Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:J-a:Journal Of Business Research:Vol49.Issue1.2000:

An Analysis of Mental Processes, Behaviors,
and Job Satisfaction of Apparel Product
Developers and Traditional Retail Buyers
Young-Eun Choi
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY AND SAMSUNG

LuAnn Ricketts Gaskill
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY

Job-related information and analysis are fundamental parts for both
workers and organizations to increase productivity and job satisfaction
that are extensively related to the business organization’s performance.
This study presents an analysis of specific job characteristics, job contents,
and behaviors in the two diverse merchandising line development process
of traditional retail buying and apparel product development. J BUSN RES
2000. 49.15–34.  2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved

S

elf-administered questionnaires were mailed to a random
sample of 249 traditional retail buyers and 250 apparel

product developers selected from directories listing thousands of retail executives nationwide. ANOVA, MANOVA,
and Chi-Square statistics were performed to test five research
hypotheses developed to determine if differences exist in job
content, worker’s perception, job satisfaction, interaction with
other departments, and activities related to line development
between traditional retail buyers and retail product developers. Significant differences were found between apparel product developers and traditional retail buyers. Compared with
traditional retail buyers, apparel product developers were
more likely to employ the mental processes of analyzing quantitative information, planning/scheduling, problem solving/
analyzing, and mathematics. Traditional retail buyers, however, who were found to carry more physical exertion-oriented
tasks, scored higher on their overall job satisfaction, autonomy, and task identity in performing their job. Significant
differences also were found in activities related to line development between the two groups.
The study suggests that retailers who expanded their role
into product development require higher skills, more educaAddress correspondence to LuAnn R. Gaskill, 1056 LeBaron Hall, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA 50011.
Journal of Business Research 49, 15–34 (2000)
 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

tion, and increased cooperation in performing their functions
compared with those engaged in traditional retail buying.

The Literature
Job Characteristics and Content
In today’s rapidly changing work environment, job crisis issues
have emerged as reflected in job absenteeism, higher turnover,
decreased labor productivity, and declining economic growth
(Ford, 1969; Davis and Tylor, 1972; Organ and Hamner,
1982). As a result, more and more organizations are turning
to the redesign of work to increase productivity, job satisfaction, and enhance the business organization’s performance
(Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Hackman, Oldham, Janson, and
Purdy, 1975; McCormick, 1979; Bowditch and Buono, 1994).
According to McCormick (1979), work redesign requires
the development of data pertaining to job characteristics.
Commonly used descriptors for characterizing jobs describe
job content, with particular emphasis on the work activities
and related aspects of the work environment.
In a job characteristics model (JCM), Hackman and Oldham (1975, 1976) detailed the hypothesized effects of specific
job scope characteristics on intervening psychological states
and subsequent work attitudes and behaviors. The researchers
proposed that the actual duties and responsibilities which

comprise a job have the capacity to motivate certain individuals (Landy, 1985).
The JCM identifies five basic job characteristics or core job
dimensions that should be considered when attempting to
redesign work (i.e., skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback). These core dimensions are
argued to influence critical psychological states of employees.
Critical psychological states are linked to such outcomes and
work behaviors as high motivation, high quality work perforISSN 0148-2963/00/$–see front matter
PII S0148-2963(98)00122-2

16

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

mance, high levels of job satisfaction, low absenteeism, and
turnover (Ford, 1969; Wanous, 1974; Hackman and Oldham,
1975; Hackman, Oldham, Janson, and Purdy, 1975).
The job characteristics model can be applied as a diagnostic
tool through Hackman and Oldham’s (Hackman and Oldham,
1975) job diagnostic survey (JDS). The JDS is a self-administered questionnaire that measures the extent to which a particular job fulfills the dimensions specified by the framework

from the perception of the workers themselves. It is also the
most commonly used instrument to assess perceived task
design (Dunham, Aldag, and Brief, 1977).
Job information and analysis is a requirement in system and
equipment design, workplace layout, performance assessment
(Meister, 1985), training, personnel selection, job design, job
evaluation, recruiting, management-union relationships, and
population analysis (McCormick, 1979). It describes important aspect of a job that distinguish it from other types of jobs
(Landy, 1985) and analyzes the basic nature and content of
the work process.
McCormick and Tiffin (1974) identified the importance
of a worker-oriented approach in the study of job analysis
(McCormick and Tiffin, 1974; Muchinsky, 1983). Workeroriented elements are generalized descriptions of human behavior patterns useful in structuring training programs and
providing performance appraisal feedback to employees.
A well-used structured questionnaire describing generic
types of worker-oriented behaviors involved in work is the
position analysis questionnaire (PAQ) (McCormick, Jeanneret,
and Mecham, 1972). It serves as the common denominator
in comparing the similarities and differences among jobs
(McCormick, Mecham, and Jeanneret, 1989). The PAQ has

been used by Fiorito and Fairhurst (1989) in their research
on job content of small apparel retail buyers across four merchandise categories (men’s, women’s, children’s, and accessory
and others). Job content and apparel buyers in large and small
retail firms also were investigated through the PAQ by Fiorito
and Fairhurst (1993). With the exception of Fiorito and Fairhurst, few researchers have addressed job content in apparel
retailing.

