The Antecedent Role of Leadership Styles on IMC and Business Performance: Empirical Evidence from Japanese Firms

The IMC concept has evolved from a marketing communication tool to a comprehensive corporate strategy. Initially focusing on integrating various marketing communication levels, Duncan and Moriarty (1998) expanded IMC to the corporate level, highlighting the need for cross-functional planning and collaboration. Effective IMC implementation requires systematic organizational support to minimize interdepartmental barriers and enhance feasibility.

IMC implementation involves integrated communication management, which is often hindered by interdepartmental conflicts (organizational silo effect). Since the inception of IMC, academic and practical discussions have emphasized the need for organizational-level research to identify factors affecting IMC, such as organizational culture, structure, and leadership (Porcu et al., 2017a; Schultz et al., 2014). Porcu et al. (2017b) recently developed a firm-wide IMC scale to comprehensively measure IMC. Recent studies have focused on the link between organizational culture and IMC, defining IMC from a comprehensive organizational and firm perspective as follows (Porcu et al., 2017b, p. 694):

“IMC is the stakeholder-centered interactive process of cross-functional planning and alignment of organizational, analytical, and communication processes that allows for the possibility of continuous dialogue by conveying consistent and transparent messages via all media to foster long-term profitable relationships that create value.”

IMC considers all stakeholders and aims to build positive relationships through continuous engagement, fostering brand loyalty, with four dimensions: message consistency (MC), which involves coordinating media to deliver consistent messages and build strong customer-brand relationships (Porcu et al., 2017b); interactivity (IN), which facilitates two-way communication between organizations and stakeholders, leveraging mobile internet for engagement (Duncan & Moriarty, 1998; Porcu et al., 2017b); stakeholder-centered strategic focus (SCSF), which ensures that organizational members prioritize stakeholder value and develop long-term relationships (Porcu et al., 2017b); and organizational alignment (OA), which achieves internal integration to overcome barriers, with success influenced by leadership and organizational commitment (Kliatchko & Schultz, 2014; Melewar, Foroudi, Gupta, Kitchen, & Foroudi, 2017).

Effective communication management requires prioritizing these elements based on the needs of each brand. Building on the firm-wide IMC model developed by Porcu et al. (2017b), this study aims to identify the causal relationship between managers’ leadership styles and firm-wide IMC.

The most frequently cited leadership styles in leadership research are transactional leadership (TAL), which seeks stability, and transformational leadership (TFL), which seeks change. These concepts were first proposed by Burns (1978) and later refined by Bass (1985), who applied them to business organizations. TAL involves the use of rewards or punishments to elicit desired behavior from subordinates (Bass & Avolio, 1990). TAL is characterized by an exchange relationship in which both the leader and members primarily serve their own interests, involving contingent rewards (CR) and management-by-exception (Bass, 1985).

CR involve positive reinforcement for achieving specific levels of performance, whereas management by exception (MBE) involves corrective action only when performance problems occur. MBE can be active, with proactive monitoring, or passive, with action taken only after problems occur (Bass, 1990). Peters and Waterman (1982) found that effective leaders used CR more frequently than MBE.

TFL has emerged as an alternative to address the limitations of traditional TAL. Burns (1978) described TFL as occurring when “one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (p. 20). Bass (1985) further refined and expanded upon Burns’ leadership theory, stating that a leader is “one who motivates us to do more than we originally expected to do” (p. 20). He explained that this motivation can be achieved by raising awareness of the importance of results and the methods to attain them.

Burns (1978) initially proposed three subcomponents of TFL: charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. However, Bass and Avolio (1995) later revised and expanded this framework by replacing charisma with idealized influence and adding inspirational motivation, resulting in four components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Bass and Avolio (1995) described idealized influence as leaders establishing a clear vision and instilling pride and belief in subordinates (Bass & Avolio, 1990); inspirational motivation as leaders setting challenging goals and presenting a clear vision to inspire subordinates (Bass & Avolio, 1995); intellectual stimulation as leaders encouraging innovative thinking and exploring new approaches (Bass, 1985); and individualized consideration as leaders acknowledging the unique needs of team members, offering personalized guidance and promoting growth (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

The need for TFL has grown due to increasing business instability and the significance of change (Bass & Avolio, 1997). TFL is seen as essential for navigating a rapidly evolving business landscape (Bass, 1985). Empirical studies show that TFL enhances TAL, leading to improved organizational performance (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995).

