Toward a Theory of Business Marketing

8/11/2019 Toward a Theory of Business Marketing

1/21

TOWARD AN ENCOMPASSING THEORY

OF BUSINESS MARKETINGRELATIONSHIPS (BMRS) AND

INTERPERSONAL COMMERCIAL

RELATIONSHIPS (ICRS): AN EMPIRICAL

GENERALIZATION

D a w n I a c o b u c c i

J o n a t h a n D . H i b b a r d

f

A B S T R A C T

This paper explores business marketing relationships (BMRs) and

interpersonal commercial relationships (ICRs). The literature in

these two areas is analyzed to develop an overarching theoretical

understanding of how marketing relationships function in the

marketplace. The authors create empirical generalizations by

analyzing the interrelationships among constructs that researchers

have studied in a variety of operationalizations and settings during

the past decade. This analysis is used to build a conceptual model

1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and

Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc.

CCC 1094-9968/99/030013-21

f

JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING

VOLUME 13 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 1999

13

DAWN IACOBUCCI is Professor

of Marketing at the Kellogg

Graduate School of Management at

Northwestern University. She

joined Kellogg in 1987 upon

receiving her PhD in Quantitative

Psychology from the University ofIllinois in Urbana-Champaign. Her

research interests include services

marketing and customer

satisfaction, nonprofits and social

marketing, and the development of

multivariate statistical analysis

models for social network and

dyadic interactions data.

JONATHON D. HIBBARD is an

Assistant Professor of Marketing at

the Boston University School of

Management. He received his PhD

in Marketing from Northwestern

University, a masters degree from

the Kellogg Graduate School of

Management, and a Bachelor of

Science from the Boston

University. Prior to joining the

faculty, Professor Hibbard worked

for a number of years in sales,

marketing, and public relations.

We are grateful to Pablo Azar,

Anand Bodapti, Rajiv Dant, Donald

Lehmann, Louis W. Stern, the

faculty who attended theNorthwestern Behavioral Seminar,

Alex Chernev, Robert Kozinets,

Angela Lee, Vikas Mittal, Christie

Nordheilm, Alice Tybout, the

doctoral students who attended the

Northwestern University Marketing

Department ProSeminar Series,

Nathalie Demoulin, Vishal Singh,

Pedro Sousa, Alberto Sa Vinhas,

Nara Youn, and Pietro Zidda, and

the enthusiastic and supportive

crowd at the June 1998 Marketing

Science Institute conference for

their helpful feedback and

comments on this research.


2/21

for marketing relationships as they are studied in

BMRs and ICRs. The authors then compare the

models in order to develop a higher-level

conceptual understanding of relational

phenomena.

Few could argue against the claim that one ofthe premier issues in marketing is the under-standing of the relational context in which ex-changes occur (cf. Bagozzi, 1975; Kotler andLevy, 1969). Several marketing researchers havemaintained that relationship marketing repre-sents a paradigm shift in marketing (Parvatiyarand Sheth, 1997; Webster, 1992), permanently

changing the competitive playing field for firmsand consumers (McKenna, 1991).

Given its importance to the field, we arguethat future research on relationships in market-ing needs to be driven by a clearer understand-ing of the complexities and intricacies of rela-tionships in both business and consumermarketing. To help guide this understanding ofrelationships in marketing, we review and inte-grate the empirical work that has been done bymarketing scholars in both the business and

consumer marketing realms.

OVERVIEW OF MARKETINGRELATIONSHIPS

Researchers operate with considerable consen-sus in defining relationships using qualities asintensity, frequency of interaction, duration ofrelationship, and future relational expectations.Relationships in marketing emphasize closer,longer-term interactions, in contrast withbriefer, more distal, transactional exchanges(Dwyer, Schurr and Oh, 1987).