Apparel Merchandising and Line Development
Merchandising, marketing, finance, and operation are four
functional divisions in the apparel firm according to Kunz’s
Behavioral Model (Kunz, 1995). While each division has its
unique responsibility, it is the merchandising division that
plays the integrative role in relation to the product line. The
merchandising division, as the profit center, is responsible for
the product line, which provides the firms’ primary source of
income. Therefore, merchandising plays the most crucial role
in an apparel firm (Brauth and Brown, 1989; Brown and
Brauth, 1989).
Sheth’s (Sheth, 1973) industrial buyer behavior model is
a generic model that attempts to describe and explain merchandise buying decisions according to product-specific and

Y.-E. Choi and L. R. Gaskill

company-specific factors. Particularly, Sheth’s model explains
fundamental organizational buying behaviors related to aspects of the decision-making process.
Sheth’s merchandising model has been found to be applicable in assessing a retail buyers’ purchasing process (Francis
and Brown, 1985; Wagner, Ettenson, and Parish, 1989). Particularly, this model has been used as the theoretical basis
from which to study traditional retail buyers by identifying
selected components and analyzing them in relation to retail
buying behavior (Ettenson and Wagner, 1986; Anthony and
Jolly, 1991; Shim and Kotsiopulos, 1991; Kline and Wagner,
1994).
One of the most acute problems of today’s retailers is an
“identity crisis.” Many stores are virtually identical in terms of
merchandise carried and presentation (Bergman, 1985; Moin,
1986; Jernigan and Easterling, 1990; Clodfelter, 1993; Fickes,
1993; Morgenson, 1993; Wilensky, 1994). Consumers have
become bored with the similarities and lack of product differentiation in retailing. Consumers in the 1990s are value-oriented shoppers, looking for product quality and value (Why
Designer Labels are Fading, 1983; Epstein, 1992; Germeroth,
1992a, 1992b; Soderquist, 1993). They do not care where

they shop, as long as they are assured of good quality and
value. They are an educated and sophisticated population,
making their own decisions about product quality (Barmash,
1986; Underwood, 1992).
Contemporary retailers are recognizing the need to become
increasingly competitive and creative in order to satisfy the
changed needs of consumers. To survive this complex retail
environment, some retailers have created product development divisions and developed private label products targeting
specific consumer needs (Fickes, 1993; Moukheiber, 1993).
Through a private label program, retailers can pursue exclusivity from other retailers, control their product quality, keep
consistency in the product line, and have flexible pricing as
well as higher margin (Glock and Kunz, 1990; Fickes, 1993).
Private label provides consistency in terms of brand positioning by controlling what the brand represents and assurance
that quality standards are maintained (Adams, 1989). Retailers
have realized that the consistency is the key to success from
season to season whether it’s in styling, price, or quality (Making A Name at Penney’s, 1991) or by particularly addressing
a segment of the market (Barmash, 1986).
In 1992, Gaskill applied case study research methodology
to study the private label process in the product development
division of a specialty retail firm engaging in 100% product

development (Gaskill, 1992). As a result of this study, Gaskill
developed a retail product development model for apparel
retailers describing specific product development activities
conducted at the retail level.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine if differences exist
in job content, worker’s perception, job satisfaction, interaction

Analysis of Apparel Product Developers and Retail Buyers

with other departments, and activities related to line development in the two diverse merchandising line development processes of “traditional retail buying” and “retail product development.”

Hypotheses
Retail buyers have played an important role linking manufacturers and consumers by purchasing products from manufacturers and merchandising them for ultimate consumer consumption. Particularly, apparel retail buyers play a crucial
role as interpreters of current fashion trends and provide
information about merchandise. Retail buyers, as merchandisers, are responsible for the most important and fundamental
function in retailing, that of procuring appropriate products
for their customers. Their job performance eventually can
determine the success or failure of the retail store.

In the retail sector, however, some retailers have expanded
their role in merchandising, advancing from traditional retail
buyers who selected products that were available in the market
to retailers that develop products. By actively engaging in the
conceptualization, planning, development, and presentation
of market-oriented product lines, retailers have the advantages
of market differentiation, higher margins, greater control, and
consumer-driven strategies.
Swindley (1992) investigated the role of buyers in the
United Kingdom for clothing, grocery, and footwear business.
He noted that buyers were not only involved in the selection,
feasibility, and monitoring of products, but most buyers were
involved in product and packaging decisions, new product
launches, and quality control. Some stores put together product development teams that include designers, stylists, and
fashion buyers in order to develop their own collections and
coordination accessories (Lebow, 1988). Department stores
currently deploy product development teams of designers and
merchants (Agins, 1994). Swindley (1992) concluded that
buyers in large retail organizations have extended beyond the
buyers’ original role into product development, design, and

marketing activities. Frank (1992) stated that it takes a high
level of skill, training, and experience to turn a retail buyer
into a product developer. Increased knowledge and ability is
required to expand their role into product development.
Recently, as technology and cultural patterns develop,
changes in the nature of jobs in the labor force are taking place.
In the past, emphasis has been placed on functional effectiveness
of jobs rather than human welfare as related to human work.
In recent years, however, the emphasis has shifted toward the
aspects of human welfare, particularly job satisfaction and the
quality of working life (McCormick, 1979).
Sheth’s (Sheth, 1973) industrial buyer behavior model,
which represents the traditional retail buying process in this
study, provides the theoretical framework and conceptualizes
the process of fundamental organizational buying decisions
including initiation of the decision to buy, gathering of infor-

