Analysis of Strategic Orientation on Organisation Performance of Selected Seed Companies in Uganda

This analysis investigated the influence of strategic orientation on the organizational performance of a specific set of seed companies operating in Uganda. The seed industry is a pivotal component of the agricultural sector, facilitating the supply of high-quality seeds to farmers and thereby bolstering food security and economic growth. Nevertheless, there exists a dearth of research on the strategic orientation of seed companies in Uganda and how it affects their overall performance. This study adopted a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative data analysis and qualitative interviews. A sample of handpicked seed companies in Uganda was served as the subject of this analysis. Quantitative data was acquired through surveys that center on crucial performance metrics like market share, sales growth, and profitability. Additionally, qualitative interviews were be conducted with key figures within the industry to gain deeper insights into the strategic orientation of these seed companies. It is observed that seed companies that demonstrate a well-defined strategic direction aligned with market demands and opportunities tend to outperform their competitors. The study was structured around several primary objectives: to assess the influence of a cost leadership strategy on the performance of seed companies, to appraise the impact of a growth strategy on the performance of seed firms, and to examine the impact of a differentiation strategy on the performance of seed companies. As the majority of research inquiries revolve around "how" and "what," this study primarily employed descriptive research methods to address these questions. The research population consisted of 200 individuals, encompassing managers, supervisors, and service personnel. The sample size, determined using Fisher's formula, comprises 62 respondents. Data collection was primarily conducted through a questionnaire, serving as the foundational tool. Collected data was subsequently coded and input into either a

There have been several global studies conducted on issues of strategic orientation on organisation performance of selected seed companies.A research investigation conducted by Pariyar, Upadhyaya, and Gautam (2019) explored the connection between strategic orientation and the financial performance of seed companies in Nepal.The findings of the study revealed a positive correlation between financial performance and the adoption of cost leadership and differentiation strategies.Conversely, the focus strategy exhibited a negative correlation with financial performance.In light of these results, the researchers drew the conclusion that seed companies in Nepal should prioritize the implementation of cost leadership and differentiation strategies to enhance their financial performance, as also highlighted by Zhang (2022).In another investigation carried out by de Almeida and Barros (2016), the focus was on exploring the connection between strategic orientation and the innovation performance of seed companies in Brazil.The study uncovered a positive correlation between innovation performance and the adoption of differentiation and focus strategies, while a negative correlation was observed in the case of the cost leadership strategy.The researcher suggested that seed companies in Brazil will adopt differentiation and focus strategies to achieve better innovation performance.Ferreira and Marques (2019) conducted a study examining the impact of strategic orientation on the export performance of seed companies in Portugal.The study found that differentiation and focus strategies were positively correlated with export performance, while cost leadership strategy was negatively correlated with export performance.The researcher recommended that seed companies in Portugal will focus on differentiation and focus strategies to improve their export performance.These international studies imply that depending on the particular setting and market circumstances, the efficacy of general tactics on the performance of seed enterprises differ.Nevertheless, it has been ascertained that the focus strategy proves to be less potent in bolstering financial performance compared to the cost leadership and differentiation strategies.Similarly, differentiation and focus strategies have exhibited greater efficacy than the cost leadership strategy in enhancing both innovation performance and export performance, as elucidated by Yu (2020).In Africa the seed trade remains at a developing stage and most seed corporations focus a lot on the governable factors essential for his or her success like products, production and promoting and this has hindered the trade to re-strategize towards development.The foremost common external factors moving the seed sector development are output structured grain market, poor government laws, lack of data or no track records on the seed trade, dynamic business environments, low buying power and low profitability among others.These factors have drastically been key on why seed corporations have unceasingly performed poorly thence driving away any potential investors into the seed trade (Yang, 2023).In one study, Omrane and Al-Ali (2016) scrutinized how generic business tactics affected seed businesses' success in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) area.According to the study, focus strategy was adversely connected with performance, but differentiation and cost leadership strategies were positively correlated with performance.The researcher recommended that seed companies in the MENA region will focus on differentiation and cost leadership strategies to achieve better performance.Another study conducted by Jabeen, Mirza, and Irfan (2019) studied the effect of strategic orientation on organisation performance of selected seed companies in Pakistan.The study found that differentiation and cost leadership strategies were positively correlated with performance, while focus strategy was negatively correlated with performance.The The researcher suggested that seed companies in Pakistan will focus on differentiation and cost leadership strategies to improve their performance.A study by Syed, Majeed, and Asghar (2017) studied the effect of strategic orientation on organisation performance of selected seed companies in India.The research discovered that differentiation and cost leadership strategies were positively correlated with performance, while focus strategy was negatively correlated with performance.The The researcher recommended that seed companies in India will focus on differentiation and cost leadership strategies to achieve better performance.These regional studies suggest that the effectiveness of strategic orientation on the performance of selected seed companies vary based on the specific context and market conditions in each region.However, strategic orientation like cost leadership and product differentiation have been found to be more effective than focus strategy in improving performance in the MENA region, Pakistan, and India One study conducted by Atuhurra et al. ( 2019) studied the challenges faced by smallholder seed companies in Uganda.The study found that the lack of differentiation and branding of seed products made it difficult for smallholder seed companies to compete with larger, established seed companies.The study recommended that smallholder seed companies in Uganda will focus on differentiation and branding to improve their competitiveness and performance.Another study by Muwanguzi and Ojangole (2015) studied the effect of quality control on the performance of seed companies in Uganda.The study found that seed companies that implemented quality control measures such as seed testing and certification had higher sales volumes and better financial performance than companies that did not implement quality control measures.While these studies do not specifically focus on the effect of strategic orientation on the performance of selected seed companies in Uganda, they suggest that factors such as differentiation, branding, and quality control were important for improving the performance of seed companies in the country.Further research is needed to explore the specific impact of strategic orientation on the performance of selected seed companies in Uganda Locally seed businesses further focus a lot on creating seed of improved varieties accessible to remote farmers with low buying power, further as partaking them during a continuous loop to form analysis priorities.However, they continuously tend to antecede either to try an intensive research, acquire adequate physical, monetary and human capital, build a scientific operational activities or promote trade activities; that are part of the strategic management practices and this ends up in poor performance thence the collapse of most seed businesses (Vuyst, 2023).However, with the expansion of agriculture in Uganda; seed corporations are still failing to sustain themselves within the trade thence leaving few dominant major corporations within the game.This has created a monopolized policy that sees minor seed corporations face a really hostile market surroundings.There's restricted knowledge on corporations within the seed sector and this has wedged on the general performance thence preventing the increase in number of seed corporations.The utilization of strategic management practices has groomed major seed corporations through surprising growth challenges thence produce competitiveness and performance of those seed corporations (Moore and Manring, 2009).

Statement of the problem
The seed industry is an important sector in Uganda's agriculture, providing farmers with high-quality seeds for improved crop yields and productivity.However, the industry is facing challenges such as inadequate access to finance, limited market information, and low adoption of modern technologies.In addition, the industry is highly competitive, with many seed companies operating in the market.In this context, it is important to examine the effect of strategic orientation on the performance of selected seed companies in Uganda.Strategic orientation like differentiation, cost leadership, and focus are commonly used by companies to gain a competitive advantage and improve their performance.However, it is not clear how these strategies are being implemented in the Ugandan seed industry and whether they are effective in improving the performance of selected seed companies.Therefore, this study intends to examine the effect of strategic orientation on the performance of selected seed companies in Uganda, and how are these strategies being implemented in the industry?

Purpose of the study
This study aims to examine how generic techniques affect the performance of Ugandan seed firms.

Study Objectives
1. To explore how seed company performance is affected by cost leadership approach.2. To analyze how seed company performance is impacted by differentiation strategy.3. To determine how the performance of seed firms is impacted by focus strategy.

Research questions a)
To what extent have cost leadership strategy improved on the performance of seed companies?b) How has the use of differentiation focus strategy affected the performance by seed companies?c) To what extent has the usage of focus strategy affected the overall performance of seed companies?

Significance of the study
By identifying the strategic orientation used by seed companies and determining their effectiveness, the study will provide insights on how to improve the competitiveness of the seed industry in Uganda.The study will equip seed firms with knowledge on the best general marketing tactics to use to improve their performance in the marketplace.Policymakers were informed by the study's conclusions about the difficulties seed firms have using generic methods and how to solve them.The research will contribute to the corpus of knowledge in academia about strategic orientation and how they affect business performance in developing nations like Uganda.By improving the competitiveness and performance of seed companies in Uganda, the study will contribute to sustainable development by enhancing food security and improving livelihoods in the agricultural sector.When this research study is carried out, it's intended to be used as basis for guidance by small seed companies on applying relevant use of key strategic orientation for better performance and further be used for academic purposes for the award of a Masters of Business and Administration and students will refer to it through its wider literature.

