- Email: [email protected]
The fortune “500” list-An endangered species for academic research
The Fortune“%OO” ListAn Endangered Species for Academic Research Ralph M. Gaedeke and Dennis H. Tootelian, CaZ$ornia State
University
Questionnaire surveys conducted through the mail are accorded a position of high priority among academic researchers, because they are inexpensive to administer, can be focused on any chosen sample, and lend themselves to relatively easy interpretation. Numerous articles reported in the literature, therefore rely upon the mail survey as the major source of primary data. A frequent selection chosen for such surveys consists of executive officers from Fortune’s Directory of the 500 largest corporations. The basic assumption of this article is that unless more attention and sensitivity is accorded the Fortune “500” survey recipients, executive officers will find it increasingly necessary to initiate corporate policies which would curtail pMicipation in mail surveys. It is thus appropriate to inquire about how the recipients of Fortune’s list of “500” view the mail survey by asking these questions: What are the corporate policies, if any, regarding academic mail surveys? What do the recipients like most and least about questionnaires? What, if any, benefits do the respondents derive from participation in questionnaire surveys? Finally, how might the response to, and respondents’ benefit derived from, the mail interview method be strengthened? The results of this investigation, therefore, provide valuable insights into both the extent to which the Fortune “500” executives like/ dislike academic mail surveys, and steps by which researchers can hopefully keep this source of data aviGlable to them.
The Study In the Spring of 1974, a two-page questionnaire, oper-ended questions and forced choice questions, Volume 4, Number 3
utilizingboth was personally August, 1976
Journal of Business Research
284
%&le I: Corporate Policy Toward Academic Mail Survey -Number of Responsesa
Percent
Cooperate whenever possible
10
9.1
Cooperate subject to time and confidentiality constraints
10
9.1
9
a.2
Corporate Policy
DO aot answer them Cooperate if questionnaire is meaningful and reasonable
5.5
Forward to departments or staff aoslstant for decision
4.5
Do nut have policy
59
53.6
Unsextai a
9
8.1
No response
2
1.9
110
100%
Totaf aEight respondents stated
that the company policy
was not to reply.
addressed and sent to the executive officers of the 1973 Fortune’s
Mwto y of the 500 Largest Corporations. The 1973 Standard and I%oP~*s Register of Corporations-Directors and Executives was used to obtain the name of the chief executive officer or, if not listed, the vice president of public relations of each of the 500 companies. The survey resulted in 110 returns, of which 102 were completed questionnaires. While the response rate was relatively low, this is not uncommon when using mail questionnaires [l, 21. The mail questionnaire method was chosen, despite the response rate limitations, in part because oF the difficulty in obtaining personal interviews with top corporate officials. Since questionnaires received by mail are ofien routed by corporate officials to their assistants for replies, it was importcnt to obtain responses from those who typically do reply. Nevertheless, the low response rate made it impossible to generalize these r(?sultsto all Fortune “500” corporations. However, it is important tt3 recognize the possibility that a portion of those who did not respond *nay,in fact, have been exercising their company attitudes or policicr of not responding.