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

17

mation, evaluating alternative supplies, and resolving conflicts
among the parties engaged in decision making.
Data on job responsibility, worker perceptions of job characterictics, and overall job satisfaction will be collected
through McCormick, Mecham, and Jeanneret’s (McCormick,
Mecham, and Jeanneret, 1967, 1969) position analysis questionnaire (PAQ), Hackman and Oldham’s (Hackman and Oldham, 1975) job diagnostic survey (JDS), and Hoppock’s (Hoppock, 1935) overall job satisfaction (OJS) measure from both
traditional retail buyers and retail product developers.
Based on review of the literature, the following five hypotheses were formulated to investigate.
H1: Apparel product developers will be significantly higher
than traditional retail buyers on job content dimensions in terms of information input, mental processes,
job context, devices and activities of job, interpersonal
activities, and miscellaneous aspects of job.
H2: Traditional retail buyers will be significantly higher
than apparel product developers on overall worker
perceptions in terms of their skill variety, task identity,
task significance, autonomy, job feedback, feedback
from others, and dealing with others.
H3: Traditional retail buyers will be significantly higher
than apparel product developers in their overall job
satisfaction.
H4: Apparel product developers will be significantly higher
than traditional retail buyers in their interaction with
other department.
H5: Apparel product developers will be significantly higher
than traditional retail buyers in their activities related
to line development.

Method
Sample Selection
The target sample for this study consisted of two groups of
retailers including (1) individuals engaged in traditional retail
buying and (2) individuals involved in apparel product development. The Directory of Women’s and Children’s Wear Specialty
Stores (1995) and Directory of Men’s and Boys’ Wear Specialty
Stores (1995) were the sources used for sample selection.
For locating the traditional retail buyers, a three-step sampling method was developed. First, a page of each directory
was selected. Second, one store on each page was randomly
selected and the percentage of sales in private label indicated
in the store profile was reviewed. Following the predetermined
operational definitions for product development and traditional retail buyers, the store was classified either as (1) a
store with product developers (stores with 75–100% sales of
private label) or (2) a store with traditional retail buyers (stores
with 0–25% sales of private label). When the selected store
met the traditional retail buyer classification method, the title

18

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

Y.-E. Choi and L. R. Gaskill

Table 1. Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Job Content for Product Developers and Traditional Retail Buyers: Hotellings t-test
Subscale Measure
Information input
Mental processes
Job context
Devices and activities of job
Relationships with other persons
Miscellaneous aspect of job

Value

Exact F

Hypothetical DF

Error DF

0.35
0.23
0.10
0.21
0.38
0.21

2.84
3.10
2.67
7.32
2.52
1.99

15.00
10.00
5.00
4.00
17.00
13.00

121.00
134.00
137.00
141.00
113.00
121.00

of each executive was examined for selecting appropriate personnel. Appropriate job titles were adapted from the Taxonomy of Retail Careers (Kunz, 1985). A random numbers table
was used, once again, to select the final sample of retail buyers
from the potential list of relevant job titles. The sampling
method resulted in the location of a total of 249 traditional
retail buyers.
For sampling product developers, census was used due to
the limited number of retailers heavily involved in product
development. First, all the stores in the directories listing
private label sales ranging from 75–100% were identified. In
each of the selected stores, executives with appropriate job
titles for product developers according to Wickett (1995) were
identified. From that list of potential product developers, the
final sample of 250 product developers were chosen using a
systematic sampling method. In total, a sample size of 499
retailers was selected: 249 were identified as traditional retail
buyers, and 250 were deemed to be product developers.

The Data Collection Instrument
A self-contained and self-administered booklet type mailed
questionnaire was developed for data collection purposes. The
questionnaire consisted of six sections (see Appendix A) and
included the following content areas.
Job content questions were based on the work
of Fiorito and Fairhurst (1989, 1993), which incorporated
the PAQ (position analysis questionnaire). Although human
work tends to be more qualitative rather than quantitative in
its nature, the PAQ has enabled researchers to quantify the
structure of human work (McCormick, Jeanneret, and
Mecham, 1972). The average item reliability coefficient for
PAQ was 0.80 (McCormick, Mecham, and Jeanneret, 1989).
JOB CONTENT.

Significance of F
p
p
p
p
p
p

5
5
5
5
5
5

0.001
0.001
0.025
0.000
0.002
0.027

The intraclass coefficients of reliability ranged from upper
0.80’s to 0.90’s. In addition, Jeanneret and McCormick independently analyzed 62 jobs to test the reliability of the PAQ
instrument and reported a 0.79 coefficient of reliability
(McCormick, 1979).
The job elements in the PAQ are represented in six divisions
and are rated with the use of a six-point Likert scales. Specific
job elements in PAQ are information input, mental processes,
job content, devices and activities of the job, interpersonal
activities, and miscellaneous aspects of the job.
Twenty-one items used to investigate
job characteristics were adapted from the job diagnostic survey
(Hackman and Oldham, 1975). The JDS provides measures
of seven major job dimensions including skill variety, task
identity, task significance, autonomy, job feedback, feedback
from others, and dealing with others (Hackman and Oldham,
1975; McCormick, 1979; Taber and Tylor, 1990).
Hackman and Oldham (1975) reported reliability of the
JDS ranging from a high of 0.88 to a low of 0.56. Respondents
completed the instrument by using a seven-point scale.
JOB CHARACTERISTICS.

OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION. The third section was related to
overall job satisfaction as measured by Hoppock’s (Hoppock,
1935) four-item job satisfaction measure. Hoppock (1935)
reported a Spearman-Brown reliability coefficient of 0.93.
McNichols, Stahl, and Manley (1978) concluded that Hoppock’s overall job satisfaction measure has significant utility
in contemporary organization. The overall job satisfaction
measure was scored on a seven-point scale.
INTERACTION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS. The fourth section
was developed to obtain information on the retailer’s interaction with other departments. It consisted of three open-ended

Table 2. Analysis of Variance of PAQ Items: Information Input

Variable
Quantitative information (sales data)
Events (trade shows, association meeting)
Estimating time for activities and events
a
b
c

p , 0.001.
p , 0.01.
p , 0.05.

Product Developers
(n 5 70)
Mean
SD
4.3
2.6
3.5

1.32
1.47
1.44

Traditional Retail Buyers
(n 5 77)
Mean
SD
3.3
3.4
3.0

1.45
1.31
1.32

F
20.04a
8.18b
5.03c

Analysis of Apparel Product Developers and Retail Buyers

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

19

Table 3. Analysis of Variance of PAQ Items: Mental Processes
Product Developers
(n 5 70)
Mean
SD

Variable
Use of mathematics
Problem solving/analyzing
Planning/scheduling
Analyzing information
Education

3.0
4.6
4.5
4.5
2.7

Traditional Retail Buyers
(n 5 77)
Mean
SD

0.88
0.91
0.83
1.02
0.68

2.6
4.2
4.0
4.1
2.3

0.74
0.82
0.93
0.90
0.88

F
5.01a
6.56a
9.36b
4.72a
13.82c

a

p , 0.05.
p , 0.01.
c
p , 0.001.
b

questions. Participants indicated whether or not they were
engaged in team-oriented activities and the areas they interacted most often with.
In order to measure product knowledge related to line development, this
section consisted of 20 items measuring, on a five-point Likert
scale, the extent to which the respondents were engaged in
the product line development ranging from not at all (1) to
intensively (5).

ACTIVITIES RELATED TO LINE DEVELOPMENT.

Finally, the sixth section collected
demographics on the respondents. Six questions concerning
respondent’s demographic profile such as gender, age, education, title of position, and years of experience as a retail executive were included.
The mailed questionnaire was pretested by four retail executives randomly selected among the sample. The format of
the questionnaire was modified as needed to aid in readability
and in ease of completion.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE.

Data Collection
Data collection commenced guidelines established by Dillman’s (Dillman, 1978) total design method. The questionnaires were mailed to 499 retail executives along with a cover
letter, self-addressed, stamped return envelop. One week after
the original mailing date, postcard reminders were sent to the
same group asking for a quick response. Three weeks later,
second reminder postcards were sent to nonrespondents appealing for return. Four weeks after the original mailing, replacement questionnaires and return envelopes were sent to
nonrespondents. One week after the replacement questionnaire mailing, final reminder postcards were sent to the nonre-

spondent group. In summary, a total of two complete mailing
of the instrument took place and three follow-up reminder
postcards were mailed.
Whenever the mailings were returned and nondeliverable,
those names were excluded from the sample. As a result of
the 499 mailed questionnaires, a total of 475 were mailed and
deliverable. Of the 475 delivered questionnaires, a total of
147 were completed, returned, and usable, resulting in a 31%
response rate.
In order to support the generalizability of the present study,
nonresponse bias was tested using the extrapolation method
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977). Extrapolation method assumes that subjects who less readily respond (less readily
means respond later or requires more stimulus to answer) are
more like nonrespondents. People who responded later are
expected to be similar to nonrespondents (Pace, 1978; Armstrong and Overton, 1977). The differences between early
respondents and late respondents (or nonrespondents) were
compared in terms of demographic profiles.
Those who returned early were regarded as respondents
while late respondents were assumed to have close characteristics of the nonrespondents. No significant differences between
early respondents and late respondents who are assumed to
be nonrespondents were found. This result supports the validity and generalizability of this study in that the participating
respondents fairly represented those who did not respond.

Results and Discussion
Demographic Profile
Of the 147 usable responses, 70 were from product developers, and 77 were from traditional retail buyers. Descriptive

Table 4. Analysis of Variance of PAQ Items: Job Context

Variable
Civic obligation
a

p , 0.01.

Product Developers
(n 5 70)
Mean
SD
1.7

1.54

Traditional Retail Buyers
(n 5 77)
Mean
SD
2.5

1.59

F
8.20a

20

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

Y.-E. Choi and L. R. Gaskill

Table 5. Analysis of Variance of PAQ Items: Devices and Activities of Job
Product Developers
(n 5 70)
Mean
SD

Variable
Arranging/positioning objects and materials
Physical handling objects and materials
Physical exertion required
a
b

2.6
2.4
2.4

Traditional Retail Buyers
(n 5 77)
Mean
SD

1.71
1.69
1.00

3.7
3.4
2.8

0.97
1.13
0.85

F
23.05a
18.05a
4.63b

p , 0.001.
p , 0.05.

statistics showed that traditional retail buyers had a higher
portion of males (63% male versus 37% female) than in the
groups of product developers (55% male versus 45% female).
Respondents’ ages overall ranged from 18 to 83. Product
developers had lower mean age (X̄ 5 41.5) than traditional
retail buyers (X̄ 5 47.8). Traditional retail buyers had a higher
number of average years of experience as a retail executive
(X̄ 5 19.5) compared with product developers (X̄ 5 16.2).

developers and traditional retail buyers. Results of the analyses
and hypotheses testing follows.
HYPOTHESIS 1. The first hypothesis with regard to job content
was supported. MANOVA showed significant differences in
each subdivision of hypothesis 1. The result of MANOVA is
shown in Table 1. F-test showed significant differences on
each of the six overall variables of PAQ, including information
input, mental processes, job context, devices and activities of
job, interpersonal activities, and miscellaneous aspect of job.
All the overall variables in PAQ resulted in significant differences between the two groups (see Table 1). What follows is
a specific analysis on each subdivision of PAQ. Only significant
differences were illustrated in the tables.