Researchers disagree on the relationship between TAL and TFL. Burns (1978) views them as contrasting styles, while Bass (1985) sees TAL as a prerequisite for TFL. They proposed a “full-range leadership” model, suggesting that TFL does not replace TAL but complements its effects on subordinates and organizational performance. This study hypothesizes that TFL will have a more significant impact on IMC implementation than TAL.

Implementing IMC within an organization cannot be delegated to a single department. Rather, it requires cross-functional collaboration involving various departments and functions. As such, executives and managers must provide support and guidance to the departments involved in the IMC implementation process, ensuring proper integration and cross-functional cooperation. This conversation has been ongoing since the introduction of the IMC concept. For instance, Schultz (1996) posited that effective implementation of IMC necessitates strong leadership from managers responsible for overseeing communication within the organization. To achieve this, the organizational structure must integrate the management of communication effectiveness across all brand touchpoints for both the company and the consumer (Duncan, 2002; Luck & Moffatt, 2009; Nowak & Phelps, 1994).

Phelps, Johnson, & Harris (1996) also contended that the attitudes of managers towards environmental changes both within and outside the organization impact the implementation of IMC. The risk perceptions of managers and their degree of involvement in IMC have also been demonstrated to affect its implementation (Hočevar, Žabkar, & Mumel, 2007). In other words, in a volatile market environment, it is essential for managers to proactively respond to environmental changes, even if it entails taking risks to seize new opportunities. The active leadership of managers influences the extent of IMC implementation. This highlights the importance of TFL, which emphasizes change and challenge in IMC implementation.

Other studies have identified factors such as organizational flexibility, mutual trust, and both horizontal and vertical cooperation as facilitators of IMC implementation. In contrast, high centralization, high control, stability, and rigid rules and structures are inhibitors of IMC (Christensen et al., 2008; Luxton et al., 2017). Furthermore, Schultz (1996) emphasized that the responsibility for managing the brand message rests with front-line managers, not front-line employees, and that ‘leading from the front’ significantly impacts the integration and management of communications and their performance. Consequently, the leadership of frontline managers who directly interact with employees is anticipated to play a crucial role in the implementation and management of IMC.

Taken together, we believe that the manager’s leadership style will positively influence the implementation of IMC. As previously mentioned, a manager’s leadership approach significantly affects the motivation and behavior of their subordinates (employees), both directly and indirectly. Consequently, we hypothesize that TAL, where leaders motivate employees through rewards and punishments, and TFL, where leaders instill a sense of mission and vision in employees, inspiring them to exceed expectations, will both positively impact IMC activities. Furthermore, we also hypothesize that TFL will have a more substantial influence on IMC than TAL, as previously discussed.

In this study, the outcome variables of IMC activities were classified into three categories: CE, brand market performance (BMP), and financial performance (FP). Although a significant portion of the existing literature concentrates on BMP, this study aims to evaluate IMC performance from a broader perspective (e.g., Luxton et al., 2017; Tafesse & Kitchen, 2017).

Firstly, the effectiveness of the communication campaigns was assessed by evaluating media integration, communication vehicle integration, brand recall, and Return on Investment (ROI) compared to key competitors (Luxton et al., 2017). This assessment is supported by previous research. For example, Low (2000) argued that integrating multiple communication dimensions can optimize the effectiveness of vehicles such as advertising, PR, sales promotion, and personal selling. Further studies have demonstrated that implementing IMC at the campaign level enhances synergy between communication vehicles and their effectiveness across various domains, leading to higher excess returns (Foroudi, Dinnie, Kitchen, Melewar, & Foroudi, 2017). Additionally, Luxton et al. (2017) found that implementing IMC significantly boosts the effectiveness of communication campaigns.