In addition to the closeness and repeatednature of the relational exchange, there is rec-ognition that the parties involved in the rela-tionship are inherently interdependent. As ingame theory (Luce and Raiffa, 1957; von Neu-mann and Morgenstern, 1944) or social ex-change theory (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959), re-

lational insights are not derived fromexamining two entities working contiguouslybut independentlythe repetition of transac-tions alone does not a relationship make.Rather, the focal interest in studying relation-

ships is the parties interdependencetheir in-teracting to produce joint outcomes, subse-quent mutual reactions, and future outcomes. Itis in this latter context that relational constructssuch as trust and cooperation become meaning-ful. These interdependencies further enhancethe closeness and long-term nature of relation-ships that help distinguish them from shorter-term transactions.

Marketers study these interdependent long-term relationships in a variety of arenas thatmay be classified into one of three categories.

First, research on relationships in marketinghas its strongest heritage under the purview ofinterorganizational phenomena, e.g., channelsrelationships (Frazier, Spekman, and ONeal,1988; Stern, El-Ansary, and Coughlan, 1996),buyer-seller relationships, and business market-ing (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Heide and

John, 1992). These business marketing relation-ships (BMRs) are usually discussed using orga-nizational analogs of interpersonal constructssuch as cooperation and power; for example,

representatives from manufacturing and distrib-uting firms may be asked to characterize theirbusiness ties in terms of the relationships out-comes, such as market performance, and itsprocesses, such as the frequency of communi-cation and the presence of conflict or coopera-tion.

Second, beyond business marketing settings,there are a variety of marketing relationships thatcan be characterized using the label interpersonalcommercial relationships(ICRs). In marketing, ICRsinclude the potpourri of consumer-to-consumerconnections, service providertoconsumer inter-actions, and salespersontocustomer relations.Marketing has long posited word-of-mouth com-munication as a mechanism for diffusing informa-tion about marketplace offerings; thus we alsoinclude studies of customers networks for sharingconsumption experiences (Brown and Reingen,1987; Frenzen and Davis, 1990; Reingen and Ker-nan, 1986). We include studies on the interper-

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R A C T I V E M A R K E T I N G

JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING VOLUME 13 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 1999

14


3/21

sonal relations in service-based interactions, e.g.,that which occurs between a customer and a retailrepresentative (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles, 1990;Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Front-line serviceproviders represent the firm to the customer, so

their interpersonal behaviors in these interactionscan have a strong impact on customers percep-tions of the providers and their firms.

Third, many businesses are interested informing closer relationships with their custom-ers through a variety of methods, such as data-base marketing, direct marketing, interactivemarketing, and one-to-one marketing (Blatt-berg and Deighton, 1991; Pine, Peppers, andRogers, 1995; Reichheld, 1993). This business-to-consumer (B-to-C) category of relationshipinvolves interactions between an organization

and an individual customer, creating an inher-ent asymmetry between different units thatraises a challenge for the relationship, as weshall see. In addition, the perspectives may vary

within the dyad; e.g., firms may believe they arebuilding relationships with their customers byproviding unique offers or promotional mail-ings, but many customers report that they donot feel engaged in a relationship with the firmor its brand (Fournier, Dobscha, and Mick,1998). The current pursuit of relationships with

consumers is largely technology-driven, as firmsexplore methods of discovering the idiosyn-cratic preferences of their customers (Gilmoreand Pine, 1997; Pine, et al., 1995). Customersand firms collaborate to fulfill customer needs

when, as with the internet Firefly Network, cus-tomers provide their preferences and the soft-

ware agent searches for the optimal product(Carroll, 1997; Whitestone, 1997), based onknown preferences of other, similar customers(Lyons, 1997).

These three classes of marketing relation-ships begin to convey the range of relationalforms. For instance, in BMRs, businesses may

work closely together as providers and users ofcomplex goods and services which require greatcoordination and interactionfor example,specialty chemicals or medical diagnostic equip-ment. In ICRs, business and consumer servicessuch as advertising agency account manage-ment or lawyerclient interactions can also of-

ten have strong relational components. In B-to-Cs, frequent and knowledgeable consumerusers of a firms products and services may alsoconsider themselves to be highly involved withthe providing firm. Indeed, some loyalty be-

haviors and frequent user programs may beclassified as relational, and some researchersare beginning to inquire about customersrelationships with their products and brands.Clearly, a better understanding of these classesof relations would be valuable.