Andy&
of 23edt-s
A majorityof respondents (61.7 percent) indicated that they do not
The Fortune “500” List-An Table
2:
Endangered Species
285
Number of Academic Mail Surveys Received and Usefulness of Survey Results Useful --
Not Useful
25 or less
25
22
12
Over 25
12
19
1
Total
37
41
13
Uncertain --
have a corporate policy toward academic mail surveys, or are un~wtah about the existence of such policy. Table 1 reveals that of those companies (40) having a policy regarding academic mail surveys, 50 percent either cooperate fully or cooperate subject to time and confidentiality constraints; another 15 percent cooperate only if the questionnaire is “reasonable” and the information meaningful; and an additional 12.5 percent forward surveys to specified assistants in departments for decisions on whether to cooperate. Due to the commonly voiced complaint of the “substantial number of questionnaires” reck ‘ved, several respondents indicated that their companies initiated a no-response policy. Table 2 reveals that 30 respondents received more than 25 questionnaires, or on an average about two per month. However, the majority received 25 or fewer questionnaires in 1973. In terms of the usefulness of the survey results to participating
executives,
35.3 percent viewed
them
as being useful while 43.7 percent indicated they were not usIeful. In answering, “What two things do you like MOST about academic mail surveys?“, respondents made it clearthat not much, if anything is liked! 0f those who appear to benefit from mail survey participation, 21 indicate that valuable information is provided and only 46 positive statements were mentioned by the respondents. Negative responses toward mail questionnaire surveys were indicated almost three times as frequently as positive ones. Fortyseven of the respondents view qnestionnaires as being either too long or time-consuming to complete. It is clear that executive officers dislike not only the number (;f questionnaires received, but also their length, construction, subject matter, and to some degree, the attitude of the researcher. Four factors were found to be especially‘important in influencing executive officers’ willingness to respond to mail surveys, namely: amount and type of statistical data required, stated purpose of the survey, subject matter of the survey, and length of questionnaire (see
Journal of Business Research
2%6
Table 3: Things kiked Most and Zeast About Academic Mail Surveys Things Like4 Most
Number of Responses:
Percent
21
45.8
Opportunityto help academic community
8
17.2
Displays interestin business/company
7
15.0
Chance to tell company'sstory
4
9.0
"Feel" for academic thinking
3
6 . ‘5
Thought provokingfor own company
3
6.5
Providesvaluable information
Total
Tbinga Liked Least
46
b Number of Responses;
100%
PercentC -_
Inordinateamount of time to complete/ questionnafretoo long
47
46.1
Subjectmatter not relevant to campary
25
24.5
Poor questionnaire
22
21.6
Questfonc; too geeeral
11
10.8
Attitirde of researcher
11
10.8
5
4.9
Subjector questionnairetoo complex Total
121
'?bespondents were asked: What two things to you like MOST about 5c mail surveys?
118.7%
academ-
b Respondentswere asked: What two things to you like LEAST about academic lpiiil surveye? 'Indicate;1 perccat of times mentionedby the 102 respondents.
Table 4). Furthermore, when the respondents were asked for suggestions for improving academic mail surveys, approximately half of %heexecutive officers favored their screening and approval by col?eges, unkaersities, or professional associations. These suggestions were o&rr;d: allow only meaningful subjects and questions (8 responses); simplify the questions (7 responses); and limit the survey focus to clear, specific objectives (5 responses). if YotK: The Endings ofthis study indicate that the Fortune “5o(i” List may be an “endangered species” for academicians. The tendency of
The Fortrule “500” List-An
Endangered
Species
287
Table 4: Importance of Factors Influencing the Response Rate Number of Responses Factors --
Weighted Averagea
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not Total Important Responsesb
Amount and type of statistical data called for
1.79
80
.L”
3
102
Stated purpose of survey
1.65
72
21
2
95
Subject matter of survey
1.63
70
23
3
96
Length of questionnaire
1.57
68
21
7
96
Number of openended questions
1.29
48
33
13
94
Assurance of confidentiality
1.12
41
30
20
91
Accompanying letter
1.10
32
36
23
91
Sender's reputation or position
1.05
30
45
19
94
20
38
36
94
Promise to receive surve'yresults
.78
aWeighted averages are: 0 for not important.
2 for very important, i for somewhat important,
b Some factors were not marked by the respondents.
academicians has been to exploit this rich base of @n~ata to the point where few, if any, ‘benefits are accruing to the ret ipients of mail questionnaires. If value is to be derived by the recipient, researchers should drastically reduce the frequency of using the “5W’ List except for highly pertinent survey research that is clearly of benefit to corporate management. At least two alternatives face the academic researcher: either continue using the “500” List indiscriminantly until this source of primary data becomes all but extinct, or use the “500” List judiciously by considering: Is th!e survey really necessary? Is the survey of importance to both parties? Is the questionnaire length and statistical data called for reasonable?
288
Journal
ofBusiness
Research
C2anthe questionmaire be completed by one individual? CZouldthe survey be aimed at another target? l’n short, a critical self analysis is called for which focuses on the recipients’, as well as the researchers’ needs.