Reliability of Scales
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for PAQ (position analysis
questionnaire) items. With the exception of work output, all
variables in PAQ had alpha scores higher than 0.70. In JDS
(job diagnostic survey) measurement, alpha scores ranged
from 0.44 to 0.66, and Hoppock’s overall job satisfaction
measure had a high alpha score of 0.86. Cronbach’s alpha
also was computed for the four factors of activities related to
line development. The alpha scores ranged from 0.72 to 0.91
(see Appendix B).

INFORMATION INPUT. Overall significant differences (multivariate F 5 2.84, p , 0.01) existed between product developers and traditional retail buyers in terms of information input
(sources of information used in completing the job; see Table
1). Specifically, univariate analysis of variance showed that
three of the fifteen subdivisions were rated differently by product developers and traditional retail buyers. As compared with
traditional retail buyers, product developers had significantly
higher mean scores on the importance of estimating time for
activities and events (X̄ 5 3.45), whereas traditional retail
buyers, on the contrary, had a higher score on the use of

Results of Hypothesis Test
To test the suggested five research hypotheses, MANOVA
(multivariate analysis of variance), ANOVA (analysis of variance), and Chi-Square tests were used for statistical analyses to
investigate the differences between the two groups of product

Table 6. Analysis of Variance of PAQ Items: Relationship with Other Persons

Variable
Supervisors
Professional personnel
Semiprofessional personnel
Sales personnel
Buyers
Customers
Students
Executives
Middle management
a
b
c

p , 0.01.
p , 0.05.
p , 0.001.

Product Developers
(n 5 70)
Mean
SD
3.4
3.1
2.6
3.5
4.1
3.5
1.0
4.1
3.9

1.81
1.84
1.61
1.54
1.50
1.63
1.24
1.61
1.70

Traditional Retail Buyers
(n 5 77)
Mean
SD
2.5
3.0
2.1
4.3
3.3
4.5
1.9
3.0
2.9

2.04
5.30
1.97
1.03
2.05
0.86
1.86
2.12
1.99

F
7.33a
8.00b
4.57b
11.26a
6.68a
18.52c
7.06a
12.45b
11.12a

Analysis of Apparel Product Developers and Retail Buyers

21

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

Table 7. Analysis of Variance of PAQ Items: Miscellaneous Aspect of Job
Product Developers
(n 5 70)
Mean
SD

Variable
Time pressure
Precision/accuracy
Attention to detail
a

4.2
4.3
4.5

Traditional Retail Buyers
(n 5 77)
Mean
SD

0.95
0.94
0.81

3.8
3.8
4.1

1.12
1.12
0.87

F
4.14a
6.90a
4.33a

p , 0.05.

events (trade shows, association meeting) (X̄ 5 3.41) in performing their job. Particularly, product developers were significantly more likely to use quantitative information (sales data)
(X̄ 5 4.29) in completing their jobs than were the traditional
retail buyers (X 5 3.45; see Table 2).
MENTAL PROCESSES. An overall difference between the two
groups (multivariate F 5 3.10, p , 0.01) was found in mental
processes employed in the job (see Table 1). ANOVA showed
five out of ten subdivisions were perceived to be significantly
differently between product developers and traditional retail
buyers. Product developers were more likely to require the
use of mathematics on the job than were traditional retail
buyers. Product developers also had higher scores and were
significantly more likely to employ the mental processes of
problem solving/analyzing (X̄ 5 4.58), planning/scheduling
(X̄ 5 4.46), and analyzing information (X̄ 5 4.49) than were
the traditional retail buyers. The level of education necessary
for the job activities also was perceived to be significantly
different between the product developers and traditional retail
buyers at the significance level of p , 0.001 (see Table 3).
Traditional retail buyers were more likely to indicate the necessary education to be the level obtained by some college work,
whereas, the retail product developers were more likely to
indicate the necessary level to be that which is by the completion of usual college curriculum.
JOB CONTEXT. An overall difference between the two groups
(multivariate F 5 2.67, p , 0.05) was found (see Table 1).
Univariate analysis of variance resulted in a difference between
the two groups in terms of civic obligations (p , 0.01). Traditional retail buyers (X̄ 5 2.50) perceived it to be more important
than did the product developers (X̄ 5 1.17; see Table 4).

Overall significant difference
(multivariate F 5 7.32, p , 0.001) existed between product
developers and traditional retail buyers (see Table 1). Univariate analysis of variance showed significant differences in three

DEVICES AND ACTIVITIES OF JOB.

subdivisions among four. Specifically, arranging/ positioning
objects and materials, and physical handling objects and materials were perceived to be significantly important activities in
the job of a traditional retail buyer compared with product
developers (p , 0.001). Traditional retail buyers, however,
reported a higher score on the level of physical exertion required to perform the job than did product developers (see
Table 5). This result indicates that traditional retail buyers
are more involved in physically oriented tasks because of their
major tasks of buying and selling activities.
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER PERSONS. Overall, Multivariate
F-test (F 5 2.52) showed significant difference at p , 0.01
(see Table 1). Nine of seventeen subdivisions were perceived
to be significantly differently. Interaction with supervisors,
professional personnel, semiprofessional personnel, buyers,
and middle management were more important for the product
developers than they were for traditional retail buyers, while
interacting with sales personnel, customers and students were
perceived to be more important for the traditional retail buyers
(see Table 6). This may imply that traditional retail buyers,
who are primarily engaged in buying and selling activities,
have a closer relationship with persons who are easily contacted at the stores such as customers and sales personnel
while product developers engaged in product line development tend to cooperate and interact with people in various
levels of the organizational setting.

