0363-9428/87/122$1.

50
Copyright 1987 by the D
University of Baltimore D
Educational Foundation

Planning Practices of
Small-Scale Retailers
Myron Gable
Martin T. Topel

The purpose of the present study Is to examine the practice of planning engaged In
by small-scale retailers and to determine If the activities of planners can be distin-
guished from those who do not report the presence of formal planning. In addition,
another objective Is to determine the Impact of planning on performance as mea-
sured by both sales and profits. Implications of the results of the study are dis-
cussed, and directions for future research are given.

Planning, deciding in the present what to do in the future, is believed capable

of influencing the success of all businesses. In his address to the NRMA 's Con-
ference of Financial Executives, Taura ( 1982) maintained that strategic planning
is a necessity for retailers in order to survive in today's marketplace. At present,
the pressures upon retailers include increased inter- and intra-type competition,
nonstore competition, shifting customer preferences, rapid advances in tech-
nology, and turbulent economic and financial environments. Such problems and
uncertainties have forced an increasing number of retail organizations to recog-
nize the need to develop plans which anticipate the future and help direct the
firm's course of action in an ever changing, complex, and volatile business envi-
ronment. ''Thinking systematically about the future, defining a retailer's in-
tended position in that future, and making current decisions to effectively move
the retailer to the intended position,'' are the central elements of strategic plan-
ning according to Taura. Yet, evidence of such planning in retailing, particularly
among small-scale retailers, is limited.
While a review of the literature pertaining to planning suggests that it is exer-
cised primarily by large firms, the practice of planning among small firms has
received increased attention in recent years (Robinson et al., 1986; Robinson
and Pearce, 1984). Still, most research to date pertaining to the study and de-
scription of planning has focused almost exclusively on large organizations, ef-
fectively ignoring smaller firms, especially retailers.
Three major studies (Robinson, 1980; Robinson, 1982; and Robinson and
Pearce, 1984) have been responsible for much of the current theoretical and em-
pirical foundation regarding the practice of planning in small firms. As Robinson
and Pearce's (l 984) review of the literature on research on strategic planning by
small firms indicates, little has been done with respect to small firms in general,
or with regard to small-scale retailers in particular. In fact, only a single article

Fall, 1987 19
on strategic planning on retailing has been reported in Long Range Planning
during the last three years. That study, however, focused upon the strategic plan-
ning practices of large-scale chain-store organizations having annual sales of
$100 million or more (Rosenbloom and Tripuraneni 1985).
The focus of research on small firms has principally been devoted to descrip-
tions of and/or a few prescriptions for planning. For instance, Green (1983) dis-
cussed the applicability of planning to small business firms. Also, Jones (1980)
sought to identify characteristics that differentiate planners from non-planners
and to determine the usefulness of planning in a small firm. Jones' research
suggested that planners are more likely than non-planners to search for invest-
ment opportunities, make use of market research, analyze accounting ratios, en-
gage in a growth strategy, and make use of short-term plans.
Several normative articles have been written prescribing how small businesses
should plan (Linneman and Kennel, 1977; Gilmore, 1971; Green, 1983). Other
studies have reported simply on how small businesses do their planning (Unni
1981; Van Hoorn 1979) or identified the managerial prerequisites for introducing
formal planning in a small business (Thurston 1983). In spite of the existence of
the studies mentioned above, there is still little research reported on small busi-
ness planning. Ackelsberg and Arlow (1983) suggest that this is due to: (1) lack
of available data on small firms; (2) limited interest in small business; and (3) a
belief that small companies do little if any planning.
Furthermore, of the studies regarding small businesses, few contain any small
retail organizations in their samples. Burt's study (1978) involved only 14 re-
tailers in Australia, and Ackelsberg and Arlow's study (1983) included 48 small
retailers. More recent! y, Robinson, Salem, Logan and Pearce (1986) examined
the relationship between company performance and specific planning activities in
small independent retail firms. In addition, Robinson, Logan and Salem (1986)
reported the influence of strategic and operational planning upon retail firm per-
formance.
While this area has received increasing attention, still more information is
needed about the types of planning that are being performed and whether plan-
ning contributes to success in retailing organizations. Some empirical research
suggests that planning efforts usually result in better than average economic per-
formance (Thune and House 1970; Malik and Karger 1975; Wood and Laforge
1979; Ackelsberg and Arlow 1983; and Burt 1978). In addition, Arthur Young
and Company ( 1981) reported higher productivity levels for the 67 percent of the
retailers that they surveyed who instituted formal, short- and long-range planning
programs in their organizd&ions. It should be noted that "larger" retail organiza-
tions were surveyed. Other studies such as those reported by Fulmer and Rue
(1974), Grinyer and Norburn (1975), Kudla (1980), and Leontiades and Tezel
(1980), all indicated either a lack of evidence or a negative relationship between
planning and various measures of organizational performance. Since there is dis-
agreement as to whether planning has a positive or negative impact on a firm's
performance in the studies reported to date, further research is required to deter-
mine the value of planning for small-scale retailers.
The environmental pressures previously identified influence all retail organiza-
tions. Therefore one would expect that the small retailer as well as the large retail
organization would engage in some degree of planning. However, as noted, the
smaller retailer has been largely neglected to date. In order to broaden the current