1. Green, Paul E. and Tull, Donald S. Research for Marketing Decisions. Englewoocl Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hi3B, 1970: J58.
University
Questionnaire surveys conducted through the mail are accorded a position of high priority among academic researchers, because they are inexpensive to administer, can be focused on any chosen sample, and lend themselves to relatively easy interpretation. Numerous articles reported in the literature, therefore rely upon the mail survey as the major source of primary data. A frequent selection chosen for such surveys consists of executive officers from Fortune’s Directory of the 500 largest corporations. The basic assumption of this article is that unless more attention and sensitivity is accorded the Fortune “500” survey recipients, executive officers will find it increasingly necessary to initiate corporate policies which would curtail pMicipation in mail surveys. It is thus appropriate to inquire about how the recipients of Fortune’s list of “500” view the mail survey by asking these questions: What are the corporate policies, if any, regarding academic mail surveys? What do the recipients like most and least about questionnaires? What, if any, benefits do the respondents derive from participation in questionnaire surveys? Finally, how might the response to, and respondents’ benefit derived from, the mail interview method be strengthened? The results of this investigation, therefore, provide valuable insights into both the extent to which the Fortune “500” executives like/ dislike academic mail surveys, and steps by which researchers can hopefully keep this source of data aviGlable to them.
The Study In the Spring of 1974, a two-page questionnaire, oper-ended questions and forced choice questions, Volume 4, Number 3
utilizingboth was personally August, 1976
Journal of Business Research
284
%&le I: Corporate Policy Toward Academic Mail Survey -Number of Responsesa
Percent
Cooperate whenever possible
10
9.1
Cooperate subject to time and confidentiality constraints
10
9.1
9
a.2
Corporate Policy
DO aot answer them Cooperate if questionnaire is meaningful and reasonable
5.5
Forward to departments or staff aoslstant for decision
4.5
Do nut have policy
59
53.6
Unsextai a
9
8.1
No response
2
1.9
110
100%
Totaf aEight respondents stated
that the company policy
was not to reply.
addressed and sent to the executive officers of the 1973 Fortune’s
Mwto y of the 500 Largest Corporations. The 1973 Standard and I%oP~*s Register of Corporations-Directors and Executives was used to obtain the name of the chief executive officer or, if not listed, the vice president of public relations of each of the 500 companies. The survey resulted in 110 returns, of which 102 were completed questionnaires. While the response rate was relatively low, this is not uncommon when using mail questionnaires [l, 21. The mail questionnaire method was chosen, despite the response rate limitations, in part because oF the difficulty in obtaining personal interviews with top corporate officials. Since questionnaires received by mail are ofien routed by corporate officials to their assistants for replies, it was importcnt to obtain responses from those who typically do reply. Nevertheless, the low response rate made it impossible to generalize these r(?sultsto all Fortune “500” corporations. However, it is important tt3 recognize the possibility that a portion of those who did not respond *nay,in fact, have been exercising their company attitudes or policicr of not responding.