Before proceeding, one more point of delin-eation may prove useful. It is currentlyen vogueto speak of a customer having a relationship

with a brand. This characterization is vacuous ifwe define a relationship using both qualities ofcloseness and interdependence, as per the liter-

ature. Repeat purchases, or even loyalty, mayenjoy the element of closeness (e.g., frequency,even intensity), but there is no interdepen-dency. One might counter that a brands exis-tence depends upon its purchasers, but interde-pendence is usually defined as one partysactions being contingent upon the others. Arelated phenomenon occurs when a private cit-izen projects a relationship onto a public-figurestranger (e.g., fans sending baby shower gifts toan actress in a soap opera whose character is

pregnant, teeny-bopper girls who claim tolove Leonardo DiCaprio, or the flavor dujour). There exist no interdependencies inthese fantastic relationships either. We wouldlabel these pseudorelationships, or pararelation-ships.

In addition to the three classes of relation-ships that we are examining (BMRs, ICRs, andB-to-Cs), researchers acknowledge that thestructures of relationships are becoming in-creasingly complex: each firm is connectedthrough a web of interactions with suppliersand distributors, customers, and assorted otherconstituencies. The multitudes of relations canbe difficult to explicate, given corporate diver-sification and the globalization of markets,

whereby organizations that are competitors inone market often have cooperative or develop-mental relationships in another, so connectionsand alliances have become even more interde-pendent and complicated.

B M R S A N D I C R S


15


4/21

As an example, Figure 1 depicts a simple webof relations for one firm, to give the reader asense of the many connections with which afirm deals in its competitive and operating en-

vironment. On the left side of the diagramthere is the focal firm, in this case an airline; itsbusiness ties with its parent firm and its compet-itors are represented, as are those with its chan-nel suppliers, wholesalers, and retailers, andgovernmental and industrial regulators. On theright are depicted various customer bases, inno-

vative and influential consumers, loyal andformer customers, all of whom may interact.Finally, the firm and the customer meet in thecenter of the figure. In earlier BMR studies, theresearch focus typically was on the dyadsay, afirm and its major distributora very small sub-set of Figure 1, with all other connections sub-sumed under a more general heading of theenvironment within which the firm conductsits business. More recent views appreciate that

the complexities within that environment (e.g.,all other direct and indirect ties) impinge onthe focal relationship and therefore must alsobe studied and modeled explicitly. To truly un-derstand an organization in the future, we willhave to comprehend these complex networks ofinterconnections (Achrol, 1997; Anderson, H-kansson, and Johanson, 1994; Iacobucci andHopkins, 1992).

In surveying the literature, we will see thatthe BMRs sphere is highly developed and richin interconnections. The literature on ICRs isstill developing, but as yet it does not have thestrong heritage of the relational tradition in thebusiness marketing studies. Newer and sparserstill is the literature on business-to-consumerrelationships. This literature largely consists ofmaterial in popular publications that speculatesabout the relationships consumers have withfirms or brands, with very few empirical resultson which to draw for theory building. Accord-

F I G U R E 1

Classifying and Connecting Relationships in Marketing



16


5/21

ingly, this article focuses on BMRs and ICRs.However, we will derive a number of observa-tions regarding the B-to-Cs later in the paper,and we encourage future researchers to con-tinue to develop all these literatures, in a more

balanced manner, so that marketers and thefield of marketing can use the knowledge ofmarketing relationships effectively.

Thus, the goal of this paper is fundamentallytheoretical: to develop an encompassing theoryof relational constructs in marketing. We beginby examining that which may be discerned in-dependently in the BMR and ICR literature,and then we make conceptual comparisons toidentify unifying theoretical themes. Finally, wediscuss some implications that our work has forfuture research and theory building as well as

marketing practice.

METHOD

A major task in all areas of science is the de-velopment of theory. Scientists have knownfor centuries that a single study will not resolvea major issue.[T]he foundation of science isthe cumulation of knowledge from the resultsof many studies (Hunter, Schmidt, and Jack-

son, 1982, p.10).