20 American Journal of Small Business

understanding of planning in the smaller retail sector, the basic objectives of this
study were established as follows:

• to determine the degree of planning in smaller retail organizations;

• to determine if the use of goals, objectives and forecasts of planners can be
distinguished from non-planners;
• to determine if planners' perceptions of problem areas differ from non-
planners; and
• to determine the effect of planning on performance as measured by sales
and profits.

METHODOLOGY
Cooperation was secured from a state-wide retailer's association in the North-
east region of the United States. With the aid of the executive director of that
association, the membership list was carefully screened and questionnaires were
mailed to 489 small-scale retailers. A cover letter mailed directly to the President
accompanying the questionnaire asked recipients if they were responsible for
planning in their organizations to complete the questionnaire. If they were not
responsible for planning, they were asked to forward the questionnaire to the
individual in charge of planning. Further, the cover letter contained an instruction
that if the retailer did not engage in planning, the individual receiving the ques-
tionnaire was asked to respond.
Every effort was made to screen out large-scale retailers from the sample. Of
the 209 responses, 179 questionnaires were usable. The 37 percent overall re-
sponse rate exceeds those in most small business studies and is certainly adequate
for analysis. The questionnaire consisted of five major sections:

• demographic information;
• objectives or goals of the firm;
• type of forecasts used;
• problem areas;
• performance measures as reflected by sales and profits increases or de-
creases during the past three years.

The questions used for the last four sections above were developed by Najjar
(1966) and Ackelsberg and Arlow (1983), but were adapted to meet the specific
needs of the retailing e,nvironment. Sales and profit increases or decreases during
the preceding three years (1982-1984) were the performance measures used in
this study. These measures of performance were preferred because the authors
believe that small retailers are more likely to provide this type of information
which is viewed as less sensitive than absolute data. The 82 percent usable re-
sponse rate and the relatively small number of questionnaires that could not be
used are indicative of the success of this approach.
Participants in this study were asked several questions designed to elicit the
nature and extent of formal planning. To distinguish planners from non-planners,
respondents were asked whether or not, in their opinion, their firms engage in
planning. It was decided that an analysis of these small-scale retailers be under-
taken in light of their own self perception. As such, those individuals who re-

