Limitations of the study and open research questions

The thesis itself names some of its limitations, in the section on the critical reflection on its own research. Others follow from the design, that is, from who was surveyed, what was asked and how the model was estimated. At the end come the questions that the thesis leaves open.

A model that had to shrink

From the literature, the study derived 26 categories, which agency executives tested for relevance in a pre-test. The 20 indicators that remained were distributed across four enablers and three success parameters. In the survey, this initial model was borne out only in part (Results). Of seven core hypotheses, four were accepted; two of these are reference paths whose weight is fixed at 1 and which are therefore not tested individually.

The study then reduced the model in three steps. Resource integration dropped out entirely as an enabler, and on the success side so did financial value, the construct social value and, finally, customer value as a construct in its own right. The final model contains three enablers with seven indicators and two success indicators, together nine observed variables. The thesis itself records that reliable indicators and their assignment to the constructs were difficult to find. In its assessment, an exploratory factor analysis of the original indicators prior to the confirmatory testing would possibly have grouped them more efficiently. The final model therefore shows what held up in this sample. It does not describe the complete structure of agency quality.

Cross-relationships are missing

The literature review suggested that the enablers influence one another. According to it, leadership shapes the employees, the strategy and the handling of resources, and employees, strategy and resources act on one another reciprocally. In the estimated model, by contrast, the enablers act side by side on communication quality, without paths among themselves. The same applies to the success parameters. The study justifies this structure by saying that earlier studies have hardly documented such cross-relationships.

According to the study’s assessment, the results suggest that these relationships could be more important than originally assumed. A path from leadership to employee quality would probably reduce the direct effect of leadership and increase that of the employees. The high standardized weight of leadership efficiency in the final model can therefore contain effects that are partly mediated by the employees. The study also assesses the nomological validity, that is, the coherence of the relationships between the constructs, as plausible but not conclusively substantiated.

Who responded

The respondents were contractors from the customer bases of two internationally active agency networks, each with a completed order of more than €100,000. The minimum volume explains why large companies are strongly represented. For 31% of the respondents the company had more than 1,000 employees, for 44% between 101 and 1,000, and for 25% at most 100. The study does not break the data down by country.

The survey covers only the contractors’ view. They rated the enablers of “their” agency and the effect of the project in their own company. There are no data from the agencies themselves or measurements among the contractors’ customers, and the financial effect, too, is an assessment by the respondents, not a balance sheet figure. The study additionally points out that the above-average ratings may also reflect a general tendency towards favourable judgments in satisfaction surveys.

The pre-test from which the indicators emerged is based on interviews with executives of the same two agencies. According to the study, it does not allow statistical generalization, the personal experience of the respondents shaped their judgment, and the respondents at the two agencies gave information in differing detail.

What the data do not answer

No significant relationship between communication quality and financial key figures could be demonstrated in the survey (reasons). Whether trust and loyalty nevertheless increase the contractors’ competitiveness and stability in the longer term, the study expressly did not examine. The missing financial effect therefore applies only to the period that the respondents were able to observe.

The study expressly leaves open how long the findings hold. It names three developments that could shift the measured relationships: a structural change in the industry, further growth of web-based communication and changed expectations of the contractors regarding quality or the measurement of success.

The limitations at a glance

Open research questions

According to the study, established categories are lacking with which the quality and success of communication agencies can be analysed. Previous research comes predominantly from marketing and sociology and treats the communication business as an appendage of marketing. The extended sender-receiver model with which the thesis begins (Research question), by contrast, shows a network of agency, contractor, the contractor’s customers and the public whose relationships are more complex than the marketing literature assumes.

Because its own categories come from marketing and sociology, the study expressly does not regard itself as a conclusive picture of all influencing variables. Six questions for further research arise from its own remarks and from its design.

1. Cross-relationships. How do leadership, employee quality, strategy and resources influence one another, and how does the weight of leadership change when these paths are in the model? The study recommends experiments and further empirical investigations for this.
2. Long-term effect. Do customer trust and reputation pay off over a longer time in competitiveness and financial key figures? This would require measurements over several periods.
3. Better indicators. Resource integration and financial value dropped out completely, and for social value only the reputation gains remained. According to the study, the indicators must be extended and confirmed in new surveys.
4. Other samples. Do the findings also hold for agencies without a network affiliation, for smaller order volumes or separately by country? The question follows from the composition of the sample.
5. Media change. How does the further shift towards web-based communication change the contractors’ perception of quality and the measurement of success?
6. Own categories. Which terms describe the quality and success of agency work from the logic of this business and not from that of marketing?