Scope of the study
This study is to analyze the effect of strategic orientation on organisation performance of selected seed companies in Uganda.It will mainly focus on three seed companies namely; NASECO (1996) Ltd., FICA Seeds and East African Seeds with the population of 200 employees consisting of 20 managers and 180 low level employees.This study is anticipated to take around thirteen (13) weeks of data collection, data analysis and presentation of the findings.The study will take place in Kampala and it will pivot on strategic orientation and a firm's performance of selected seed companies in Uganda.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction
Three areas of emphasis: theoretical, empirical and conceptual frame works form basis of this chapter.First it reveals the theoretical and conceptual background that is related to the sustainable performance of seed companies and strategic orientation and lastly the recap of literature review.The seed industry in Uganda plays a critical role in ensuring food security, poverty reduction, and sustainable agricultural development.Seed companies in Uganda face numerous challenges, including a lack of access to finance, inadequate infrastructure, and limited market opportunities.In order to surmount these challenges and maintain their competitiveness, seed companies in Uganda must embrace effective strategic orientations, including cost leadership, differentiation, and focus.While numerous studies have scrutinized the influence of strategic orientation on company performance in developed nations, there remains a dearth of empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of these strategies in emerging markets like Uganda.Consequently, this study seeks to bridge this gap in the literature by investigating the impact of strategic orientation on the performance of selected seed companies in Uganda.To accomplish this, the study will employ a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis techniques.Data will be gathered from a sample of seed companies in Uganda through structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.The analysis will encompass descriptive statistics and regression analysis to discern the impact of strategic orientation on company performance.The anticipated findings of this study hold the promise of offering valuable insights into the effectiveness of strategic orientation within the seed industry in Uganda.These insights will serve as guidance for seed companies in selecting the most suitable strategies to augment their performance.Moreover, the study's results will be of significance to policymakers as they develop policies to bolster the seed industry in Uganda, thus contributing to the body of knowledge regarding generic strategies and their repercussions on company performance within emerging markets.

Theoretical literature
The effect of strategic orientation on the performance of selected seed companies in Uganda can be studied through various theoretical frameworks.Cost leadership, differentiation, and focus are the three strategic orientations that organizations utilize to gain a competitive edge, according to strategic orientation.Offering goods or services at the lowest possible price in the market while retaining a respectable degree of quality is known as a cost leadership approach.Companies can use this tactic to entice clients who are price-sensitive and boost profitability by making cost-cutting measures.Offering distinctive, superior goods and services that customers appreciate and that are difficult for rivals to duplicate is the basis of differentiation strategy.This tactic enables businesses to charge premium rates, cultivate client loyalty, and increase profitability (Sisay, 2022) Focus strategy entails focusing on a certain consumer group, product line, or geographic area and designing goods and services to suit their specific requirements.By concentrating on a small and niche market area rather than attempting to compete with bigger, more varied competitors, this approach helps businesses to gain a competitive edge (Sisay, 2022).The Resource-Based View (RBV) of the company is another paradigm that were used to examine how generic methods affect the performance of particular seed enterprises in Uganda.According to this concept, a company's assets and capabilities are what really determine its performance and competitive advantage.A company create a durable competitive advantage that is hard for rivals to match by utilizing its special resources and talents.Finally, the Dynamic Capability Theory proposes that a company's potential to familiarize to varying market conditions and internal challenges is critical to its long-term success.This theory argues that companies that are able to continuously innovate and adapt their strategies in response to varying market conditions are better able to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage and long-term success.Overall, these theoretical frameworks can help in understanding how strategic orientation such as cost leadership, differentiation, and focus can impact the performance of selected seed companies in Uganda Dynamic Capabilities Dynamic capabilities consequently are strategic routines through which companies procure incipient resource layouts as markets tend to appear, clash, break, develop, and collapse.However, there is a compelling factor to build a transparent distinction between dynamic and purposeful competencies.Pisano (1994) added that if resources produce the inputs, the firm's effectiveness represent its capacity to diversify inputs into innovative outputs, coordinate and place it in productive use.Dynamic capabilities which will also be defined as meta-capabilities or higher-order are very significant due to the current lower order competences; firms are able to avoid path dependencies imposed by them (Collis, 1994).In that a company must build skills to grasp and reinterpret its resource base in order to create new sources of competitive advantage and escape the trap set by its present competencies.According to Henderson and Cockburn (1994), the amount of knowledge integration outside of the company's market structure has a good impact on its productivity and has a major impact on the company's success.

Resource Based View Theory (RBV)
According to this theory, its looks at the unit key determinants of competitive advantage and performance.Trujens (2003) states that the theory critics are academically and essentially necessary in distinguishing the precise benefaction of the theory's present perceptions on the relatedness between an organization 's competitive advantage, capabilities and resources.In that they suggest ways to address such criticisms and help in unveiling areas of theoretical attention.He ahead asserts that an important discussion and examination of any theory is that the solely progressive step to challenge theorists to have constant redaction and fine-tune on their studies and to higher any theory's theoretical soundness.A firm's resources embrace all assets, knowledge, structure processes, info, capabilities, among others managed by a firm that permits it to implement and conceive ways to higher its effectiveness and potency (Barney, 1991).Ketchen (2001) state that academicians and the researcher haven't been able to evaluate intangible resources, despite the various benefits of the RBV theory of a firm and this contributed to some students to start out exploitation of depository proxies.They additionally acknowledged that their proxy even be used as a performance evaluation.Therein they supply three pivotal cases to reinforce their perspectives regarding the insufficiency of the succeeding factual strategies.First, "the utilization of cross-sectional analysis is very improbable to permit differentiation between the variability of effects related to trade, time, strategy, resource or capability of interest and surroundings.Second, the info accumulated from secondary sources (e.g., trade sodality newsletters, trade journals and annual reports) are too accessible on the market to any or all competitors and thence will't be measures of valuable and distinctive competencies.Third, intrusive ways provide the key to unveiling benefits; this is often as a result of as "sustainable advantages being extremely unreproducible, tacit, in all probability synergistic, origin, socially advanced and specialize in pinpointing idiosyncrasies that provides a firm's distinctive strength.After finding out the numerous relationships between performance, entrepreneurial orientation and resources; Wiklund and Shepherd (2003) state that a firm's performance ought to be measured and supported a wider dimension, specifically power, procedural and structure data, net profit, client satisfaction, risk taking, product and method innovation, service quality and selection, product quality and selection, income and sales growth.They additionally argue that RBV analysis emphasizes primarily on the traits of resources, the manner companies are organized and overlooking the bond between resources.RBV contends that all performance variations are explicable in terms of the unequal efficiency of the resources underpinning strategies, which has led to criticism that it is extremely restricted in its analytical core (Foss, 2002).Because it discourages opportunistic conduct and permits firm-specific investment, the firm frequently acquires a sustained competitive advantage (Mahoney, 2001).

Empirical literature
In Uganda, the seed business was long under government control and backed by money from overseas donors and public sector research organizations.The Seeds and Plants Act, 2006, which offers for the marketing, regulation, seed multiplication, variety release, import / export, control of plant breeding, promotion, quality insurance of seeds, seed multiplication, conditioning and other planting materials for self-use and other cognate is consequential, regulates and implements all seed industry regulatory operations, including seed trade (Acharya, 2018).As a consequence of trade liberalization and privatization policy, the involvement of the private seed industry has increased significantly, leading in the creation of local and pilgrim predicated seed businesses engaged in seed generation, processing and marketing.Subsequently, the formal and informal seed distribution channels are presently functioning in Uganda in two primary classifications.The formal seed supply scheme includes the whole process of seed generation and certification and is connected to exploration, engendering, processing and advertising (NARO,2020).It is structured by seed companies / enterprises on a business substructure and is fully controlled by government.The seed produced by the official seed industry has a strong value for genetics and purity.Regretfully, this source of seed adds only about 20 percent to the provided seed.On the other side, the casual seed system does not have a seed generation chain integrated and is highly uncontrolled.In most cases, the source and quality of the seed used for planting is not kenned.It is predominantly communitybased seed generation (use of preserved seed from the farm) and contributes the bulk of seed supply to the farming community.This has in turn lowered the yield of farmers who are not able to purchase the highquality seed from the formal sector (Curry, 2023).The informal sector has been a very competitive sector compared to the formal sector since most farmers ought to purchase cheaper seed quality.Over the years farmers have been able to notice the drastic yield difference between improved and local seeds; which prompted to the high adaptability of improved seeds on the market (Akbari, 2023).The current situation with seed supply is that it has become everyone's business thus widespread access, inadequate inspection owing to limited capacity in government, high prevalence of pests and diseases amidst climate change, quantities have expanded over the years, and generally inferior quality due to adulteration.In that it has hindered the performance and profitability of seed companies who are unable to cope with these changes.Seed companies both national and multinational are one of the major actors in the seed sector and their role is production, research, quality maintenance, processing and marketing including distribution (Curry, 2023).The lack of sustainable seed supply systems due to the poor seed awareness among farmers.Low use of improved seed by farmers has also been a major cause to the poor performance of seed companies in Uganda; as the adoption rate is estimated at 10% (UNADA, 2020).This is due to the lack of information, appreciation of the importance of improved seed and mostly the disappointment by the quality of seed on the market under marks of the registered credible seed companies.Moreover, due to the inadequate monitoring and inspection of seed dealers by USCS, unscrupulous seed dealers, poor supervision of seed producers and lack of operating standards by seed companies have promoted the increase of poor seed quality on the market.All these have contributed to unsustainable performance of seed companies on the Uganda market (USTA, 2016).Several empirical studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between strategic orientation and performance in the seed industry.These studies have used a variety of research designs, methodologies, and performance measures.Tripathy and Singh (2013) conducted a second study to look at how generic methods performed in the Indian seed market.According to the research, companies that used a differentiation approach had a larger market share and profitability than those who used a cost leadership strategy.
Similarly, a study by Yadav et al. (2019) studied the impact of strategic orientation on the performance of Indian seed companies.The study found that firms that adopted a differentiation strategy had higher profitability and growth rates than those that adopted a cost leadership strategy.These empirical studies suggest that the adoption of strategic orientation can significantly impact the performance of seed companies.However, the findings vary depending on the industry and market conditions.It is important for seed companies to carefully consider their industry and market conditions before deciding on which generic strategy to adopt.2021) conducted a study within the Pakistani seed sector to explore the relationship between the utilization of generic strategies and company performance.Their findings revealed that companies implementing cost leadership and differentiation strategies exhibited superior financial performance compared to those that did not.In a similar vein, Irfan et al. (2019) investigated the impact of Porter's generic strategies on the success of Pakistani seed firms.The study unveiled that the adoption of both differentiation and cost leadership strategies had a positive influence on business performance.Shifting the focus to the Indian seed industry, Zaman et al. (2020) delved into the correlation between strategic orientation and firm performance.Their research highlighted that companies embracing cost leadership and differentiation strategies outperformed their counterparts in terms of financial performance.Memon and Uqaili (2017) also examined the connection between company performance and Porter's generic methods in the Pakistani seed industry, concluding that the adoption of differentiation and focus strategies yielded positive effects on firm performance.Mujtaba et al. (2021) scrutinized the impact of strategic orientation on the performance of Indian seed companies.Their research echoed the findings of previous studies, indicating that firms implementing cost leadership and differentiation strategies enjoyed enhanced financial performance.Collectively, these studies underscore the positive influence of strategic orientation, particularly through the implementation of cost leadership, differentiation, and focus strategies, on the performance of seed companies.These findings offer valuable insights for seed companies seeking to enhance their performance through strategic orientation.Shifting the geographical focus, Zhang et al. (2016) explored the effect of strategic orientation on the performance of Chinese seed companies.Their study illuminated that the adoption of strategic orientation had a favorable impact on both financial and non-financial performance measures.In a different context, Mohammed et al. (2019) investigated the influence of strategic orientation on the organizational performance of selected seed companies in Kenya.Their study revealed that the adoption of strategic orientation significantly bolstered the financial performance of these seed companies.The effectiveness of generic strategies on the success of seed enterprises in Iraq was the subject of research by Al-Ghazali and Weir (2015).According to their study, the utilization of generic solutions enhanced both financial and non-financial performance indicators.Examining the impact of generic strategy on the success of seed firms in the United States, Bockstette et al. (2017) found that the adoption of generic strategies improved the financial performance of these seed firms, although it had a limited effect on non-financial performance indicators.Sharma and Singh (2017) investigated the influence of generic tactics on the performance of seed firms in India.Their research indicated that the application of generic strategies had a positive impact on both financial and non-financial performance indicators.Furthermore, Elenkov and Manev (2005) found that companies employing differentiation strategies often achieved larger market shares and greater profits compared to those adopting cost leadership strategies.Similarly, Li and Tang's research (2010) suggested that businesses with a targeted differentiation strategy tended to experience faster growth and higher profitability than those primarily following a focused cost leadership approach.A study by Wu and Wang (2012) found that firms that adopt a cost leadership strategy tend to have higher market share and profitability than firms that adopt a differentiation strategy.A study by Lian et al. ( 2019) found that firms that adopt a differentiation strategy tend to have higher innovation and customer satisfaction levels than firms that adopt a cost leadership strategy.These studies suggest that the adoption of strategic orientation can significantly impact a firm's performance, depending on the industry and market conditions.Seed companies that adopt the right generic strategy can improve their performance in terms of profitability, market share, growth rate, innovation, and customer satisfaction.However, it is important for seed companies to carefully consider their industry and market conditions before deciding on which generic strategy to adopt.• Customer turnover • Sales turnover