Second, BMP was assessed using variables such as quality superiority, premium price acceptance, distributor support, perceived brand loyalty, market penetration, new customer growth, and sales growth to existing customers relative to key competitors (Luxton et al., 2017; Porcu, del Barrio-García, Alcántara-Pilar, & Crespo-Almendros, 2019; Reid, Luxton, & Mavondo, 2005). Reid et al. (2005) and Luxton et al. (2015, 2017) investigated the impact of IMC on BMP in Australian firms and found a positive influence. Similarly, Kang (2014) found that organizational infrastructure, strategic consistency, and planning and evaluation factors positively affected BMP in Korean firms. Furthermore, Porcu et al. (2019) confirmed that IMC activities enhance brand competitive advantage in Spanish service firms, thereby boosting overall BMP.

Finally, FP was assessed using growth measures such as sales, market share, gross profit margin, ROI, and return on total assets over the last three years. Ambler et al. (2002) used ROI to measure the contribution of IMC to company revenues and profits. Duncan and Mulhern (2004) emphasized the importance of measuring touchpoint ROI to improve brand equity and customer value. Schultz and Schultz (2004) proposed return on customer investment (ROCI) as an alternative to traditional ROI to assess the effectiveness of IMC, linking changes in revenue from customers to the cost of targeting them. As mentioned above, Luxton et al. (2017) found that IMC has a direct impact on FP, in addition to CE and BMP.

Based on the above discussion, it can be inferred that there is likely to be a significant positive relationship between IMC and business performance, which includes CE, BMP, and FP. Additionally, relationships between the subfactors of business performance are also expected. Consequently, the following hypotheses have been developed.

This study investigated the mediating effects of IMC between leadership style and business performance. The preceding discussion demonstrates that there is a significant relationship between leadership style and IMC, as well as between IMC and business performance. Furthermore, a significant relationship exists between leadership style and business performance. Given this context, it is ideal to employ IMC as a mediating variable between leadership style and business performance. Consequently, we propose the following hypotheses.

Figure 1 presents the proposed theoretical framework as it pertains to Japanese firms. This framework encompasses the leadership style of managers within these firms, the organization-wide IMC capability, and overall business performance. Additionally, the model incorporates the seven research hypotheses.

Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model. IMC, integrated marketing communication.

Download Original Figure

Data for this study were collected via an online survey administered by research firm Rakuten Insight between February 15 and 18, 2022. The survey targeted marketers employed by companies listed on the 1st Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, who are responsible for implementing and managing IMC within their organizations. Participants were asked to rate the leadership style of their supervisors, who directly oversee their daily work activities. The original English questionnaire was translated into Japanese. The final sample is displayed in Table 1.

All variables in this study using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much), and validated questionnaires from previous studies were modified and adapted to fit the context of this study (see Appendix 1). TFL and TAL were assessed using the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass & Avolio (1995). This scale comprises items that evaluate leadership based on subordinates’ perceptions of their leaders. TFL was measured using 16 items across four constructs (idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration), while TAL was measured using eight items focused on CR and MBE. For firm-wide IMC, we employed the four-dimensional ‘Firm-wide IMC scale’ developed by Porcu et al. (2017b). This scale includes four questions on MC, seven questions on IN, seven questions on SCSF, and seven questions on OA, totaling twenty-five questions. The business performance constructs (communication CE, BMP, and FP) were assessed using the scales employed by Reid (2005) and Luxton et al. (2015, 2017). Communication CE was measured with four questions, BMP with seven questions, and FP with five questions.

To validate the proposed research model, we used partial least squares structural equation modeling rather than covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM). Generally, PLS is frequently utilized in exploratory studies as it necessitates a more conservative interpretation of results compared to traditional CB-SEM (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017). A PLS path model analysis was conducted using SmartPLS (v.3.3.9, SmartPLS GmbH, Bönningstedt, Germany). First, confirmatory factor analysis was performed to eliminate all items with a value below the 0.7 threshold. Next, the internal consistency, reliability, and validity of the theoretical model were assessed with the remaining items. Finally, the structural model was estimated, and the proposed model was verified. To evaluate reliability, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were utilized, while convergent validity was assessed. The average variance extracted (AVE) was examined to ensure it exceeded the 0.5 threshold. Additionally, discriminant validity was analyzed by comparing the correlation value and the square root of AVE to determine if the square root of AVE was greater than the correlation value between the latent variables. The comprehensive research hypothesis test was conducted using bootstrapping (5,000 iterations, 95% significance level) with the PLS algorithm.