Fall, 1987 21
sponded "yes" to the question, "Does your firm engage in planning?" were
treated here as "planners''. If their response was negative, they were viewed as
"non-planners." The use of self reports was dictated in the present research by
the fact that respondents are in positions to be aware of whether or not planning
takes place in their retail establishments. Further, in this regard, all respondents
were asked whether they commit their plans to writing, and questioned about the
extent to which they engage in the following planning activities: (1) the extent to
which goals are set for the entire firm, (2) the extent to which goals are set for
each part of the business, (3) whether the firm's strengths and weaknesses are
considered in the course of planning activities, (4) whether plans are based upon
forecasts, (5) whether alternative strategies are considered, (6) whether budgets
are prepared, (7) whether contingency plans are prepared, (8) whether control
systems are used to monitor plans, and (9) whether or not plans are updated.
The respondents were instructed to record on a five-point scale the extent to
which their firm engaged in the aforementioned planning activities. This scale
read as follows: Always (5), Often (4), Periodically (3), Seldom (2), and Never
( 1). This scale was employed successfully in prior research conducted by Ack-
elsberg and Arlow (1983). Finally, regarding the use of self reports, Fowler
( 1984) advises that they are indeed appropriate where respondents are clearly in
positions to know and reveal information. This was the case in the present study.
The results obtained from this series of questions are presented in Table l and
provide corroborating evidence for the respondents' self report claiming that their
firms engage in planning. In each and every instance, a significant difference was
observed between planners and non-planners-"planners" clearly engaging in
the various planning activities to a greater extent than "non-planners".
Furthermore, respondents were asked to indicate whether they committed their
plans to writing with the question phrased in a similar manner as to ascertaining

Table 1

A Comparison of Activities of Planners and Non-Planners

Planners Non-Planners
Activity (mean) (mean) t-test Score

Goals Set for Each Part of Business 3.40 2.81 2.52**

Goals Set for Entire Fim1 4.04 3.30 3.53*
Firm's Strengths and Weaknesses
are Considered 3.74 3.31 2.03**
Plans are Based Upon Forecasts 3.49 2.66 3.95*
Alternative Plans are Considered 3.41 2.91 2.14**
Budgets are Prepared 3.29 2.14 4.85*
Contingency Plans are Prepared 2.58 1.77 3.93*
Control Systems Monitor Plans 3.11 2.02 4.47*
Plans are Updated 3.50 2.60 4.14*

* p < .01
** p < .05

22 American Journal of Small Business

planning activities. It was determined that planners were more likely than non-
planners to put their plans in writing. Again, there was a significant difference
between planners (mean score: 2.88) and non-planners (mean score: 1.80). A
t-test score of 5. IO was calculated indicating a probability of 0.000. Of the
planners, only 23 percent always committed their plans to writing, while 16 per-
cent never made use of written plans. Non-planners, of course, would not have
plans to put in written form.
The data in Table 2, particularly the number of employees, indicate that the
respondents were basically small-scale retailers. About 90 percent of the respon-
dents had 50 employees or less, and just over 55 percent of the respondents
employed IO employees or less. In addition, 71 percent of the sample had annual
sales volume of less than $1,000,000. These demographics indicate that respon-
dents were to a large extent small-scale retailers.

RESULTS
Table 2 presents the demographics of the sample and a comparison of planners
and non-planners when categorized by demographic characteristics. For each of
the four factors, chi-square analysis was employed to determine whether or not

Table 2

Demographics of Sample and a Comparison of Planners

and Non-Planners Classified by
Demographic Characteristics

Overall
Sample Planners Non-Planners
Demographic (N = 179) (N = 102) (N = 77) Chi-
Characteristics Number (%) Number (%) Number (%) Square

Multiunit Operations 6.9**

yes 53 (29.6) 38 (37.3) 15 (19.5)
no 126 (70.4) 64 (62.7) 62 (80.5)
City Population 3.2
less than 25 ,000 1112 (62.6) 58 (56.9) 54 (70.1)
25,000 or more 67 (37.4) 44 (43.1) 23 (29.9)
No. of Employees 24.4**
10 or less 100 (55.9) 44 (43.1) 56 (72.7)
11-50 60 (33.5) 40 (39.2) 20 (26.0)
more than 50 19 (10.6) 18 (17.7) I (1.3)
Annual Sales"' 19.51**
less than $400,000 81 (45.8) 33 (33.0) 48 (62.3)
$400,000 to $999,999 46 (26.0) 27 (27.0) 19 (24.7)
$1,000,000 or more 50 (28.2) 40 (40.0) 10 (13.0)

* Two of the planners did not answer this question

** p <.01
Fall, 1987
statistically significant differences emerged. Approximately 57 percent of the re-
spondents indicated that they engaged in planning. The data in Table 2 also indi-
cate that retailers utilizing planning are more likely to be multi-unit operations,
be in larger cities, employ larger number of employees, and have larger annual
sales figures. However, the chi-square for size of city population is not signifi-
cant.