Dependent variables
Performance of selected seed companies: Conceptual review Michael Porter's strategic framework encompasses three primary generic business strategies: cost leadership, differentiation, and focus.Differentiation strategy centers on the creation of unique and valuable products or services that resonate with customers, setting the company apart from competitors.Conversely, cost leadership strategy is predicated on providing products and services at a lower cost than rival firms, aiming to achieve a competitive advantage through cost efficiency.Focus strategy, on the other hand, revolves around concentrating on a specific market segment and tailoring products and services to cater to their distinct needs.Within the realm of agriculture, seed companies play a pivotal role in the development, production, and distribution of seeds for various crops.Their performance is commonly assessed by metrics such as market share, revenue growth, and profitability, as highlighted by Akbari (2023).In terms of cost leadership, seed companies can achieve this by optimizing their production processes, investing in research and development to develop cost-efficient seed varieties, and implementing effective supply chain management.By doing so, they can offer competitive prices and capture a larger market share.Differentiation can be achieved by developing unique seed varieties that have distinct characteristics such as higher yields, disease resistance, or drought tolerance.Companies that differentiate themselves in this way can command premium prices and build brand loyalty among farmers (Sisay, 2022).Focus strategies were particularly effective for seed companies that target specific crops or regions.By tailoring their products and services to the specific needs of their target market, they can build strong relationships with customers and establish a dominant market position in that segment (Sisay, 2022).The choice of generic strategy depends on the company's resources, capabilities, and the competitive landscape in which it operates.However, regardless of the strategy chosen, seed companies must maintain a focus on innovation, quality, and customer satisfaction to achieve sustainable growth and profitability (Sisay, 2022).Among Michael Porter's trio of fundamental generic strategies, the focus strategy stands out.This approach involves concentrating on a specific market segment and crafting products and services tailored to meet their unique demands In the context of seed companies, a focus strategy involves targeting a specific crop or region and developing seed varieties that are best suited for those specific conditions.In analyzing the performance of selected seed companies that have adopted a focus strategy, several key factors were considered: Market Share: Seed companies that adopt a focus strategy tend to have a relatively small market share in the overall market.However, they have a dominant market position in the specific segment they are targeting.Therefore, their performance was evaluated based on their market share in the target market rather than the overall market.Revenue Growth: Employing a focus approach enables seed businesses to customize their goods and services to fit the unique requirements of their target market.Farmers are prepared to pay more for seed types that perform well in particular environments, which can result in increased income growth (Yu, 2020).Profitability: Companies that adopt a focus strategy can achieve higher profitability by reducing their costs through economies of scale and specialization.They can also command premium prices for their specialized seed varieties, which can increase their profit margins (Yu, 2020).Innovation: Seed companies that focus on a specific market segment have a greater ability to innovate and develop new seed varieties that are tailored to the specific needs of their target market.This can lead to a competitive advantage and help them maintain their dominant market position in the target segment (Yu, 2020).
Customer Satisfaction: By focusing on a specific market segment, seed companies can provide more personalized service and support to their customers.Customers were more satisfied and loyal as a result, which encourage repeat business and favorable word-of-mouth referrals.In conclusion, seed businesses who desire to target a particular crop or area find success with a focus strategy (Yu, 2020).By developing their goods and services to specifically address the requirements of their target market, they can achieve higher revenue growth, profitability, and customer satisfaction.However, to succeed with a focus strategy, seed companies must maintain a strong focus on innovation, quality, and customer service Targeting a particular market niche and providing goods or services at lower costs than rivals are examples of a cost focus approach.In the context of seed companies, a cost focus strategy involves targeting a specific crop or region and offering seed varieties at a lower cost than competitors.Cost Structure: To achieve a cost focus strategy, seed companies must have a cost structure that is lower than their competitors.This involve reducing costs in areas such as production, distribution, and marketing.Companies that can achieve a lower cost structure can offer their products at lower prices and gain a competitive advantage in the target market segment (Zhang, 2022).Economies of Scale: Seed companies that adopt a cost focus strategy achieve economies of scale by focusing on a specific crop or region.This allows them to optimize their production processes and reduce their per-unit production costs.Companies that can achieve economies of scale can offer their products at a lower cost and achieve higher profitability.Supply Chain Management: By streamlining logistics, lowering inventory, and limiting waste, effective supply chain management help seed firms' lower expenses.Companies that can achieve cost savings through effective supply chain management can offer their products at a lower cost and achieve higher profitability (Zhang, 2022).Market Position: Companies that adopt a cost focus strategy have a lower market share in the overall market, but they have a dominant position in the target market segment.To achieve higher performance, companies must maintain their dominant position in the target market segment and continue to offer products at a lower cost than competitors.Quality Control: Companies that adopt a cost focus strategy must maintain high levels of quality control to ensure that their products meet the specific needs of their target market segment.By offering highquality products at a lower cost than competitors, companies can achieve higher customer satisfaction and loyalty (Zhang, 2022).In conclusion, a cost focus strategy can be an effective approach for seed companies that want to target a specific crop or region and offer products at a lower cost than competitors.To achieve higher performance, seed companies must have a lower cost structure, achieve economies of scale, effectively manage their supply chain, maintain their dominant market position, and maintain high levels of quality control.Mazzarol (2004) indicated that innovation is less proven in massive companies than in small companies thanks to the actual fact that smaller companies ought to perpetually adapt to the dynamic environments.This defines a robust market orientation thus the requirement to respond to client demands is understood as a chance for seed firms to perpetually modify their product offerings.Will Ugandan seed firms extremely attain larger performance while not having correct innovative strategies in place?Firms' resources become strategic once they square measure non-transferable or haven't any shut substitutes, valuable, and tough to be derived by competitors and the square measure the link to their performance.What is more, resources are often accustomed upon entry barriers so to improve the performance at the trade level.Ergo, key aspects of resources within the performance of diminutive seeds firms in Uganda were brought out in this study.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 3.0 Introduction
The research methodology for analyzing the strategic orientation on the performance of selected seed companies involves using a descriptive research design, a purposive sampling technique, data collection methods that include secondary sources and primary data through surveys and interviews, data analysis using descriptive statistics and regression analysis, ethical considerations, and limitations.

Research design
The methods and tools that were utilized to collect data are outlined in the research design.After it finally explains means by which data collected were presented and studied.This study will use descriptive design.This is because descriptive research gets information on the subsisting status of a phenomenon and describes what subsists in regard to variables or conditions in a situation (Mugenda, 2020).It offers responses to inquiries concerning the who, what, when, where, and how a specific phenomenon is linked to a particular research question but cannot definitively provide explanations for the "why."The data on the performance (dependent variable) and growth, differentiation and cost leadership strategies (independent variables) were collected from the respondents at the same time using a questionnaire.