The main criteria for evaluating structural models are multicollinearity, the coefficient of determination (R²), effect size (f²), predictive relevance (Q²), and model fit (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Hair et al., 2017). First, we assessed multicollinearity by examining the VIF. As previously mentioned, VIF values below the conservative threshold of 3.3 (and the typical threshold of 5) do not pose significant concerns. The VIF values for the paths are as follows: TFL → IMC (2.648), TAL → IMC (2.648), IMC → CE (1.000), IMC → BMP (1.640), IMC → FP (1.775), CE → BMP (1.640), CE → FP (2.187), BMP → FP (2.023).

Secondly, we analyzed the coefficients of determination (or R²-value) of the endogenous latent variables. This value measures the proportion of variance in the endogenous constructs that is explained by all the exogenous constructs connected to them (Hair et al., 2017). To account for the bias introduced by increasing the number of exogenous latent variables, the adjusted coefficient of determination (R²_adj) is used. As displayed in Table 7, BMP had the highest value of 0.503, followed by IMC, CE, and FP with values of approximately 0.421, 0.389, and 0.279, respectively, which can be regarded as moderate. Therefore, the explanatory power of the model in this study is considered to be adequate.

Third, to assess whether the omission of an endogenous construct has a significant impact on the model, the effect size (f²) is used (Hair et al., 2017). Values of f² above 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are considered to indicate small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Table 8 shows the results of f². For example, the largest effect size was that of IMC on CE (0.614), followed by that of CE on BMP (0.359), both of which exhibited large effects, and those of TAL on IMC (0.152) and BMP on FP (0.151), which were moderate effects. The effect sizes of IMC on TFL (0.038) and BMP on IMC (0.088) were found to be small.

Fourth, we implemented blindfolding to assess the predictive relevance. A Q²-value greater than 0 for a specific endogenous latent variable indicates that the PLS path model possesses strong predictive relevance for that latent variable. As demonstrated in Table 9, the cross-validated redundancy of the latent variables indirectly forecasts the endogenous item based on the prediction of the corresponding latent variable utilized in the structural model. The predictive relevance for the resistance latent variables IMC, CE, BMP, and FP was all classified as ‘medium’ (Q² > 0.15). The cross-validated commonality of latent variables evaluates the path model directly from the latent variables, and all latent variables exhibited high (Q² > 0.35) predictive power, verifying that the model had substantial predictive power.

In this study, the overall goodness-of-fit (GOF) of the structural model is assessed by calculating the square root of the product of the mean coefficient of determination (R²) and the mean communality (AVE value). A GOF value of 0.532 was obtained. In PLS-PM analysis, the GOF is typically employed to evaluate the overall model fit. A higher GOF value indicates a better model fit; a GOF between 0.1 and 0.25 signifies a low model fit, a GOF between 0.25 and 0.36 indicates a medium model fit, and a GOF of 0.36 or higher represents a high model fit (Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, & Lauro, 2005). As shown in Table 10, all GOF indices exceeded the threshold, leading to the conclusion that the structural fit of this research model was excellent.

Next, we investigated the significance of the path coefficients between the latent variables in the structural model. To determine significance, we generated a bootstrap subsample (5,000) in PLS and utilized the t-value and p-value to test if the path coefficient β is statistically significant at a 5% error probability. As displayed in Figure 2 and Table 11, all six paths (H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H3, H5) were deemed statistically significant, with the exception of H2c and H4. Consequently, the hypothesis stating that TFL would have a more substantial influence than TAL on IMC activities (H1c) is not accepted.

Figure 2. Results of the partial least squares structural analysis. TAL, transactional leadership; TFL, transformational leadership; IMC, integrated marketing communication; MC, message consistency; IN, interactivity; SCSF, stakeholder-centered strategic focus; OA, organizational alignment; CE, campaign effectiveness; BMP, brand market performance; FP, financial performance. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Download Original Figure

In addition, the hypothesis that TFL and TAL impact business performance through the mediation of IMC was partially supported. A partial mediating role of IMC was identified between leadership style and both CE and BMP. However, no mediating role was discovered between the two leadership styles and FP. Moreover, the dual mediation effect of IMC and BMP on FP was significant for both TFL and TAL. The triple mediation effect of IMC, CE, and BMP on FP was also significant for both TFL and TAL. However, the dual mediation effect between IMC and CE was not significant for either leadership style.