Use of Goals, Objectives, and Forecasts

Those taking part in the survey were asked to respond to a series of questions
as to whether or not goals and objectives were set in areas such as advertising,
markdowns, and sales. The data in Table 3 present a listing of the eight areas,
mean scores for planners and non-planners in terms of their use of goals or ob-
jectives in their firms, and at-test comparison. Respondents were asked to circle
the letter that best describes their use for each of these eight areas. The five
possible were: Always (A), Often (0), Periodically (P), Seldom (S), and Never
(N). A score close to "5" is indicative of a goal being used with great frequency;
a score of close to "l" denotes non-use; a score approximating "3" signifies
periodic use.

Table 3

A Comparison of Planners and Non-Planners Use of Goals,

Objectives and Forecasts Based on Mean Scores

Planners Non-Planners
(mean) (mean) t-test Score

Goals and Objectives

Advertising & Promotion 3.91 3.07 4.52*
Inventory 4.10 3.35 3.93*
Markdowns 3.20 2.92 l.32
New Merchandise 3.61 3.09 2.59*
New Clientele 3.35 2.68 2.89*
Personnel 3.14 2.44 3.02*
Profits 3.88 3.16 3.14*
Sales 4.30 3.68 3.25*
Forecasts
Cash Requirements 4.23 3.64 3.09**
Costs 3.98 3.60 1.96**
General Economic Trends 3.05 2.86 1.00
New Merchandise 3.49 3.22 1.40
Population Trends 2.26 2.03 1.17
Profits 3.87 3.51 1.76
Sales 4.21 3.68 2.73*
Industry Trends 3.61 3.36 1.31

* p <.OJ
** p < .05

24 American Journal of Small Business

 T-test values wer calculated for goals or objectives and differences were ob-
served in all areas except for establishing goals for markdowns. Where differ-
ences emerged, mean scores in all instances were higher for planners than for
non-planners. These results provide further support for the accuracy of self-re-
ports of respondents indicating they plan.
Respondents were then asked a series of questions on the types of forecasts
they used. The question format was identical to that employed for goals and
objectives. The data in Table 3 also enumerate the mean scores for planners and
non-planners for the eight dimensions of forecasts measured. Further, in all
cases, mean scores were higher for planners than for non-planners. A t-test anal-
ysis indicated differences in only three of the eight areas. Significant differences
were observed between planners and non-planners in their use of forecasts for
cash requirements, costs, and sales.

Perceived Problem Areas

Respondents were then asked to identify the extent of problems they encoun-
tered in six major categories: personnel, overhead, loss of business, merchan-
dising, capital, and cost pressures. These six general classifications were further
subdivided into a total of 17 problem areas. For example, four elements were
examined in the personnel area. These were: availability of personnel, employee
motivation, employee turnover, and unions. Responses could indicate either a
major problem, minor problem, or no problem. A score close to "3" indicates a
major problem; a score close to "l" denotes no problem.
The results of a comparison of planners' to non-planners' perceptions of these
17 problem areas are presented in Table 4. Of the 17 problem areas investigated,
significant differences emerged in only two instances. These were: (1) interest
rates, and (2) unions. In these cases, planners perceived these issues as signifi-
cantly more serious problem areas than did non-planners. No statistically signifi-
cant differences were observed in 15 problem areas. It appears that both planners
and non-planners perceive 15 problem areas in a similar manner and probably
view them as "part and parcel" of the business of retailing.

Effect of Planning on Performance

Two performance meaures were utilized to identify the effect of planning on
performance: changes in sales and profits for the three year period. Data in Table
5 indicate that sales irn;reased more rapidly for planners than for non-planners,
and profits did not dedine as much for planners as they did for non-planners.
However, the data in Table 5 also indicate that there were no statistically signifi-
cant differences in mean percent changes in sales and profits for planners and
non-planners for the prescribed time period.