Target Population
The chosen seed firms who have been in business for at least five years and have embraced one of the three general strategies (cost leadership, differentiation, or focus) will make up the study's target population.The population would be limited to seed companies within a specific geographic region or country, depending on the scope of the study.The size of the population would depend on the number of seed companies that meet the inclusion criteria.The study also targets industry experts, academics, and policymakers who have knowledge and experience in the seed industry and can provide valuable insights into the adoption of strategic orientation and their impact on performance.The target population were identified through various sources, such as industry associations, online directories, and government databases.For the study, a representative sample of seed businesses and industry experts would be chosen using a purposive sampling approach.The study is to concentrate on seed companies located within the districts of Kampala, particularly three seed companies (East African Seed (U) Ltd., FICA Seeds Ltd. and NASECO (1996) Ltd.These seed companies are chosen because of their large contribution into the development of agriculture as an industry and key players in the Ugandan agricultural sector with a stance to provide clear views on the effect of strategic orientation on organisation performance of selected seed companies.All staffs at different managerial levels working with the above stated seed companies were included in the study.

Sampling Size Determination
The Fisher's formula was used to determine the sample size for this investigation.

Data collection methods and procedures
In this study, primary data were collected using a pilot tested questionnaire to eliminate sources of error.
The questionnaire was administered to all the respondents in the sample in hand or electronically by mail.Secondary Data Collection: This would provide information on the selected seed companies' financial performance, market share, sales, and other relevant metrics.The secondary data collection would be useful for identifying the companies that meet the inclusion criteria and for providing a broad overview of the seed industry.Survey Questionnaire: A survey questionnaire would be developed to collect primary data from the selected seed companies.The survey would aim to gather information on the generic strategy adopted by the seed companies, the factors that impacted the adoption of the strategy, the perceived benefits and drawbacks of the strategy, and the impact of the strategy on performance.The survey questionnaire would be pre-tested with a small group of seed company executives to ensure that it is clear, concise, and relevant.
Interviews: In-depth interviews would be conducted with a subset of seed company executives and industry experts to gain deeper insights into the adoption of strategic orientation and their impact on performance.The interviews will be semi-structured, striking a balance between flexibility and spontaneity while also ensuring that essential subjects are addressed.All interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed for in-depth analysis.

Data analysis techniques and procedures
The process involves data cleaning and organization, employing descriptive statistics for data characterization, conducting regression analysis to establish the link between the adoption of strategic orientation and company performance, comparing the findings to the literature review, interpreting the results within the context of the research questions and objectives, and concluding the data analysis.

Data Analysis:
The information collected from the survey questionnaire and interviews was subjected to analysis using descriptive statistics, including measures such as mean, standard deviation, and frequency distribution.Additionally, regression analysis was employed to assess the connection between the adoption of strategic orientation and company performance.The process entailed data sorting, preparation, and conducting descriptive analyses.Given the descriptive and quantitative nature of the study, the data was processed using the SPSS software package, enabling the presentation of results in tables, graphs, and charts, thereby illustrating the impact of various strategies.The first step was to clean and organize the data collected from secondary sources, survey questionnaires, and interviews.This would involve checking for missing values, outliers, and inconsistencies in the data.

Descriptive Statistics:
In brief, the main findings would be summarized by employing descriptive statistics such as the mean, standard deviation, and frequency distribution to characterize the data.

Regression Analysis:
The association between the adoption of general strategies and corporate success would be discovered through regression analysis.The performance of the company would be the dependent variable in a regression model created to test the hypotheses, and the adoption of generic tactics, firm size, age, and other pertinent aspects would be the independent variables.Regression analysis was used to establish both the significance and direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

Linearity
After running the regression analysis, examining the residual plots.Residuals are the differences between the observed values and the predicted values from the regression model.Plot the residuals against the predicted values or the independent variables.If the residual plot shows a random scattering of points around zero and does not exhibit a distinct pattern, it suggests that the linearity assumption holds.However, if the residual plot displays a clear pattern, such as a U-shape or an upward/downward trend, it indicates a violation of linearity.

Heteroscedasticity
An auxiliary regression of the squared residuals on the independent variables from the original model were carried out.The F-statistic or chi-square statistic from the auxiliary regression were determined, comparing the calculated statistic to the critical value from the F-distribution or chi-square distribution with the appropriate degrees of freedom.If the calculated statistic exceeds the critical value, it suggests the presence of heteroscedasticity.

Normality test
The Shapiro-Wilk test was Performed, which is a statistical test for normality.The Shapiro-Wilk test calculates a test statistic and provides a p-value.A high p-value (typically > 0.05) suggests that the residuals are normally distributed, while a low p-value indicates a violation of normality.Nevertheless, it's important to note that the Shapiro-Wilk test is responsive to larger sample sizes, and even minor deviations from normality could yield a significant outcome.

Multicollinearity
The correlation coefficients between the independent variables were examined.If the correlation between any pair of variables is higher than 0.7 or -0.7, it suggests the presence of multicollinearity.Possible approaches to handle heteroscedasticity include transforming the dependent variable, using weighted least squares regression, or applying robust regression techniques.

Validity and Reliability tests
Validity and reliability are two essential concepts in research methodology that relate to the accuracy and consistency of the findings.To ensure validity in the analysis of strategic orientation on performance of selected seed companies, the following steps can be taken: The survey questionnaire and interview questions were carefully crafted to accurately gauge the concept of strategic orientation and its correlation with performance.Experts in the field reviewed the survey questionnaire and interview questions to confirm that they comprehensively cover all relevant aspects of the research question.The survey questionnaire and interview questions were compared to existing measures of strategic orientation and performance to validate that they measure the same underlying concepts.Reliability pertains to the consistency of the study's findings over time and among different researchers.To ensure reliability in assessing the impact of strategic orientation on the performance of selected seed companies, the following measures can be implemented.The survey questionnaire was administered twice to the same group of participants to confirm the consistency of results over time.The interviews were conducted by the researcher to ensure consistency across different interviewers.
Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the survey questionnaire, guaranteeing that the questions measure the same underlying construct.

Significance level
A paramountcy level signifies the chance an investigator is disposed to just acknowledge that the calculable constant is classed consummately other than zero when it's really zero (Hair et al. 2006).
Defining this paramountcy degree is profoundly obligatory and applicable, categorically once a cross section of the population is focused on in lieu of a consummate population.The paramountcy takes a visual examination of determining whether or not the effect delineate by the reflectance is concluded and pertained to alternative cross sections from this population.The cull of paramountcy degree commonly spans from 0.01 to 0.10, albeit decrementing the numerous degrees to an inferior price like 0.01 sanctions for an inferior probability of being erroneous (Hair et al. 2006).Likewise, incrementing the paramountcy level to the higher value 0.10 sanctions a more astronomically immense probability of being erroneous however additionally makes it more facile to probe out paramountcy.As a result of the perils affiliated between culling one or another, the foremost extensively used degree of paramountcy is 0.05 (5%).By succeeding the anterior studies administrated, for reliability purposes this analysis was based on Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.70 taking a 5% degree of paramountcy.

Ethical considerations
In any analysis administered, there is numerous moral problems that require to be taken into thought.Marczyk (2005) state that ethical issues are specifically important to all research analysis and significantly vital once human beings are concerned.Ethics in research discuss a particular behavior or code of conduct whereas conducting analysis (Sekaran 2003).To guarantee that the research is carried out in an ethical and responsible manner, ethical procedures taken into account in each research endeavor.All research participants will get full disclosure of the study's objectives, their involvement in the trial, and any associated risks and benefits.They were given the opportunity to ask questions and to decide whether or not they want to participate.Participants' personal information was kept confidential and their identity were kept anonymous.Any data collected were stored securely and only accessible to authorized personnel.Participants were treated with respect and dignity.No harm, discomfort, or embarrassment resulted from the participants' involvement in the study.Participants had the option to withdraw from the study at any time without facing penalties or consequences.The research study received approval from an ethical review board to guarantee compliance with ethical guidelines and standards.

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Introduction:
This chapter consists of the study demographics, research findings presentation, analysis and discussion.

Discussion of findings on Gender Distribution:
The table 3 provides data on the gender distribution of respondents, including the number and percentage of males and females who participated in a survey or study.According to the table 3, there were a total of 62 respondents in the study.Among these respondents, 42 (68%) identified as male, while 20 (32%) identified as female.The data clearly indicates a gender disparity among the respondents, with a significantly higher representation of males (68%) compared to females (32%).This gender disparity could have several implications, including potential biases in the study's findings and the need for a gender-sensitive analysis.The gender distribution in the respondent pool were indicative of sampling bias.
If the sample selection process was not random or if there were specific criteria for inclusion that inadvertently favored one gender over the other, it could lead to a skewed representation.The researcher discovered that the gender distribution in the sample accurately reflects the gender composition of the population they are studying.
Basing on the research objectives being studied, the gender composition of respondents has an impact on the study's findings.Certain issues or questions were perceived differently by males and females, leading to variations in responses.This helps to provide valuable insights into gender-specific trends or concerns.
The gender involvement data in the table indicates a significant gender disparity among the respondents, with more males participating in the study than females.This gender distribution was considered when interpreting the study's findings and conducting further analysis.It is also a reminder of the importance of inclusive and diverse sampling methods in research to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the issues being studied.The findings from the data suggests a somewhat diverse representation of departments among the respondents.While Production and Sales dominate, there is still a presence of participants from various other departments.This diversity can be advantageous for the study, as it provides insights into how different departments within the organization perceive or respond to the study's subject matter.The researcher considered conducting department-based analysis to explore potential variations in responses, attitudes, or perspectives among different departments.Different departments often have unique roles, functions, and concerns, which can impact the study's findings.