Andy&
of 23edt-s
A majorityof respondents (61.7 percent) indicated that they do not
The Fortune “500” List-An Table
2:
Endangered Species
285
Number of Academic Mail Surveys Received and Usefulness of Survey Results Useful --
Not Useful
25 or less
25
22
12
Over 25
12
19
1
Total
37
41
13
Uncertain --
have a corporate policy toward academic mail surveys, or are un~wtah about the existence of such policy. Table 1 reveals that of those companies (40) having a policy regarding academic mail surveys, 50 percent either cooperate fully or cooperate subject to time and confidentiality constraints; another 15 percent cooperate only if the questionnaire is “reasonable” and the information meaningful; and an additional 12.5 percent forward surveys to specified assistants in departments for decisions on whether to cooperate. Due to the commonly voiced complaint of the “substantial number of questionnaires” reck ‘ved, several respondents indicated that their companies initiated a no-response policy. Table 2 reveals that 30 respondents received more than 25 questionnaires, or on an average about two per month. However, the majority received 25 or fewer questionnaires in 1973. In terms of the usefulness of the survey results to participating
executives,
35.3 percent viewed
them
as being useful while 43.7 percent indicated they were not usIeful. In answering, “What two things do you like MOST about academic mail surveys?“, respondents made it clearthat not much, if anything is liked! 0f those who appear to benefit from mail survey participation, 21 indicate that valuable information is provided and only 46 positive statements were mentioned by the respondents. Negative responses toward mail questionnaire surveys were indicated almost three times as frequently as positive ones. Fortyseven of the respondents view qnestionnaires as being either too long or time-consuming to complete. It is clear that executive officers dislike not only the number (;f questionnaires received, but also their length, construction, subject matter, and to some degree, the attitude of the researcher. Four factors were found to be especially‘important in influencing executive officers’ willingness to respond to mail surveys, namely: amount and type of statistical data required, stated purpose of the survey, subject matter of the survey, and length of questionnaire (see
Journal of Business Research
2%6
Table 3: Things kiked Most and Zeast About Academic Mail Surveys Things Like4 Most
Number of Responses:
Percent
21
45.8
Opportunityto help academic community
8
17.2
Displays interestin business/company
7
15.0
Chance to tell company'sstory
4
9.0
"Feel" for academic thinking
3
6 . ‘5
Thought provokingfor own company
3
6.5
Providesvaluable information
Total
Tbinga Liked Least
46
b Number of Responses;
100%
PercentC -_
Inordinateamount of time to complete/ questionnafretoo long
47
46.1
Subjectmatter not relevant to campary
25
24.5
Poor questionnaire
22
21.6
Questfonc; too geeeral
11
10.8
Attitirde of researcher
11
10.8
5
4.9
Subjector questionnairetoo complex Total
121
'?bespondents were asked: What two things to you like MOST about 5c mail surveys?
118.7%
academ-
b Respondentswere asked: What two things to you like LEAST about academic lpiiil surveye? 'Indicate;1 perccat of times mentionedby the 102 respondents.
Table 4). Furthermore, when the respondents were asked for suggestions for improving academic mail surveys, approximately half of %heexecutive officers favored their screening and approval by col?eges, unkaersities, or professional associations. These suggestions were o&rr;d: allow only meaningful subjects and questions (8 responses); simplify the questions (7 responses); and limit the survey focus to clear, specific objectives (5 responses). if YotK: The Endings ofthis study indicate that the Fortune “5o(i” List may be an “endangered species” for academicians. The tendency of
The Fortrule “500” List-An
Endangered
Species
287
Table 4: Importance of Factors Influencing the Response Rate Number of Responses Factors --
Weighted Averagea
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not Total Important Responsesb
Amount and type of statistical data called for
1.79
80
.L”
3
102
Stated purpose of survey
1.65
72
21
2
95
Subject matter of survey
1.63
70
23
3
96
Length of questionnaire
1.57
68
21
7
96
Number of openended questions
1.29
48
33
13
94
Assurance of confidentiality
1.12
41
30
20
91
Accompanying letter
1.10
32
36
23
91
Sender's reputation or position
1.05
30
45
19
94
20
38
36
94
Promise to receive surve'yresults
.78
aWeighted averages are: 0 for not important.
2 for very important, i for somewhat important,
b Some factors were not marked by the respondents.
academicians has been to exploit this rich base of @n~ata to the point where few, if any, ‘benefits are accruing to the ret ipients of mail questionnaires. If value is to be derived by the recipient, researchers should drastically reduce the frequency of using the “5W’ List except for highly pertinent survey research that is clearly of benefit to corporate management. At least two alternatives face the academic researcher: either continue using the “500” List indiscriminantly until this source of primary data becomes all but extinct, or use the “500” List judiciously by considering: Is th!e survey really necessary? Is the survey of importance to both parties? Is the questionnaire length and statistical data called for reasonable?
288
Journal
ofBusiness
Research
C2anthe questionmaire be completed by one individual? CZouldthe survey be aimed at another target? l’n short, a critical self analysis is called for which focuses on the recipients’, as well as the researchers’ needs.
1. Green, Paul E. and Tull, Donald S. Research for Marketing Decisions. Englewoocl Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hi3B, 1970: J58.