With theory formation as our goal, we soughtto accumulate the knowledge to which manyscholars have contributed regarding marketingrelationships. We viewed our challenge as not tocompulsively annotate the past, but to summa-rize the fields collective understanding of mar-keting relationships, in order to look to thefuture. We reviewed and integrated many arti-cles published in top marketing journals, sys-tematically making note of the nature of signif-icant findings. We collected those findings todevelop an empirical generalizationessen-tially a qualitative meta-analysis (cf. Hunter, etal., 1982). Results from many studies were syn-thesized into an overall model which is indica-tive of the current state of knowledge. We nowdescribe our procedure in detail.

Our criteria for an articles inclusion in ourreview and analysis were fourfold:

1. We focus on the most recent decade (i.e.,1987 to present), with the belief that ear-lier papers would have had their impacton later papers.

2. We draw articles from theJournal of Mar-

keting, the Journal of Marketing Research,andMarketing Science,acknowledging im-perfections of the review process butseeking those articles that surpassedsome critical threshold. (We acknowl-edge that many fine papers examiningrelational constructs have appeared insuch journals as theJournal of the Academyof Marketing Science,theJournal of BusinessResearch,and the Journal of Retailing.) Inaddition, given that a substantial volume

of international research has been pub-lished outside these journals, we haveincluded the International Journal of Re-search in Marketing. Finally, in the reviewand analysis of services and consumertypes of relationships, we add the Journalof Consumer Research and the Journal of Consumer Psychology to the previous four

journals. (Note that the model that re-sults from our analysis is undoubtedly afunction of the parameters we set for thissynthesis. We tried to be comprehensive

yet judicious in our criteria, but we rec-ognize that other researchers might havepreferred other criteria.)

3. We focus on interorganizational relation-ships, but exclude intraorganizational re-lations, e.g., interdepartmental or buyingcenter dynamics, not because they areunimportant, but rather because theytend to be more organizational thanmarketing in nature given their less di-rect impact on the customerthough in-creasingly marketers are acknowledging,for example, the impact of job satisfac-tion on customer satisfaction; cf.Schlesinger and Heskett, 1991). (Manyfine papers examining relational con-structs also appear in such top organiza-tional and management journals as Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly and theAcademy of Management Journal, but they



17


6/21

tend to focus on employee relations, e.g.,commitment to ones employing firm,interdepartmental conflict, fit betweenemployee personality and organizationalculture, etc.)

4. We have limited our review to only em-pirical results, not hypotheses. While re-searchers can derive verbal or mathemat-ically logical predictions regarding theassociations between concepts, we be-lieve that generalizations derived fromempirical findings will have greater dura-bility since they are based on letting thedata speak.

To build the empirical generalizations for the

BMRs and ICRs from this database of articles,we proceeded as follows. For each article se-lected by the aforementioned criteria, we madenote of all significant findings. We cataloguedthese findings, noting each constructs anteced-ents and consequences.

With this collection of findings, we drew theresulting models, linking one construct to an-other if at least two research findings (in differ-ent articles) confirmed the significance of therelationship. (Two findings in the same article

did not count, since they would have come fromthe same data set, possibly resulting from com-mon method variance.) This criterion, muchlike the literature itself, seeks convergence ormultiple informants confirming an apparentphenomenon; a desire for replication is easy todefend. The idiosyncrasies that occur in re-search (e.g., a construct being operationalizedslightly differently across studies) will make fora richness in the literature if they withstand thetests of replicability and time. Through their

research, each team of researchers is buildingan understanding of the pieces of the prover-bial elephant, and we are trying to stand backand represent to the reader that there is indeeda whole elephant. Hence we focus on the com-monalties across studies, but we emphasize thatconstructs that have appeared in the literature,but do not appear in our model, present oppor-tunities for future integration and research.

RESULTS

We begin by analyzing the marketing literatureon BMRs (e.g., buyer-seller, channels, inter-firmnetworks) because it eclipses the other litera-tures in its extensiveness. We then discuss our

analysis of the interpersonal commercial rela-tionships literature.