Organizational Framework:
The departmental distribution is reflective of the organizational framework in which the study was conducted.It indicates the relative size and importance of various departments within the organization.The researcher considered how the departmental distribution impact the interpretation and generalizability of findings, as different departments have different priorities and viewpoints.The departmental distribution data in the table indicates a varied representation of departments among respondents.The researcher recognized the potential significance of this diversity and considered department-based analysis when interpreting findings.Additionally, the departmental composition of the sample discussed in the framework of the research's objectives and implications within the organizational perspective.

Discussion of employment period
The table 6 provides data on the employment period of respondents who participated in a study, including the number and percentage of respondents in different employment duration categories.This data is essential for understanding the tenure and experience of the respondent pool and its potential implications for the study's findings.The table 6 categorizes respondents into four different employment duration categories: 1-4, 4-8, 8-12, and over 12 years.Data showed that the largest category is respondents with an employment duration of 8-12 years, constituting 37.10% of participants.It is followed by the 4-8 years category (29.03%).
Respondents with an employment duration of 1-4 years make up 24.19%, and those with over 12 years of employment constitute 9.68%.The data suggests a relatively diverse representation of employment durations among the respondents.There is a spread across various experience levels, with a substantial presence in both mid-range (4-8 years, 8-12 years) and shorter-term (1-4 years) categories.This diversity can be beneficial for the study, as it provides insights into how different experience levels within the organization perceive or respond to the study's subject matter.The researcher conducted an analysis based on employment duration to explore potential variations in responses, attitudes, or perspectives among different experience levels.Different experience levels have distinct viewpoints, needs, or challenges, which can impact the study's findings.The distribution of employment periods reflects the tenure and experience of the organization's workforce.It indicates the mix of relatively new employees and those with more extensive experience.The employment period distribution data in the table indicates a varied representation of experience levels among respondents.The researcher recognizes the potential significance of this diversity and consider experience-based analysis when interpreting findings.Additionally, the employment duration composition of the sample was discussed in the context of the research's objectives and implications within the organizational framework.

Discussion of findings on employment
The table 8 provides data on the employment levels or positions of respondents who participated in a study.This data categorizes respondents into various employment levels, including Sales Associates, Supervisors, Assistant Supervisors, Marketers, Managers, and Others, along with the number and percentage of respondents in each category.The table 4.6 classifies respondents into six different employment level categories.These categories represent various roles or positions within the organization.
The data shows that the largest category is "Others," which includes 30.65% of respondents.This category typically comprises a diverse range of roles beyond the explicitly mentioned categories.Assistant Supervisors constitute 24.19% of participants, followed by Sales Associates (20.97%).The remaining categories, including Supervisors, Marketers, and Managers, have smaller representations.The data suggests a relatively diverse representation of employment levels among the respondents.There is a mix of roles across different hierarchical positions within the organization.This diversity was advantageous for the study, as it provided insights into how individuals from various employment levels perceive or respond to the study's subject matter.
The researcher considered conducting analysis based on employment levels to explore potential variations in responses, attitudes, or perspectives among different positions.Different positions within an organization often have unique responsibilities, decision-making authority, and priorities, which can impact the study's findings.The distribution of employment levels reflects the hierarchical structure and roles within the organization.It indicates the mix of employees at different levels of responsibility.The researcher considered how the employment level distribution impacted the interpretation and generalizability of findings, as individuals in various positions have different perspectives and decisionmaking capacities.

Implications for Leadership and Communication:
The study's findings have implications for leadership, communication, or management strategies, the distribution of employment levels considered when formulating recommendations.Understanding the viewpoints and needs of employees at different levels can inform more effective leadership and communication approaches.The employment level distribution data in the table 4.6 indicates a varied representation of roles and positions among respondents.The researcher recognized the potential significance of this diversity and consider position-based analysis when interpreting findings.The employment level composition of the sample discussed in the context of the research's objectives and implications within the organizational structure.The table 9 provides data on the profiles of seed companies, specifically their operation years.This data categorizes the companies into three groups based on their years of operation: 1 to 10 years, 10 to 50 years, and more than 50 years.The table 4.7 also includes the frequency or number of companies falling into each category.The data is crucial for understanding the distribution of companies based on their operational longevity.
The table 9 reveals that there are three categories of seed companies based on their years of operation.The majority of the companies, specifically 2 out of the 3, fall into the category of "10 to 50 years" of operation.This suggests that a significant proportion of seed companies in the sample have been in operation for a considerable period.
One company falls into the category of "more than 50 years" of operation, indicating an even longer history in the industry.Notably, there are no companies in the category of "1 to 10 years" of operation.This finding suggests that among the companies in the sample, there are no relatively new entrants to the seed industry.The absence of new companies in the sample could be due to various factors, including the specific criteria for selecting companies or the nature of the industry itself, where new entrants might be relatively rare.The distribution of companies by operation years provides a historical perspective on the industry.It indicates that many of the seed companies in the sample have been established for several decades.Companies with longer operational histories might have different challenges, opportunities, and strategies compared to newer entrants, which could be relevant for the study's objectives.
It was important to consider that the findings are based on the specific sample of seed companies included in the study.The absence of companies with 1 to 10 years of operation might not reflect the entire seed industry, as newer companies could exist but were not part of the sample.The findings in the table 9 suggest that the majority of seed companies in the sample have been in operation for a significant period, with none falling into the category of relatively new companies (1 to 10 years).The researcher acknowledges this distribution when interpreting findings and consider its implications for the study's objectives and the historical context of the industry.The Likert Mean score for Cost Leadership is 0.323, indicating a relatively neutral perception among respondents regarding the probability of success for this strategy.The Standard Deviation of 0.197 suggests that there is a relatively low level of variability in respondents' opinions, meaning that there is some consensus in their views.Notably, while a substantial number of respondents rated Cost Leadership as "Not probable" (16.1%) or "Somewhat improbable" (4.8%), a significant proportion also rated it as "Very probable" (35.5%).This polarization in responses suggests a divergence in perceptions among respondents.

Discussion of findings on Differentiation Strategy:
The Likert Mean score for Differentiation Strategy is 0.507, indicating a somewhat positive perception of the probability of success for this strategy.The Standard Deviation of 0.322 suggests a higher level of variability in respondents' opinions compared to Cost Leadership.A notable finding is that a significant percentage of respondents rated Differentiation Strategy as "Very probable" (54.8%), which is higher than the other strategic orientations.This suggests that a majority of respondents see this strategy as having a high probability of success.

Discussion of findings on Growth Strategy:
The Likert Mean score for Growth Strategy is the highest among the three, at 0.637, indicating a relatively positive perception of the probability of success for this strategy.The Standard Deviation of 0.386 suggests a moderate level of variability in responses.It is noteworthy that a substantial majority of respondents rated Growth Strategy as "Somewhat probable" (17.7%) or "Very probable" (61.3%).This indicates a strong consensus among respondents that this strategy is likely to be successful.Differentiation and Growth Strategies are perceived more favorably than Cost Leadership.Cost Leadership receives mixed opinions, with a significant portion of respondents being uncertain about its success.The higher variability in responses for Differentiation and Growth Strategies suggests that opinions are more divided on these strategies, but the overall trend is positive.The high percentage of respondents who see Growth Strategy as "Very probable" suggests that this strategy is particularly favored among the surveyed group.
In practical terms, organizations should consider these findings in their strategic decision-making processes.A Growth Strategy appears to have the highest perceived probability of success, which could impact strategic choices.However, it's important to remember that the success of any strategy depends on various factors, including the specific context and industry, and this survey's findings considered alongside other relevant data and analysis.Access to capital is considered very important for business success, but there is a wide range of opinions among respondents.Expertise in product/service development is uniformly seen as important.Availability of cheap factors facilitating production and the cost and accessibility of distribution channels receive mixed views, with some perceiving them as important and others less so.Adding value as a source of competitive advantage is perceived as significant but with some variation in opinions.While access to capital and expertise in product/service development are widely seen as important, other factors such as the cost of production factors and distribution channels receive more mixed perceptions.Businesses should carefully consider these findings when developing their strategies, taking into account the variability in opinion and the specific context of their industry and market.