DISCUSSION
The Impact of Planning
This study does not confirm the body of research suggesting that planning has
a favorable impact upon financial performance. Rather, the findings suggest that

Fall, 1987 25
Table 4

A Comparison of Extent of Problems of Planners

and Non-Planners

Planners Non-Planners
Problem Area (mean) (mean) t-test Score

Personnel Related
Availability 1.53 1.47 0.59
Employee Motivation 1.77 1.66 1.05
Employee Turnover 1.42 1.32 1.09
Unions 1.19 1.04 2.25**
Overhead Related
Adequacy of Space 1.66 1.56 0.85
Recession 2.24 2.22 0.13
Rising Cost of Energy 2.24 2.25 -0.10
Loss of Business Related
Inadequate Forecasting 1.59 1.45 1.29
Loss of Markets 1.71 1.69 0.15
Theft 1.60 1.43 1.85
Competition 2.22 2.08 1.27
Merchandising Related
Merchandise Shortages 1.40 1.34 0.70
Quality of Goods 1.47 1.52 -0.50
Capital Related
Availability 1.85 1.62 1.83
Cost Pressure Related
Inflation 2. 14 2.05 0.78
Interest Rates 2.21 1.78 3.38*
Governmental Regulations 1.65 l .49 1.36

*p< .01

** p < .05

planning may have very little impact upon sales or profits. It should be noted that
while small-scale retailers face the same environment as large retailers, their
operating units are different relative to that same environment. In fact, the overall
statistics for small busin\t.Ss indicate they are more at risk. In this study, only 23
percent of the respondents committed their plans to writing and the absence of
written plans may impact upon their performance.
Although "planners" reported updating their plans more frequently (see Table
l), if these plans are not committed to writing, then they may not be especially
useful to retailers, especially those unable to grasp all the details and inter-rela-
tionships relevant to success. Moreover, where written plans are absent, manage-
rial commitment may be short-lived, thereby undermining the planning effort.
Small-scale retailers, irrespective of their planning practices, can point to
large-scale retail organizations that continue to secure increased market share and
attribute their loss of market share to the competitive advantage of the experience
curve and economies of scale enjoyed by their larger competitors. In addition,

26 American Journal of Small Business

Table 5

Mean Percent Changes in Sales and Profits for Planners

and Non-Planners

Average % Change Average % Change

in Sales for in Profit
(Three Year Period) (Three Year Period)

Planners 17.68 (18.30)

Non-planners 11.22 (22.31)
I-test score 0.93 0.38
(probability) (0.36) (0.70)

the decrease in profitability can be explained by the fact that small-scale retailers,
even with good planning, find it difficult to modify their methods when the costs
of doing business are increasing. Altering the cost of overhead or merchandise
inventory may simply be impossible during a downturn as had been experienced
at the time of data collection. Further, the decline in profits can be explained by
environmental factors like the "squeeze" placed on small scale retailers by larger
competitors.
While this study is based upon a sample of a single state retail association, an
examination of Robert Morris Associates' RMA Annual Statement Studies on the
retail industry for 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 was conducted to determine
whether the pattern of profitability for a broad range of store types parallel the
findings of this study. Only RMA data pertaining to retailers having assets of
under $I million (the classification that most closely corresponds to the retailers
reported upon in this study) was employed. More specifically, a sample of
twenty different retail store types (e.g., dry goods and general merchandise, de-
partment stores, drug, furniture, jewelry, sporting goods, floor coverings, hard-
ware, etc.) were examined and it was determined that more than half had experi-
enced a decline or flattening of operating profits for two or more years during this
time period. As such, it appears that many small-scale retailers faced difficulties
throughout the U.S. during this time frame.
Another factor, the unit of analysis, may have influenced the results. Little
was done to distinguish 1between respondents other than to focus on their relative
size. It is possible that significant differences in both the practice and the out-
come of planning might have been observed had this study utilized other classifi-
cation schemes. An analysis of planning practices of retailers by store type, by
the type of merchandise handled (across store types), by organizational fonnat
(e.g., independent versus chain, multi-store, or franchise operations), or by loca-
tional factors (i.e., CBD, strip shopping, mall, etc.) could prove to be revealing.
Such efforts would, however, require much larger samples.
The findings could also be partially accounted for by small retailers' Jack of
skills and experience in formulating and administering plans. Although they may
engage in an exercise of planning, their efforts may be incomplete or misdi-