Multivariate F-test (F 5
1.99, p , 0.05) showed that there is an overall difference
between the two groups in miscellaneous aspects of job (see
Table 1). Three subdivisions out of thirteen were perceived
different by product developers and traditional retail buyers.
Product developers were significantly more likely to rate time
pressure, precision/accuracy, and attention to detail as a more
important job demand compared with traditional retail buyers
(see Table 7).
MISCELLANEOUS ASPECTS OF JOB.

Table 8. Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Job Characteristics for Product Developers and Traditional Retail Buyers (Hotellings t-test)
Test
Hotellings

Value

Exact F

Hypothetical DF

Error DF

Significance of F

0.26

4.68

7.00

126.00

p 5 0.000

22

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

Y.-E. Choi and L. R. Gaskill

Table 9. Analysis of Variance of Job Characteristics

Variable
Autonomy
Dealing with others
Feedback from agent
Feedback from job
Skill variety
Task significance
Task identity
a
b

Product Developers
(n 5 70)
Mean
SD
6.0
6.5
4.2
5.4
6.0
5.9
5.3

Traditional Retail Buyers
(n 5 77)
Mean
SD

0.95
0.68
1.38
1.10
0.90
1.08
1.52

6.4
6.1
4.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.2

0.70
0.87
1.39
1.07
1.05
1.21
1.22

F
6.65a
10.95b
0.18
0.15
10.39a
1.00
4.38a

p , 0.05.
p , 0.01.

Overall, product developers seemed to perform a job that
requires a higher level of mental processes precision/accuracy,
attention to detail, time consciousness, problem solving, analysis, and quantitative skills. Traditional retail buyers, however,
seemed to be engaged in simpler tasks requiring more physical
exertion.
Out of sixty-four total PAQ job content elements and
items, ten (16%) were perceived differently between groups
at the significance level of p , 0.05, nine (14%) were perceived
differently at the significance level of p , 0.01, and five (8%)
were perceived differently at the significance level of p ,
0.001.
Multivariate F-test (F 5 4.68) showed an
overall difference between product developers and traditional
retail buyers at the significance level of p , 0.001 on overall
worker perceptions (see Table 8). Traditional retail buyers
reported more autonomy (X̄ 5 6.35) and task identity (X̄ 5
5.22) than did product developers (X̄ 5 5.96 for autonomy
and X̄ 5 5.01 for task identity). Product developers had
significantly higher scores in terms of dealing with others (X̄ 5
6.51) and skill variety (X̄ 5 5.99) than traditional retail buyers
(X̄ 5 6.35 for dealing with others and X̄ 5 5.46 for skill
variety), both at the significance level p , 0.001 (see Table
9). Product developers required a variety of skills and talents
and different activities in performing their job. They also need
to be able to work with organization members in completing
their job-related product development activities. Noticeably,
traditional retail buyers, who were found to carry out less
complex but more physical exertion–requiring tasks, had
higher autonomy and task identity. Their job may have a
visible outcome and the job-related tasks are easily identified
HYPOTHESIS 2.

because they may work at a smaller organization scale than
product developers.
HYPOTHESIS 3. Hypothesis 3 was supported. ANOVA (F 5
9.813, p 5 0.002) showed the interesting result that overall job
satisfaction is significantly different between the two groups.
Specifically, product developers reported lower levels of job
satisfaction (X̄ 5 5.22) than did traditional retail buyers (X̄ 5
5.69; see Table 10). The Hackman et al.’s (Hackman, Oldham,
Janson, and Purdy, 1975) JCM (job characteristic model) established the causal relationship between the core job characteristics and job satisfaction, suggesting that the core job characteristics lead to job satisfaction. However, autonomy and
task identity, areas where traditional retail buyers reported
higher scores, could be major factors affecting job satisfaction.
HYPOTHESIS 4. A significant difference (p , 0.01) was found
between product developers and traditional retail buyers, supporting hypothesis four. Chi-Square test was used to investigate the difference between product developers and traditional
retail buyers regarding interaction with other departments.
Significantly more product developers (75%) answered “yes”
to a question asking whether or not they were engaged in
team-oriented activities compared with traditional retail buyers (51%). Table 11 shows the number and percentages of
respondents who are engaged in team-oriented activities for
both the product developers and traditional retail buyers. This
finding confirms what had been found in hypothesis one and
two in that the product developers’ job may require the use
of a wide range of relationships and high level of interaction
in their job performance.
Those who answered that they were involved in team-

Table 10. Analysis of Variance
Variable
Overall job satisfaction
SS 5 128.27, DF 5 1, MS 5 128.27.