Discussion of findings on Cost leadership
The table 12 provides data on the effectiveness of various cost leadership strategies as perceived by respondents.The strategies include improving scheduling of activities, utilizing processes for asset optimization, tailoring materials to processes, modifying product designs for easier manufacturing, and constantly improving product outputs.The data is presented in terms of the percentage of respondents who rated each strategy on a Likert scale ranging from "Not probable" to "Very probable," along with the Likert Mean and Standard Deviation (SD).Let's discuss the findings, analyze the data, and interpret the results: Improving Scheduling of Activities: This strategy received the highest Likert mean score (0.585), indicating that a majority of respondents considered it "Somewhat probable" to "Very probable" for reducing costs.The low standard deviation (0.533) suggests that there was relatively little variation in opinions among respondents, implying a strong consensus regarding the effectiveness of this strategy.
Respondents perceive that improving the scheduling of activities is a highly effective strategy for cost reduction.This consensus likely reflects the widespread belief that efficient scheduling can optimize resource utilization and minimize waste, contributing to cost savings.
Utilizing Processes and Procedures for Asset Optimization: This strategy received a lower Likert mean score (0.363), indicating that respondents generally found it "Somewhat improbable" for reducing costs.The low standard deviation (0.250) suggests some level of agreement among respondents regarding the limited effectiveness of this strategy, with less variation in opinions.Respondents were less convinced about the effectiveness of utilizing processes and procedures for asset optimization in reducing costs.This indicate that they perceive this strategy as having limitations or being less applicable to their specific contexts.
Tailoring Materials to Processes: This strategy received a Likert mean score of 0.403, indicating that respondents considered it "Somewhat probable" for cost reduction.The low standard deviation (0.185) suggests a high level of agreement among respondents, with little variation in opinions.Respondents generally found the strategy of tailoring materials to processes to be somewhat probable for reducing costs.
The high consensus suggests that this strategy is perceived as a practical way to achieve cost savings through better resource utilization.Modifying Product Designs for Easier Manufacturing: This strategy received a Likert mean score of 0.455, indicating that respondents considered it "Somewhat probable" for cost reduction.The exceptionally low standard deviation (0.048) suggests an almost unanimous agreement among respondents regarding the effectiveness of this strategy.Respondents strongly believe that modifying product designs to facilitate easier manufacturing is a practical and highly effective strategy for cost reduction.The remarkable consensus reflects the perceived importance of design optimization in reducing production costs.Constantly Improving Product Outputs: This strategy received a Likert mean score of 0.533, indicating that respondents considered it "Somewhat probable" to "Very probable" for reducing costs.The moderate standard deviation (0.455) suggests some variation in opinions, indicating that while most respondents find it effective, there are differing degrees of agreement.Constantly improving product outputs is perceived as an effective strategy for cost reduction, with a general consensus among respondents.However, the moderate standard deviation implies that not all respondents view it with the same level of enthusiasm, suggesting room for diverse opinions.The findings suggest that respondents generally perceive cost reduction strategies related to improving scheduling, modifying product designs, and tailoring materials to processes as effective.These strategies received higher Likert mean scores and demonstrated a higher level of consensus among respondents.In contrast, strategies related to asset optimization and constant improvement of product outputs were perceived as somewhat less effective, although they still garnered a degree of agreement.It's important to note that these perceptions vary based on the specific industry, organizational context, and respondent roles.Further research and analysis were needed to understand the reasons behind these perceptions and their practical application in different settings.Additionally, organizations should consider a multifaceted approach, combining several of these strategies, to achieve comprehensive cost leadership.

Cost leadership normality test
In this study, we assessed normality using skewness and kurtosis statistics following the guidelines outlined by George and Mallery (2010).In a normal distribution, the skewness value typically equals zero, indicating a symmetric distribution.Conversely, kurtosis measures the degree of peakedness in a distribution.West et al. (1995) proposed that a significant departure from normality occurs when the absolute skewness value exceeds 2 and the absolute kurtosis value surpasses 7.However, this study followed the recommendation of George and Mallery (2010), which suggests that a variable can be • Email: editor@ijfmr.comIJFMR23068849 Volume 5, Issue 6, November-December 2023 29 reasonably considered close to normal if its skewness and kurtosis values fall within the range of -3.0 to +3.0 as a general rule of thumb.The results, as presented in Table 13, indicate that the skewness coefficient for cost leadership is 0.388, while the kurtosis coefficient is 1.535.These findings lead to the conclusion that the cost leadership data conforms to a normal distribution, as it falls within the ±3 range recommended by George and Mallery (2010).

Cost Leadership Linearity Test
We followed the approach recommended by Cohen et al. (2003) to examine the linearity of variables.To evaluate the existence of a linear relationship, this study utilized Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, with the results presented in Table 14.The analysis revealed a robust positive association between organizational performance and cost leadership, with a correlation coefficient of 0.0703.This suggests the existence of a clear positive linear relationship between these variables.

Discussion of the findings, analysis of the data, and interpretation of the results:
The table 15 presents data on the effectiveness of various differentiation strategies as perceived by respondents.These strategies are aimed at distinguishing a company's products or services in the market.The data is provided in percentages representing the respondent's Likert scale ratings, ranging from "Not probable" to "Very probable."Additionally, the table includes the Likert Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) for each strategy.
Redesigning Products According to Customer Needs: This strategy received a relatively high Likert mean score (0.728), indicating that respondents generally considered it "Somewhat probable" to "Very probable" for differentiation.The moderate standard deviation (0.331) suggests some variation in opinions among respondents, but there is a degree of consensus.Respondents perceive redesigning products according to customer needs as an effective differentiation strategy.The strategy aligns well with customer-centric product development, which can enhance a company's competitive edge.
Offering Better Improved Products Than Competitors: This strategy received a high Likert mean score (0.715), indicating that respondents found it "Somewhat probable" to "Very probable" for differentiation.
The very low standard deviation (0.065) suggests strong agreement among respondents regarding the effectiveness of this strategy.Respondents overwhelmingly perceive offering better improved products than competitors as a highly effective differentiation strategy.This strategy emphasizes a commitment to quality and innovation, which respondents view favorably.Emphasizing Strong Basic Research to Add a Creative Flair to Products: This strategy also received a high Likert mean score (0.728), indicating that respondents considered it "Somewhat probable" to "Very probable" for differentiation.The moderate standard deviation (0.156) suggests some variation in opinions but still reflects a reasonable consensus.Respondents view emphasizing strong basic research to add a creative flair to products as an effective differentiation strategy.This approach aligns with innovation and customer-focused product development, contributing to a competitive advantage.
Continuously Developing New Products: This strategy received the highest Likert mean score (0.806), indicating that respondents found it "Very probable" for differentiation.The moderate standard deviation (0.182) suggests some variability in opinions but still reflects a reasonably strong consensus.Respondents strongly perceive continuous development of new products as a highly effective differentiation strategy.This strategy underscores the importance of innovation and a dynamic product portfolio in staying ahead of competitors.Deliberately Setting Goods Apart from Competitors: This strategy received a high Likert mean score (0.754), indicating that respondents found it "Somewhat probable" to "Very probable" for differentiation.
The SD of 0.0 suggests complete agreement among respondents regarding the effectiveness of this strategy.Respondents unanimously perceive deliberately setting goods apart from competitors as a highly effective differentiation strategy.This approach highlights the importance of clear and unique value propositions in the market.The findings suggest that respondents consider various differentiation strategies as highly effective for setting their products or services apart in the market.These strategies include customer-centric product redesign, offering superior products, emphasizing research and innovation, continuous product development, and deliberate differentiation from competitors.Respondents' strong agreement on the effectiveness of these strategies underscores their significance in the competitive landscape.These findings align with the broader literature on differentiation strategies and reinforce the idea that a wellexecuted differentiation approach can contribute significantly to a company's competitive advantage.However, in alignment with the recommendation of George and Mallery (2010), this study adhered to a more inclusive criterion, suggesting that a variable can be reasonably considered to be close to normal when its skewness and kurtosis values fall within the range of -3.0 to +3.0 as a general guideline.

Product differentiation Normality Test
Analyzing the results presented in Table 16, it is apparent that the skewness coefficient for product differentiation is -2.844, while the kurtosis coefficient is 0.166.These findings lead to the conclusion that the data pertaining to product differentiation conforms to a normal distribution, as it falls within the ±3 range recommended by George and Mallery (2010).

Product differentiation Linearity Test
The evaluation of variable linearity adhered to the methodology proposed by Cohen et al. (2003).In order to identify the existence of a linear relationship, this study utilized Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, with the specific results presented in Table 17.
The findings reveal a robust positive association between organizational performance and product differentiation, with a correlation coefficient of 0.0696.This suggests the existence of a clear positive linear relationship between these variables.In this study, we conducted a regression analysis to investigate the potential influence of product differentiation on the organizational performance of selected seed companies in Uganda.The results of the regression analysis, presented in Table 18, reveal that the model adequately elucidates the relationship between product differentiation and organizational performance.The coefficient of determination (R squared) was determined to be 0.00484, signifying that approximately 0.484% of the variance in organizational performance can be ascribed to variations in product differentiation.This suggests a relatively weak association between these two variables, with only a small portion of the variability in organizational performance explained by changes in product differentiation.These findings corroborate the research of Youngdahl and Kellogg (1997), who delved into the interplay between customer service, differentiation assurance, satisfaction, and effort, particularly in the context of differentiation costs.Their work underscored the significance of categorizing costs related to differentiation and customer service, as well as their connection to satisfaction and effort in service design and implementation.Notably, the concept of cost differentiation predicts that as differentiation increases, the overall cost of differentiation decreases, as documented by Hendricks and Singhal (2001).Furthermore, it's worth noting that internal and managerial motivations to adopt ISO 9000 standards are likely to positively impact an organization's likelihood of achieving a more effective configuration.This insight is supported by the research of Boral and Amara (2009).
The regression analysis results in this study indicate a limited but existent relationship between product differentiation and organizational performance, with other factors likely contributing to the performance of seed companies in Uganda.These findings underscore the complexity of organizational dynamics and suggest the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing organizational performance in this context.
The findings of this study contrast with the research conducted by Terziovski et al. (1997), who investigated the relationship between ISO 9000 certification and organizational performance while taking into account the presence or absence of a total differentiation management (TQM) framework.Terziovski et al.'s (1997) study showed that ISO 9000 certification, when analyzed on its own, did not demonstrate a significantly positive impact on organizational performance.The authors of that study suggested that the primary incentive for companies to pursue differentiation certification lies in its ability to facilitate access to new customers, which would otherwise be difficult to attain without such certification.Respondents view increasing product sales over a period of 5 years as a moderately effective growth strategy.The variation in opinions might reflect differing perceptions of the feasibility of sustained sales growth over an extended period.Registering Higher Profits Than the Previous Year: This strategy received a moderately high Likert mean score (0.689), indicating that respondents found it "Somewhat probable" to "Very probable" for achieving growth.The low standard deviation (0.117) suggests strong agreement among respondents regarding the effectiveness of this strategy.Respondents strongly perceive registering higher profits than the previous year as an effective growth strategy.This aligns with the typical financial objective of businesses to improve profitability over time.
The findings suggest that respondents generally consider various growth strategies as effective for achieving business growth.These strategies include increasing sales revenue, expanding the customer base, increasing product sales, and improving profitability.Respondents' strong agreement on the effectiveness of these strategies underscores their significance in the context of business growth.These findings align with established business objectives and financial goals, emphasizing the importance of revenue growth, market expansion, and profitability in sustaining and improving business performance.(2010).Skewness quantifies the asymmetry of a distribution, with a value of zero signifying a symmetrical distribution.In contrast, kurtosis measures the peakedness of a distribution.West et al. (1995) proposed a criterion for a substantial departure from normality, defining it as an absolute skew value exceeding 2 and an absolute kurtosis value surpassing 7.However, this study adhered to the recommendation by George and Mallery (2010), which suggests that a variable can be reasonably considered close to normal if its skewness and kurtosis fall within the range of -3.0 to +3.0.The results presented in Table 22 reveal that the dataset related to the growth strategy exhibited a skewness coefficient of -2.144 and a kurtosis coefficient of 4.682.Based on these values, it can be concluded that the data for the growth strategy conforms to a normal distribution, as it falls within the ±3 range recommended by George and Mallery (2010).To ascertain the presence of a linear relationship, Pearson productmoment correlation coefficients were employed, and the results are presented in Table 23.The analysis findings demonstrate a strong positive correlation between the "organizational performance" and "growth strategy" variables, with a correlation coefficient of 0.116.This outcome indicates a distinct and positive linear relationship between these two variables.