Fall, 1987 27
rected. Furthermore, while normative prescriptions of what a plan should include
may be followed carefully, strict adherence to these prescriptions does not guar-
antee any measure of success.
It must be remembered that planning is largely engaged in as an attempt to
reduce uncertainty and as a means for preparing for the unexpected. It seems that
how well one plans is not directly related to how much one plans. Therefore, the
fact that some small-scale retailers under study here engaged in more planning
than others, does not mean that they did a better job of planning. Actually, they
may simply have reported upon their experience of an "exercise" in planning-
and not "real" planning.
Other factors that may influence reported sales and profits results among re-
tailers are:

(1) Business cycles and the economy in general tend to influence sales and
profits. Since this study covered a period of time when the general eco-
nomic conditions were poor, depressed and unexpected performance re-
sults may have been experienced by many respondents.
(2) Continuous change in business investments, inventories, merchandise
lines and certain operating expenses all cloud retailers' ability to assess
profits.
(3) Small retailers, the focus of attention here, may not have the critical
mass to achieve the desired changes via their planning effort.

Another, intuitive explanation offered for the apparent lack of evidence sup-
porting the benefits of forecasting and planning among small-scale retailers,
follows from Thurston's (1983) review of factors influencing the success of plan-
ning activities in general. Thurston underscored the importance of the indi-
vidual(s) charged with the responsibility of planning. In particular, he notes that
for planning to succeed, a talented leader is necessary, one capable of orches-
trating the efforts of the managers who must implement the plan. Further, Thur-
ston suggests that managers responsible for the implementation must first be con-
vinced that the planning effort will ultimately benefit them. These managers must
be thoroughly committed to the plan, otherwise implementation will likely be as
incomplete as the desired results prove elusive.
Planning can be expected to yield positive results only when the firm has a
strong and secure foundation. Unfortunately, small retailers are typically at a
competitive disadvantage. They are often short of management expertise and
financial support. As sue~, they are confronted with several problems that act to
limit their endeavor to plan. Given the following problems known to plague most
small-scale retailers-a persistent shortrge of capital, high labor turnover, a
less-than-ideal store location, and few suppliers willing to extend generous lines
of credit-it is not surprising that planning activities do not yield improvements
to sales or profitability.
It is difficult to reconcile why small retailers which have claimed to plan have
had little more performance success than firms which have not. The results in
Table 3 indicate that planners utilize goals and objectives to a greater degree than
non-planners in seven of eight investigated areas. Little benefit seems to be de-
rived from this planning activity.
Lack of performance success can possibly be explained by some of the other

28 American Journal of Small Business

findings in the study. Specifically, Table 3 also reveals that planners claimed to
use forecasts to a greater degree than non-planners in only three of the eight
situations considered. In Table 4, significant differences between planners and
non-planners were only reported in connection with just two of seventeen
problem areas in retailing. Consequently, only minor differences seem to distin-
guish "planners" from "non-planners."
No significant difference was observed for planners and non-planners with
respect to setting goals for markdowns (see Table 3). This may be attributed to
the fact that while retailers often seek to maintain certain markups, the ultimate
markdown taken reflects management's perception of demand at several points in
time-prior to ordering the merchandise, once offered for sale, after reflecting
upon sales and competitive pricing practices and inventory levels, and upon ex-
amination of cash needs. These factors all intervene, and may have a differential
impact upon mangers based upon their own personal attitudes toward risk-that
is-the possibility of "getting stuck" with stale, unsalable merchandise.
These findings beg the question as to whether ''planners'' go much beyond
setting goals and objectives, that is, whether they implement plans consistent
with specific goals and objectives. It may be that they do not. Accordingly, it
does not seem reasonable to expect "planners" to outperform "non-planners"
since they do not engage in those activities that are known to contribute to the
success of business planning.