Product Developers
(n 5 70) Mean

Traditional Retail Buyers
(n 5 77) Mean

F

Significance of F

5.2

5.7

9.18

p 5 0.002

Analysis of Apparel Product Developers and Retail Buyers

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

23

Table 11. Chi-Square Test: Team-Oriented Activity

Yes (%)
No (%)
Total (%)
a

Product Developers
(n 5 70)

Traditional Retailer Buyers
(n 5 77)

48 (75.0)
16 (25.0)
64 (100.0)

34 (57.5)
33 (42.5)
67 (100)

Pearson Chi-Square
8.22a

p , 0.01.

oriented activities were asked in open-ended questions to
indicate what job-related activities they did as a team. A large
number of respondents indicated specific merchandising activities such as buying (N 5 11), sales (N 5 5), forecasting
trends (N 5 4), inventory control (N 5 2), assortment planning (N 5 2), product development (N 5 2), line presentation
(N 5 1), pricing planning (N 5 1), etc. However, some
respondents answered that they were engaged in strategic
planning (N 5 5), decision making (N 5 5), problem solving
(N 5 3), communication (N 5 3), setting goals (N 5 2),
motivating (N 5 1), and more. This result is consistent with
the behavioral theory of the apparel firm (Kunz, 1995), which
suggests that the behavioral aspects of decision making, communication, and problem solving within a firm is a key function in the merchandising division.
The respondents were asked to indicate three departments
they interact most often with. Both product developers and
traditional retail buyers had similar responses to this question
(i.e., finance, store operations, personnel, sales promotion,
merchandising, and production). No significant differences
were reported.
HYPOTHESIS 5. In order to test hypothesis five, MANOVA
was used with the factors generated from principal component
factor analysis as a statistical analysis method. Before MANOVA was run, correlation coefficients matrix were reviewed
to investigate the strength of the correlation between four
generated factors. Pearson test showed a significant relationship among the four factors, specifically between product line
planning activity and preadoption product line development,
product line planning activity and planning pricing strategy,
preadoption product line development and planning pricing
strategy, and preadoption product line development and post-

adoption product development (see Table 12). Satisfying the
assumption that those four factors were highly correlated with
each other, MANOVA was used to test hypothesis five. The
overall F-test (F 5 3.2, DF 5 130) showed a significant
difference between the two groups at the significance level of
p , 0.05 (see Table 13).
Before MANOVA test, Univariate F-test was conducted to
further explore differences between product developers and
traditional retail buyers regarding individual activity factors.
Preadoption product line development activities and postadoption product development were significantly different
between the two groups. Product developers were found to
have higher mean scores on preadoption product development
activities (X̄ 5 25.74) and postadoption product development
(X̄ 5 12.82), than did traditional retail buyers (X̄ 5 22.23
and X̄ 5 10.32, respectively; see Table 14).

Conclusions
The results of this study provided a considerable number of
significant differences between apparel product developers
and traditional retail buyers and supported the five proposed
hypotheses. Figure 1 illustrates the discriminating job elements between product developers and traditional retail buyers along with shared elements or “similarities” of the two
groups. The numerous similarities between the two groups
should be carefully considered by training personnel in determining which job content can be commonly provided and
which cannot in situations where product development and
traditional retail buying take place simultaneously. Similarities
in study results between groups give insight into educational
content to be addressed.

Table 12. Correlation Matrix by Activities Related to Line Development

Variable
Product line planning activity
Preadoption product line development
Pricing strategy planning
Postadoption product development
a
b

p , 0.01.
p , 0.05.

Product Line
Planning Activity

Product Line
Development

Pricing Strategy
Planning

1.000

0.333a
1.000

0.422a
0.486a
1.000

Postadoption
Product
Development
0.006
0.582
0.199b
1.000

24

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

Y.-E. Choi and L. R. Gaskill

Table 13. Multivariate Hotellings t-Tests of Significance: Activities Related to Line Development
Test

Value

Hotelling-Lawley Trace F

Hypoth. DF

Error DF

Significance of F

Hotelling-Lawley Trace

0.098

3.20

4.00

130.00

p 5 0.015

Despite the fact that the results of this study provided
evidence that product developers need a higher level of jobrelated skills and knowledge than traditional retail buyers, the
two groups did view the need for updated job knowledge,
job-related experience, and training similarly. This finding
suggests that retailers, whether they are engaged in the product
development process or not, value and recognize the need for
training, experience, job-related skills, and updated knowledge.
From the demographic profile of the subjects in this study,
traditional retail buyers had more years of retail experience
than did the product developers. However, the product developers had a higher educational level than did the traditional
retail buyers. Product developers, also, rated the importance
of education higher than did the traditional retail buyers. This
finding, in part, supports the belief of Frank (1992) that it
requires a high level of knowledge, education, and training
in order to transform a buyer into a product developer. Until
the completion of this study, however, the extent to which the
job content and worker perceptions differed for the individuals
engaged in the merchandising line development process was
not understood. This finding, alone, has significant implications for apparel companies that are either currently operating
or initiating product development programs, or reengineering
traditional retail buyers to become product developers.
In comparison to traditional retail buyers, this study also
found product developers used more quantitative information
(sales data) and mathematics; required more planning and
scheduling; analyzing and problem solving; precision, accuracy, attention to detail; and time consciousness. Traditional
retail buyers, compared with product developers, were found
to be more physical exertion–oriented in performing their job.
These findings do offer evidence that the product development
position in retailing requires a higher level of skills and ability
in their job performance than currently exists in the traditional
retail buyer role.
Study findings should be carefully considered by contemporary retailers as increasing numbers of retailers turn to

product development as a differential strategy in today’s depressed and competitive retail environment. Repositioning
and retraining current retail buyers to engage in product development is not a simple matter. Not only do the general merchandising activities significantly differ, but specific behavioral
dimensions differ with the greater challenge with the product
developer.
These study results also should be useful to retail personnel
managers. Such individuals have responsibility for generating
job analysis information. Information that is deemed necessary
in personnel recruitment and selection, training, performance
assessment, job evaluation, and job design.
Study results should be carefully considered by educators
responsible for the training and development of tomorrow’s
merchandisers. Students on college campuses who are preparing for retail careers can benefit through an understanding of
the differences and similarities between product developers
and traditional retail buyers in terms of their job requirements.