This study was conducted to determine the impact of managerial leadership style on the implementation of IMC in organizations and its relationship to business performance. Key findings are summarized below.

First, TFL demonstrated a significant positive impact on IMC activities through direct path analysis. TFL, characterized by a clear vision, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, significantly influenced firms’ IMC activities in a dynamic and uncertain marketing environment (H1a). TAL, which is based on exchange transactions between leaders and subordinates, also positively affected IMC management activities (H1b). Interestingly, it had a relatively larger impact than TFL (H1c), suggesting that TAL is more effective in implementing and managing IMC activities. This supports previous research findings that these two leadership styles are not opposites but rather complementary and necessary for achieving goals. Furthermore, they coexist within individuals, albeit to varying degrees (Antonakis & House, 2002; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).

These results likely stem from differences between the two leadership styles. Essentially, variations in leadership’s influence on subordinates’ job satisfaction are due to different reasons for subordinates’ compliance with their leaders’ demands. In TAL, motivation comes from rewards for personal benefit, while in TFL, it derives from the leader’s respect and trust. Another distinguishing factor is the development of passion and commitment to work. Unlike TFL, TAL reportedly does not foster passion and commitment to work goals (Yukl, 2002), as subordinates are motivated only to the extent of the rewards received and do not experience exceptional management. Consequently, the difference in the level of subordinate performance that can be achieved through the exercise of leadership appears to have led to the difference in influence on IMC management activities.

Marketers in Japanese companies involved in the implementation of IMC tend to favor TAL, where goals between leaders and employees are aligned, directed, and rewarded based on realistic outcomes, over TFL, which focuses on achieving goals by motivating employees with a long-term, clear vision. However, since both types of leadership exhibited statistically significant results, we believe that a balanced leadership style, with an emphasis on TAL, will have a more positive impact on IMC management activities. This implies that TFL should be employed appropriately alongside TAL to elicit ‘beyond expectations’ performance from marketers in IMC management or to create a work environment where they feel more connected and engaged in IMC tasks.

Second, we analyzed the impact of firm-wide IMC on business performance, focusing on CE, BMP, and FP. Statistically significant relationships were found from IMC to both campaign effectiveness (H2a) and brand market performance (H2b), but not to financial performance (H2c). While CE influenced brand market performance (H3), it did not directly influence financial performance (H4). However, the relationship between brand market performance and financial performance (H5) was significant, underscoring the importance of leadership-supported IMC activities in enhancing BMP to improve financial outcomes. These findings contrast with previous studies, such as Luxton et al. (2017) and Kang (2021), which reported a positive effect of firmwide IMC on FP. Unlike the previous studies, which focused on strategic orientations (market, learning, etc.), this study focuses on the leadership style of the brand manager. In addition, differences in the results may be due to differences in subject characteristics, country, firm size, and industry.

Third, we investigated the mediating effect of IMC on the relationship between leadership style and business performance. We discovered that IMC served as a mediator between the two leadership styles and both CE (H6a, H7a) and brand market performance (H6b, H7b). However, it did not mediate between the two leadership styles and FP (H6c, H7c). We then explored the dual and triple mediation of the relationship between the two leadership styles and FP. Once again, we found no significance in the paths leading to IMC and CE for both leadership styles (H6d, H7d), but we did find dual and triple mediation for all other paths (H6e, H6f, H7e, H7f).

The implications of this research can be divided into theoretical and managerial perspectives. The theoretical implications are as follows.

First, this study expands the scope of IMC research by examining how organizational factors such as structure, culture, and leadership influence IMC implementation-factors that have traditionally been considered barriers but have rarely been empirically investigated. While previous research has predominantly focused on organizational culture (e.g., Porcu et al., 2017a, 2020), few studies have examined how managers’ leadership styles influence IMC activities. This is particularly relevant in Japanese firms, where rigid hierarchical structures and decision-making processes strongly influence how subordinates view IMC management. Our study is the first to empirically examine how two different leadership styles affect firmwide IMC, demonstrating their critical role in helping subordinates effectively manage IMC in a dynamic and uncertain marketing environment.