Impact of Growth Strategy on Organizational Performance
A regression analysis was conducted to empirically investigate whether the chosen growth strategy significantly influenced the organizational performance of the selected seed companies in Uganda.The results of the regression analysis, presented in Table 24, indicate that the goodness of fit for the regression model linking growth strategy and organizational performance was deemed satisfactory.The R-squared value of 0.0135 suggests that approximately 1.35% of the variability in organizational performance can be explained by variations in the adopted seed distribution strategy.These findings align with the perspectives of Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1988), who proposed that a distribution strategy, vital for an organization's competitiveness, facilitates the availability and application of products in the marketplace.Consequently, the chosen distribution strategy significantly affects the organization's ability to provide adequate "market support" for innovation.
The overall significance of the model is presented in Table 25.An F-statistic of 0.852 underscores the statistical significance of the model.These results imply that the growth strategy plays a significant role in explaining the organizational performance of the selected seed companies in Uganda.Thus, the null hypothesis, which posits that the growth strategy has no impact on the organizational performance of these seed companies at a significance level of p < 0.05, is rejected.Instead, the alternate hypothesis is accepted, signifying that the growth strategy indeed exerts a significant influence on the organizational performance of these selected seed companies in Uganda.These findings resonate with the observations of Lee et al. (2003), who argued that the effective selection, implementation, and management of distribution channel strategies not only efficiently meet the shopping needs and habits of target customers within the seller's cost constraints but also mitigate the disadvantages associated with distribution channel conflicts, such as double marginalization.Table 26 displays the coefficients pertaining to the growth strategy.The results underscore the significant contribution of the distribution strategy to the model, as indicated by the p-values for both the intercept and the gradient being less than 0.05.These findings suggest that a one-unit increase in the effectiveness of the growth strategy is associated with a 16.4% improvement in organizational performance.This reinforces the positive influence of the seed distribution strategy on organizational performance.These results are consistent with the insights of Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1988), who emphasized the critical role of distribution strategy in ensuring the availability and successful application of products in the marketplace.Additionally, Needham et al. ( 2008) advocate for organizations to develop a diverse range of distribution strategies, taking into account factors such as channel levels, distribution scope, multiple channels, franchises, and channel control strategies, among others.This multifaceted approach is essential for achieving their marketing objectives.The fitted equation for the relationship between growth strategy (X3) and organizational performance (y) is expressed as follows: y = 46.599+ 0.104X3.The seed experts were consulted to provide insights and recommendations regarding the most effective strategies for enhancing seed business performance.Respondents highlighted several key strategies that are currently in use to improve business performance within the seed industry.One prominent strategy that was highlighted involves business mergers and acquisitions.This strategy entails joining forces with other entities to gain access to established brands and goodwill.Additionally, the utilization of franchising and licensing for crop varieties was identified as an effective approach to reduce the entry costs associated with new markets.Another suggested strategy involves sharing distribution channels, which can help mitigate expenses and risks associated with product promotion and customer delivery.These findings are in line with a report from the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Fisheries (2017), which utilized value chain analysis to evaluate the status of the maize seed industry in Uganda.The analysis identified several challenges within the seed value chains, including legal and regulatory constraints, issues related to seed pricing, insufficient infrastructure, limited promotion of new varieties, and concerns regarding seed quality in the market.Furthermore, the seed experts recommended that seed companies establish connections with relevant institutions and structures capable of addressing both the demand and supply aspects of the maize value chain.This proactive approach aims to foster sustainability and growth within the entire maize industry, consequently leading to an increase in maize seed sales The recommendations provided by the seed experts encompass strategies such as mergers and acquisitions, franchising, licensing, and channel sharing.These strategies aim to enhance business performance and address challenges within the seed value chains, ultimately contributing to the growth of the maize seed industry.Seed experts have suggested various strategies that seed companies should adopt to enhance their success and contribute to the growth of the maize industry.One key recommendation is to establish strong connections with relevant institutions that can address both the demand and supply sides of the maize value chain.This proactive approach is seen as a way to promote sustainability and overall growth in maize seed sales.Furthermore, the experts emphasize the importance of implementing a Quality Management System (QMS) to improve seed quality.Building well-recognized brands that farmers trust and prefer can lead to repeat sales and enhance the competitiveness of local seed companies, even in the face of multinational competition.QMS can also enable product differentiation, fostering customer loyalty and ongoing sales growth.
In line with QMS, there is a call for a continuous effort to improve all aspects and processes within the seed business.Recognizing and rewarding champions of these improvement initiatives is seen as crucial for staying ahead of the competition.These recommendations are consistent with the findings of Smale and Jayne (2003), who attributed the growth in smallholder maize production in Uganda to the successful adoption of improved maize seed.They also emphasized the significance of investments in research, extension services, seed distribution systems, rural infrastructure, and institutions responsible for coordinating grain marketing with seed and credit delivery.
To expand sales volumes, the experts advocate for effective marketing strategies and initiatives for market development, potentially in collaboration with the government.They also encourage the establishment of strategic and efficient seed distribution networks to reach more farmers and expand market share.Access to suitable funding options, including favorable interest rates and longer tenures, is considered essential to support these initiatives, especially considering the lengthy seed production and supply cycles.Furthermore, the experts recommend conducting regular strategic reviews of the seed supply value chain, encompassing aspects like product development, seed production, processing, warehousing, and marketing.This continual improvement process aims to enhance competitiveness and develop innovative seed varieties that address farmers' needs, such as adapting to climate change and resisting plant diseases.Supplying high-quality seed solutions that consistently address farmers' challenges can enable seed companies to charge premium prices and achieve higher profits.
To address concerns about low business margins and profitability, the experts suggest reducing production costs by embracing new technologies that enhance efficiency and effectiveness.Diversifying the product portfolio and entering regional markets are also proposed as strategies to stabilize income streams and improve overall organizational performance, thus mitigating the risk of market failure in a single country.These strategies align with the findings of Neiroitti and Paolucci (2014), who reported improved performance through the adoption of information technology (IT) capabilities.

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Introduction
The objective of this study was to identify the key drivers influencing the performance of seed companies in Uganda.Specifically, it aimed to examine the impact of cost leadership strategy, differentiation focus strategy, and usage of focus on seed distribution approaches on the organizational performance of these companies.This section presents a summary of the findings, conclusions drawn from these findings, and recommendations based on the insights derived from Chapter Four.

Summary of the Findings 5.2.1 Organizational Performance of Seed Companies in Uganda
The study revealed that most seed companies in Uganda had limited market share, with a few dominant players.This was associated with low production capacity utilization and small sales volumes.
Respondents indicated that these companies struggled to achieve a competitive edge due to a lack of product differentiation strategies.Over the five-year study period, revenue and business growth exhibited fluctuating trends, with total expenses increasing at a faster rate than revenue growth.Consequently, many companies failed to meet their profit targets.

Impact of Cost leadership strategy on Organizational Performance of Seed Companies
Cost leadership strategy were found to have a positive impact on the organizational performance of seed companies.Respondents acknowledged that staff costs were relatively high, while costs related to inputs like pesticides and fertilizers represented a small portion of total expenses.Distribution and marketing costs were consistently the highest.Licensing and compliance costs were manageable, packaging and branding expenses were relatively high, and storage costs were tolerable.Statistical analysis confirmed a significant and positive relationship between cost leadership strategy and organizational performance.

Impact of Differentiation focus strategy on Organizational Performance of Seed Companies
Differentiation focus strategy emerged as a critical determinant of organizational performance.
Respondents emphasized the importance of the original seed source, seed certification standards, seed variety characteristics, trained personnel, and reporting mechanisms for seed failure.The study's analysis validated a significant and positive correlation between differentiation focus strategy and organizational performance.

Impact of Focus strategy on Organizational Performance of Seed Companies
Focus strategy was identified as a key driver of organizational performance.The use of manual production methods resulted in volume deficiencies, while mechanized approaches led to higher output and reduced costs per unit.The location of production units, experienced staff, investment in seed research, and advanced seed processing infrastructure were highlighted as influencing factors.The study confirmed a significant and positive relationship between focus strategy and organizational performance.

