceived Degree to Which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning among
Business Owners / Managers in Louisiana
Mean Standard
Deviation
Interpretive
Scale
Category
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer
problems.
5.14 .95 A
Our organization identifies market needs. 5.03 .92 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
strengths.
4.93 1.01 A
Our organization provides solutions to the customer
that competitors cannot.
4.91 1.03 A
Our organization’s leadership explores industry
trends.
4.76 .92 A
Our organization has a plan to acquire new
customers.
4.74 1.06 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
weaknesses.
4.70 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet
financial objectives.
4.70 1.12 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its
opportunities.
4.66 .88 A
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of
competitors' weaknesses.
4.61 1.43 A
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. 4.60 1.07 A
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to
reach long-term goals.
4.36 1.22 AS
Our organization develops new products or services. 4.30 1.40 AS
Our organization’s leadership understands how
present developments will look in the future.
4.16 1.18 AS
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple
future scenarios.
4.04 1.28 AS
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.51-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.51-2.5 =
disagree, and 1-1.5 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD =
strongly disagree
To determine the number of factors to be extracted, the researcher used the Latent Root
criterion and the scree plot technique. The factor analysis was first computed without restrictions
on the number of factors extracted. The default minimum value of one was used on the latent
root measure. The scree plot was examined in order to identify the optimum number of factors
for extraction. The researcher identified the most pronounced bend in the scree plot curve. From
this examination, the optimum number of factors was determined to be two, plus or minus one.
Each of these three factor structures factor was then examined for three criteria. First, extracted
factors were examined for each analysis to determine if it met the minimum acceptable loading
criteria as identified by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). Hair et al. (2006)
suggested that .30 would meet the criterion for exploratory research. Secondly, each of the
analysis was examined for inefficient factors or factors containing only one or two items.
Constructs with only one item are of little use to the researcher as the purpose of the analysis is
to identity underlying constructs in the data. Lastly, the researcher examined each analysis for the
presence of significant cross-loadings. If an item loads significantly on multiple factors, it is
possible that the respondents perceived the item differently. Due to the factor loadings, the
number of inefficient factors and the number of substantial cross-loadings, the optimum number
of factors was determined to be one. The loadings for this factor ranged from .802 to .415. The
Eigenvalue for the factor was 6.01 and the factor explained 42.89% of the variance (see Table 9).
The researcher computed overall score for the perceived degree to which the organization
conducts strategic planning based on the results of the factor analysis. This score was computed
based on the mean of the 14 items in the factor scale.
Table 9 Factor Loadings of Items in the Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts
Strategic Planning Scale
Component
Our organization’s leadership understands its opportunities. .802
Our organization identifies market needs. .801
Our organization’s leadership has a plan to meet financial objectives. .774
Our organization’s leadership has an approach to reach long-term goals. .736
Our organization’s leadership prepares for multiple future scenarios. .732
Our organization’s leadership identifies customer problems. .680
Our organization’s leadership understands its threats. .674
Our organization’s leadership understands its strengths. .664
Our organization has a plan to acquire new customers. .623
Our organization’s leadership understands its weaknesses. .613
Our organization’s leadership explores industry trends. .514
Our organization’s leadership understands how present developments will look
in the future.
.496
Our organization provides solutions to the customer that competitors cannot. .488
Our organization’s leadership takes advantage of competitors' weaknesses. .415
Note. Eigenvalue = 6.01, Percent of variance explained = 47.89%
The mean Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score was
4.67 (SD=69), with values ranging from 2.29 to 6.00. Frequencies of the scores in the
interpretive categories are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Perceived Degree to which the Organization Conducts Strategic Planning Score
Score Frequency Percent
1.00-1.49 1 1.40
1.50-2.49 3 4.30
2.50-3.49 19 27.1
3.50-4.49 39 55.7
4.50-5.49 8 11.4
5.50-6.00 0 0
70 100.0
Note. Mean = 4.67, Standard Deviation = .69
Note. The response scale used was 6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. The interpretive scale used was 5.5-6.0 = strongly
agree, 4.5-5.49 = agree, 3.5-4.49 = slightly agree, 2.50-3.49 = slightly disagree, 1.50-2.49 =
disagree, and 1.00-1.49 = strongly disagree.
a SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, AS = slightly agree, DS = slightly disagree, D = disagree, SD
= strongly disagree