Directions for Future Research

While the scope of this study is limited, it suggests several issues and ques-
tions that seem worthy of retailers' attention. Specifically, it seems surprising
that so few aspects of retailing were reported to be "major problem" areas.
Consequently, one might question whether the real problems that beset retailers
have been identified. If other major problem areas do exist, then a further exami-
nation of how, and to what extent retailers engage in planning to resolve these
problems is needed. A study of planners' outlook and planning agenda may help
identify problem areas and can be instructive to those who have yet to engage in
planning.
A study of organizations' orientation and the influence corporate missions
have upon planning would relate quite well to a study of planners' perceptions.
More specifically, do "status quo"-oriented organizations plan differently from
progressive ''expansion'' -oriented firms? Are the issues and areas that are in-
cluded in one firm's plans, as well as the process of planning, different for these
two (or other) types of t:etailers? Who within the retail organization is responsible
for planning? Are planning responsibilities concentrated in the hands of a few or
many?
Another matter given scant attention to date is the time dimension of planning.
Several questions have yet to be answered in this regard. What are the planning
periods of greatest concern to retailers? What characterizes the planning activities
of firms whose business is largely seasonal, multi-seasonal, or stable? Do plan-
ning activities of time-sensitive, fashion-oriented retailers differ from those of
retailers who principally handle staples and durable goods? These questions de-
serve more attention and will certainly benefit from a combined program of qual-
itative and quantitative research.

Fall, 1987 29
 In addition, it seems that several other factors need to be accounted for, or
controlled for, in future studies of the planning practices of small businesses.
These would include:

• the level(s) of management responsible for writing the plan.

• the level(s) of management responsible for implementing the plan.
• the frequency and regularity that plans are reviewed and revised.
• the degree to which management perceives planning can be helpful-what
is their past experience with planning.
• the belief that a plan is a living document versus a standard against which
to operate.

CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions and implications based upon this survey of 179 small-scale re-
tailers must, of course, remain guarded. While a broad group of retail establish-
ments are represented, they are drawn from a single state. Accordingly, substan-
tive geographic differences may remain undetectedr. Also, the fact that the sample
was drawn from the population of a single membership organization may have
yielded a more homogeneous group of firms possibly masking performance dif-
ferences.
Still, it seems clear that although 57 percent of the sample perceived them-
selves as "planners" and set goals and objectives more frequently than "non-
planners,'' their sales did not increase at a more rapid rate or their profits rise
more dramatically. Apparently, the exercise of planning activities does not assure
the results sought by top management.
While these small-scale retailers indicate that they plan, analysis of the data
suggests that they merely purport to plan. For instance, only a very small percent
of small-scale retailers committed their plans to writing. Relatedly, only two of
seventeen common problem areas were noted to be more extensive by planners
than non-planners. This suggests that few problem areas distinguish planners
from non-planners-the problems are common to both and planning for them
does not seem to influence their perceived severity.
The findings indicate that small-scale retailers in this sample are probably on
the verge of, or on the periphery of planning and its implementation. Accord-
ingly, future research is needed to provide direction to small-scale retailers on
how they can better implement planning in their firms.
Future research must incorporate multiple objective measures of planning.
This is necessary for more fruitful studie~ of planning in small-scale businesses.
Some possible measures are:

• the number of persons directly involved in planning.

• the time allocated (per day, week, month, quarter, year) to planning.
• the regularity and frequency that plans are reviewed and revised.

Once such measures are incorporated, a better picture of planning for small-
scale retailers-its activities and outcomes-will be better achieved.

30 American Journal of Small Business

REFERENCES
Ackelsberg, R. & Arlow, P. (1983). "An Exploration of the Planning Performance Relationship in
Small Business," in Proceedings of the Eastern Academy of Management 1983 Meeting, 32-36.