Second, although the mechanisms by which managers’ leadership styles contribute to business performance have been explored, few studies have investigated the mediating role of IMC management activities. Specifically, this study confirms the mediating role of IMC implementation and management activities within the organization, bridging the gap between leadership and CE, as well as leadership and BMP. This finding offers a chance to reevaluate the function of leadership within marketing organizations. The study demonstrates that IMC implementation and management activities are enhanced by managers’ leadership and are associated with both CE and BMP.

Third, this study revalidates the comprehensive IMC scale proposed in a previous study (Porcu et al., 2017b) by applying it to Japanese firms, confirming that the findings can be applied to firms across various industries. Moreover, unlike the previous study (Porcu et al., 2017a), which analyzed a sample heavily skewed towards a specific industry (85% of the sample consisted of hotel companies, n = 180), this study examined the effectiveness of organization-wide IMC implementation and management activities in a context that considers diverse industries, firm sizes, and respondent characteristics.

The managerial implications of this study are as follows. First, the results suggest that TAL is more effective than TFL when it comes to implementing IMC within an organization. As a result, managers should proactively adopt TAL strategies by recognizing the needs of their subordinates and providing rewards commensurate with their effort and performance, enabling them to effectively carry out their assigned tasks. In the context of Japanese companies, where wages have stagnated in recent decades, monetary incentives tend to be more motivating for employees than personal growth or a future vision.

Second, as previously mentioned, this does not imply that TFL is unnecessary in Japanese companies. To continue growing in a rapidly evolving business environment, companies must strategically employ both transformational and TAL to maximize the positive impact on their subordinates’ IMC implementation and processes. Given the current state of Japanese companies, TFL focused on innovation is more urgently required. However, it is challenging for TFL to be effective if TAL, which emphasizes realistic compensation systems (e.g., wage increases), is not functioning properly. If these issues are addressed, we believe that TFL can be effective in today’s rapidly changing society, as opposed to the bottom-up leadership of the past.

Organizational change management is vital for navigating rapid shifts in media, consumer, and technology landscapes related to IMC. TFL plays a crucial role in reducing confusion during these changes. Managers need to communicate the long-term vision, set a tone that aligns with the change direction, fully support necessary resource investments, and make decisive actions. Understanding subordinates’ personal characteristics is crucial for this process. Therefore, research should assess whether a manager’s leadership style matches the organization’s desired approach to effectively implement and manage IMC activities.

Third, the firm-wide IMC measurement tool utilized in this study (Porcu et al., 2017b) can be highly beneficial for marketers and practitioners during the decision-making process of IMC implementation. This tool offers valuable information for comprehending the organization’s situation concerning IMC and helps identify and prevent factors that may impede the organization’s communication performance beforehand. Moreover, this method of measuring IMC can aid executives in gaining a deeper understanding of how their organization integrates communication. As Porcu et al. (2020) point out, each of the four dimensions of IMC can also serve as a guide to evaluate the extent of their implementation within an organization.

The limitations of this study and future research questions are as follows. First, this study focused on two leadership styles (transformational and transactional) of supervisors in relation to IMC-related organizational issues. However, various endogenous factors such as organizational culture, structure, fairness, employee competence, and team competence may also influence IMC. Future research could examine these factors and their causal relationship with IMC, using a comprehensive model and in-depth interviews with IMC practitioners.

Second, while this study examined TFL and TAL as antecedents of IMC and their effects on CE, BMP, and FP, future research could explore other leadership styles such as shared, servant, delegative, coaching, authentic, and charismatic leadership. Additionally, variables such as employee self-efficacy, affective commitment, organizational culture (advocacy vs. market), and communication style (horizontal vs. vertical) could be considered as moderators. International comparisons may also provide valuable insights.

Finally, this study used a sample of 400 marketers from various industries to examine the mediating effects of supervisor leadership style on IMC implementation and management, and the impact of IMC on managerial performance. Future research should consider a larger sample size and control for industry and position characteristics, as the effects of the variables may differ based on these factors.