Impact of independent variables on Organizational Performance of Seed Companies
The regression model revealed that the combined influence of the cost leadership strategy, differentiation strategy, and the use of a focus strategy had the most significant impact on the overall performance of seed companies in Uganda.

Conclusions
Based on the study's findings, several conclusions can be drawn: Seed companies in Uganda demonstrated slight positive growth in sales and revenue from 2013 to 2014, with many remaining small-scale players.Inefficient cost management strategies resulted in increased expenses as a percentage of revenue and reduced profitability.
Differentiation focus strategy significantly impacted organizational performance, emphasizing the need for quality management systems.
Effective product differentiation strategies contributed to increased sales and profitability.Seed distribution strategies, including agent utilization and storage facilities, impactd sales and credibility.

Recommendations
In light of the study's findings, the following recommendations are suggested: Seed companies should regularly analyze and optimize their cost leadership strategy to reduce operational expenses.
Implementing product differentiation strategies can help smaller companies gain market share.
Companies should prioritize improving seed quality through certification, credible seed sources, and quality management systems.
Competitive differentiation strategies should be employed to boost sales and profitability.
Investment in mechanization and infrastructure can enhance production efficiency and seed quality.Seed companies should adopt effective distribution strategies to improve market access and reduce distribution costs.

Areas for Further Research
Investigate additional factors, such as leadership, human resource competencies, corporate governance, and business systems, that may impact seed companies' performance.
Investigating the relationship between the effectiveness of distribution strategies and business performance

Table 4 :Age of respondents Age groups
The table 4 provides data on the age distribution of respondents who participated in a study, presenting the number and percentage of respondents in different age groups.This data is crucial for understanding the demographic composition of the respondent pool and its potential implications for the study's findings.The table 4 categorizes respondents into four age groups: 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, and above 50.The data indicates that the majority of respondents (33.9%) fall within the 30-40 age group, followed closely by the 20-30 age group (29%).The 40-50 age group constitutes 24.2% of respondents, and those above 50 make up 12.9%.The data suggests a relatively diverse representation of age groups among the respondents.Different age groups have unique experiences, preferences, and viewpoints, which can impact the study's findings.Understanding these variations can be valuable for tailoring recommendations or strategies to specific age demographics.Depending on the research objectives, the age distribution of respondents can be critical.Some topics or issues were age-sensitive, and the age composition of the sample impact the generalizability of findings.The study's findings have implications for a specific target audience, such as a particular age group, the age distribution of respondents considered when formulating recommendations or strategies.The age distribution data in the table indicates a varied representation of age groups among respondents.

Table 5
The table 5 provides data on the departmental distribution of respondents who participated in a study, showing the number and percentage of respondents from various departments.This data is crucial for understanding the composition of the respondent pool and its potential implications for the study's findings.The table 5 categorizes respondents into six different departments: Administration, Finance, Human Resource, Production, Sales, and Marketing.The data shows that Production is the largest department represented among the respondents, with 33.87% of participants.It is followed by Sales (20.97%) and Administration (17.74%).Finance, Marketing, and Human Resource departments have comparatively smaller representations, with 11.29%, 9.68%, and 6.45%, respectively.

Table 7 :Education Qualifications Education Qualifications
The table 7 provides data on the education qualifications of respondents who participated in a study, including the number and percentage of respondents in different education categories.This data is important for understanding the educational background of the respondent pool and its potential implications for the study's findings.The table 7 categorizes respondents into five different education qualification categories: Certificate, Diploma, Degree, Postgraduate, and Masters.The data shows that the largest category is respondents with a Diploma, constituting 43.55% of participants.It is followed by Degree holders (22.58%) and those with a Certificate (20.97%).Postgraduate and Master's degree holders have smaller representations, comprising 8.06% and 4.84%, respectively.The data suggests a relatively diverse representation of education qualifications among the respondents.There is a mix of different educational backgrounds, with Understanding the educational needs and perspectives of employees with different qualifications can inform tailored training programs and educational resources.The education qualifications distribution data in the table indicates a varied representation of educational backgrounds among respondents.The researcher recognized the potential significance of this diversity and consider education-based analysis when interpreting findings.Additionally, the education qualification composition of the sample discussed in the context of the research's objectives and implications within the organizational context.
a substantial presence in both the lower and higher educational categories.This diversity can be advantageous for the study, as it provides insights into how individuals with varying levels of education perceive or respond to the study's subject matter.The researcher considered conducting analysis based on education qualifications to explore potential variations in responses, attitudes, or perspectives among different educational backgrounds.Individuals with different education levels have different perspectives, analytical abilities, and problem-solving skills, which can impact the study's findings.The distribution of education qualifications reflects the educational diversity within the organization's workforce.It indicates the mix of individuals with varying levels of formal education.The researcher should consider how the education qualifications distribution impact the interpretation and generalizability of findings, as individuals with different educational backgrounds have different approaches to problem-solving and decision-making.The study's findings have implications for employee training, development, or skill-building initiatives, the distribution of education qualifications considered when formulating recommendations.

Table 10 :Findings on the product strategy
Discussion of findings on Cost LeadershipThe table 10 provides data on the perceived probability of success for different strategic orientations, including Cost Leadership, Differentiation Strategy, and Growth Strategy, as rated on a Likert scale by respondents.The Likert scale ranges from "Not probable" to "Very probable."The table 10 also includes the Likert Mean (average) and Standard Deviation (SD) for each strategic orientation.

Table 11 :Statement on variables
Availability of Cheap Factors Facilitating Production: The Likert Mean score for this factor is 0.37, which falls in the "Neutral" range.Respondents are divided in their views on the importance of this factor.The Standard Deviation is relatively low, suggesting that there is a fair amount of agreement among respondents regarding the neutral perception of this factor.Expertise in Product/Service Development: The Likert Mean score for expertise in product/service development is 0.59, indicating a slightly positive perception of the importance of this factor.The Standard Deviation is very low (0.008), indicating a high level of consensus among respondents that expertise in product/service development is important for business success.Distribution Channels Are Cheap and Accessible: The Likert Mean score for this factor is 0.57, suggesting a somewhat positive perception of the importance of affordable and accessible distribution channels.The Standard Deviation is moderate, indicating that while there is some consensus on the importance of this factor, opinions vary to some extent.
Discussion of findingsThe table 11 presents data on respondents' perceptions of various factors related to business success, with ratings on a Likert scale ranging from "Not probable" to "Very probable."These factors include "Access to capital," "Availability of cheap factors facilitating production," "Expertise in product/service development," "Distribution channels are cheap and accessible," and "Source of competitive advantage is added value."The table also includes the Likert Mean (average) and Standard Deviation (SD) for each factor.Access to Capital: The Likert Mean score for "Access to capital" is 24.19, indicating that respondents, on average, perceive this factor as "Very probable" in terms of its importance for business success.The Standard Deviation of this factor is relatively high, indicating a significant degree of variability in respondents' opinions.This suggests that while many respondents consider access to capital crucial, there is a substantial range of opinions on the extent of its importance.Source of Competitive Advantage Is Added Value: The Likert Mean score for this factor is 0.62, indicating that respondents generally perceive a high importance of adding value as a source of competitive advantage.The Standard Deviation is moderate, implying some variation in opinions among respondents regarding the extent of importance.

Table 16 :Product differentiation Normality Test
To evaluate normality, this study applied the skewness and kurtosis statistics, as endorsed by George and Mallery (2010).In a normal distribution, the skewness value typically equals zero, indicating a symmetrical distribution.Kurtosis, on the other hand, measures the peakedness of a distribution.West et al. (1995) indicated a significant departure from normality when the absolute skewness value exceeds 2 and the absolute kurtosis value surpasses 7.

Table 19 :ANOVA
Table19provides the coefficients related to product differentiation within the model.The results indicate a significant influence of product differentiation on the model, as indicated by the p-values for both the intercept and coefficient, which are below the 0.05 threshold.These findings suggest that a one-unit improvement in the effectiveness of product differentiation is associated with a 47.2 percent change in organizational performance.This further strengthens the idea of a positive effect of product differentiation on organizational performance.The equation representing this relationship is as follows: y = 23.527+ 0.472X2.

Table 20 :Coefficients of product differentiation
The table 21 provides data on the effectiveness of various growth strategies as perceived by respondents.These strategies are aimed at achieving business growth in terms of sales, market share, product sales, and profitability.The data is presented as percentages representing respondents' Likert scale ratings, ranging from "Not probable" to "Very probable."Additionally, the table 4.19 includes the Likert Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) for each strategy.Let's discuss the findings, analyze the data, and interpret the results: Increasing Annual Sales Revenue: This strategy received a moderately high Likert mean score (0.741), indicating that respondents generally considered it "Somewhat probable" to "Very probable" for achieving growth.The moderate standard deviation (0.273) suggests some variation in opinions, but there is a degree of consensus.Respondents perceive increasing annual sales revenue as an effective growth strategy.This aligns with the fundamental goal of most businesses to generate higher revenue over time.Expanding Customer Base and Capturing More Market Share: This strategy received a relatively high Likert mean score (0.780), indicating that respondents found it "Somewhat probable" to "Very probable" for achieving growth.The low standard deviation (0.208) suggests strong agreement among respondents regarding the effectiveness of this strategy.Respondents strongly perceive expanding the customer base and capturing more market share as a highly effective growth strategy.This suggests the importance of market expansion and customer acquisition in achieving growth objectives.Increasing Product Sales Over a Period of 5 Years: This strategy received a moderate Likert mean score (0.676), indicating that respondents considered it "Somewhat probable" for achieving growth.The relatively high standard deviation (0.364) suggests a notable variation in opinions among respondents.

Table 23 :Growth Strategy Linearity Test
To evaluate the linearity of variables, this study used correlation coefficients, following the methodology suggested by Cohen et al.(2003).