Arthur Young Co. (1981). Productivity, Washington, D.C.: Association of General Merchandise
Chains, Inc.

Burt, D. N. (1978). "Planning and Performance in Australian Retailing." long Range Planning,
11(3), 62-66.

Fowler, F. J. (1984). Survey Research Techniques. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc., 91-94.

Fulmer, R. M. & Rue, L. W. (1974). "The Practice and Profitability of Long-Range Planning,"
Managerial Planning, 22, (6), 1-7.

Gilmore, F. (1971). "Formulating Strategics in Smaller Companies," Harvard Business Review,

49, 71-81.

Green, Larry (1983). "Planning and Decision Making in the Small Business," Managerial Plan-
ning, 31, 27-32.

Grinyer, P. H. & Norburn, D. (1975). "Planning for Existing Markets: Perceptions of Executives
and Financial Performance," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 138, 70-97.

Jones, W. D. (1980). "Characteristics of Planning in Small Firms," Journal of Small Business

Management, 20, 15-19.

Kudla, R. J. (1980). "The Effects of Strategic Planning on Common Stock Returns," Academy of
Management Journal, 23, 5-20.

Leontiadcs, M. & Tczcl, A. ( 1980). "Planning Perceptions and Planning Results," Strategic Man-
a!iemellf Journal, J, (I), 65-75.

Linneman, R. E. & Kennell, J. D. (1977). "Shirt Sleeve Approach to Long-Range Plans," Har-
vard Business Rel'iew. 64, 27 31.

Malik, z. A. & Karger, D. W. (1975). "Docs Long-Range Planning Improve Company Perfor-
mance?" Management Review, 14(4), 115 120.

Najjar, M. A. (1966). /'fanning in Small Manufacturing Companies, Unpublished doctoral disscr

tation, The Ohio State University.

Robert Morris Associates. ( 1982. 1983, 1984, 1985). RMA Annual Statement Studies, Philadel-
phia, PA: Robert Morris Associates.
I

Robinson, R. B., Jr. ( 1980). An Empirica! Jnvestigation of the Impact of SBDC Strategic Planning
Consultation Upon the Short-Term Effectiveness of Small Retail and Service Firms in Georgia,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

Robinson, R. B., Jr. ( 1982). "The Importance of Outsiders in Small Firm Strategic Planning."
Academy of Management Journal, 25, 80 93.

Robinson, R. B., Jr., Logan, J. E., & Salem, M. Y. (1986). "Strategic Versus Operational Plan-
ning in Small Retail Firms," American Journal of Small Business, JO, Winter, 7-16.

Robinson, R. B., Jr., Salem, M. Y., Logan, J.E., & Pearce, J. A., II. (1986). "Planning Activi-

Fall, 1987 31
ties Related to Independent Retail Firm Performance," American Journal of Small Business, 11,
19-26.

Rosenbloom, B. & Tripuraneni, R. V. (1985). "Strategic Planning Catches on in U.S. Retailers,"

Long Range Planning. 18, (3), August, 55-63.

Taura, Denis J. (1982). "Introduction to Strategic Planning," Retail Control, 50, January, 58-64.

Thune, S. S. & House, R. J. (1970). "Where Long-Range Planning Pays Off," Business Ho-
rizons, 13, (4), 81-87.

Thurston, P. H. (1983). "Should Small Companies Make Formal Business Plans," Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 61, 162-168.

Unni, V. K. (1981). "The Role of Strategic Planning in Small Business," Long Range Planning,
14(2), 54-58.

Van Hoorn, T. P. (1979). "Strategic Planning in Small and Medium-Sized Companies," Long
Range Planning, 12(2), 84-91.

Wood, D. R. & LaForge, R. L. (1979). "The Impact of Comprehensive Planning on Financial

Performance," Academy of Management Journal, 22. 316-326.

Myron Gable is Professor of Marketing and Retail Management at Shippensburg University.

Martin T. Topol is Professor of Marketing at Pace University.

32 American Journal of Small Business