Limitations
This study has several limitations including those attributed
to the JDS (job diagnostic survey) instrument measure. The
Cronbach’s alpha scores were relatively low but increased if
negative wording items were deleted. Factor loadings were
also low ranging from 0.19 to 0.84. This raises a question
regarding the reliability of the JDS measurement.
Secondly, combining four different measurement instruments and differing scales lessened the consistency of the
format of the questionnaire and resulted in difficulty in data
analysis. Also, using open-ended questions in a mailed questionnaire to inquire about interactions with other departments
did not allow for probing and reminding tools. Other data
gathering methods could have allowed for more in-depth and
meaningful responses.
Another limitation of the study is the control of extraneous
variables. The product line development process at the retail

Table 14. F-Test with (1, 133) D.F.: Activities Related to Line Development

Planning product line
Preadoption product line development
Planning pricing strategy
Postadoption product development
a

p , 0.05.

Product Developers
(n 5 70) Mean

Traditional Retail Buyers
(n 5 77) Mean

F

12.2
25.7
8.0
12.8

11.5
22.2
8.0
10.3

2.59
5.56a
0.10
4.75a

Analysis of Apparel Product Developers and Retail Buyers

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

Figure 1. Job dimension differences and similarities between product developers and traditional retail buyers.

25

26

J Busn Res
2000:49:15–34

level likely exists in a larger company because it requires a
relatively high investment and product development experts.
Other than the type of retailers (whether they are product
developers or traditional retail buyers), the size of a company
in which the respondents were engaged in could be interrupted as an extraneous variable.
Finally, this study was limited to men’s and boy’s, and
women’s and children’s specialty stores. The result of this
study may not be generalized to other retail sectors, such as
mail-order catalogue, department, and discount store retailers.
Generalizability of the study results has yet to be determined.

References
Adams, M. J.: Private Label Programs: Major Changes. Stores 71 (June
1989): 10–19.
Agins, T.: Big Stores Put Own Labels on Best Clothes. Wall Street
Journal (September 26, 1994): B1, B10.
Anthony, C. A. E., and Jolly, L. D.: The Influence of Uncertainty
on Ratings of Information Importance by Retail Apparel Buyers.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10 (1991): 1–7.
Armstrong, J. S., and Overton, T. S.: Estimating Nonresponse Bias
in Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1977): 196–402.
Barmash, I.: Strategies for Private Brand Growth. Stores 68 (April
1986): 24–28.
Bergman, J.: Cookie-Cutters and Clones? Stores 67 (June 1985):
14–97.
Bowditch, J. L., and Buono, A. F.: A Primer on Organizational Behavior,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 1994.
Brauth, B., and Brown, P.: Merchandising Methods. Apparel Industry
Magazine (1989): 108–110.
Brown, P., and Brauth, B.: Merchandising Methods. Apparel Industry
Magazine (1989): 78–82.
Clodfelter, R.: Retail Buying: From Staples to Fashions to Fads, Delmar
Publisher Inc., New York. 1993.
Davis, L. E., and Tylor, J. C.: Design of Jobs, Cox & Wyman Ltd.,
London. 1972.
Dillman, D. A.: Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 1978.
Directory of Men’s and Boys’ Wear Specialty Stores 1995, Business
Guide, New York. 1995.
Directory of Women’s and Children’s Wear Specialty Stores 1995, Business Guide, New York. 1995.
Dunham, R. B., Aldag, R. J., and Brief, A. P.: Dimensionality of Task
Design as Measured by the Job Diagnostic Survey. Academy of
Management Journal 20 (1977): 209–223.
Epstein, S. H.: Understanding the Consumer in the ’90s. Discount
Merchandiser 32 (December 1992): 44–45.
Ettenson, R., and Wagner, J.: Retail Buyers’ Salability Judgments: A
Comparison of Information Use Across Three Levels of Experience. Journal of Retailing 62 (1986): 41–63.
Fickes, M.: Private Label: It’s Coming around Again. Bobbin 35 (December 1993): 70–71.
Fiorito, S. S., and Fairhurst, A. E.: Buying for the Small Apparel
Retail Store: Job Content across Four Merchandise Categories.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 8 (1989): 10–21.
Fiorito, S. S., and Fairhurst, A. E.: Comparison of Buyers’ Job Content

Y.-E. Choi and L. R. Gaskill

in Large and Small Retail Firms. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal 4 (1993): 1–8.
Ford, R. N.: Motivation through the Work Itself, American Management
Association, Inc., New York. 1969.
Francis, S. K., and Brown, D. J.: Retail Buyers of Apparel and Appliances: A Comparison. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 4
(1986): 1–8.
Frank, B.: Merchandising Private Label Apparel. Retail Business Review
60 (1992): 24–26.
Gaskill, L. R.: Toward A Model of Ret