Empirical Generalization of BusinessMarketing Relationships (BMRs)

Literature

The result of this comprehensive analysis asapplied to the BMR literature is the conceptualdiagram depicted in Figure 2. While the dia-gram is somewhat self-explanatory, we brieflycharacterize the rationale underlying each

path.For each construct that appears in the figure,

we define the construct, give examples of itsoperationalizations,and then describe its anteced-entsand consequences,documenting the relevantsupportingcitations. A summary of these causallinks and their supportive research is providedin Table 1.

Longer-term relationships are those relationalexchanges that transpire over time; each trans-action must be viewed in terms of its history and

its anticipated future (Dwyer, et al., 1987, p.12;note that we draw our constucts definitionsdirectly from the literature, for purposes of con-tinuity and parsimony, rather than profferingnew definitions of our own). Operationaliza-tions of longer-term relationships include long-term orientation, age of relationship, experience withpartner, etc. The two primary antecedents ofBMRs upon which the data show consensus arecommitment and interdependence. In particu-lar, commitment is the intention to continue, soin the presence of greater commitment, there isindeed greater continuity and retention(Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Morgan and Hunt,1994). (As we state each causal linkage, e.g.,fromcommitmentto long-term relationship,at leasttwo citations follow, given our criterion of rep-lication. The number of cites represents thefrequency of empirical confirmations of thelink.) Long-term orientation in turn builds iter-atively an intention to continue; i.e., enhanced



18


7/21

T A B L E 1

Citations Supporting Empirical Generalization Paths

Business Marketing Relationships (as shown in Figure 2):

Antecedents ofOutcomes:

From3 To Citations Supporting Causal Link

Trust

OutcomeAnderson &Narus 1990;Doney &Cannon1997

Absence conflict "Anderson & Narus 1990; Bucklin & Sengupta 1993; Mohr, Fisher &

Nevin 1996

Long-termrelation "

Anderson & Weitz 1989; Bucklin & Sengupta 1993; Doney & Cannon1997; Ganesan 1993; Kalwani & Narayandas 1995; Lusch & Brown 1996

Communication " Anderson & Narus 1990; Mohr, Fisher & Nevin 1996

Importance " Buchanan 1992; Bucklin & Sengupta 1993; Heide & John 1990

Balanced power "

Buchanan 1992; Bucklin & Sengupta 1993; Keith, Jackson & Crosby1990; Rinehart & Page 1992; Scheer & Stern 1992; Mohr, Fisher & Nevin1996

Interdependence "Anderson & Narus 1990; Buchanan 1992; Keith, Jackson & Crosby

1990; Lusch & Brown 1996

Outcome " Anderson & Narus 1990; Rinehart & Page 1992; Scheer & Stern 1992

Antecedents of Long-Term Relationships:

From3 To Citations supporting causal link

Outcome Relations Ganesan 1994; Kumar, Scheer & Steenkamp 1995b

Commitment " Anderson & Weitz 1989; Morgan & Hunt 1994

Interdep. " Ganesan 1994; Lusch & Brown 1996

Antecedents of Commitment:


Long term Commitment Anderson & Weitz 1989; Heide & John 1990

Absence conflict " Anderson & Weitz 1992; Mohr, Fisher & Nevin 1996

Trust " Anderson & Weitz 1989; Morgan & Hunt 1994; Geyskens et al 1996

Idiosyncratic " Anderson & Weitz 1992; Gundlach, Achrol & Mentzer 1995

Balanced power "Anderson & Weitz 1989; Kumar, Scheer & Steenkamp 1995a; Mohr,Fisher & Nevin 1996

Importance " Anderson & Weitz 1989; Heide & John 1990

Antecedents ofAbsence of Conflict:


Trust No conflict Anderson & Narus 1990; Dant & Schul 1992; Morgan & Hunt 1994

Cooperation " Anderson & Narus 1990; Dant & Schul 1992

Balanced power "Anderson & Narus 1990; Frazier & Rody 1991; Kumar, Scheer &Steenkamp 1995a

Antecedents ofBalanced Power:




19


8/21

Business Marketing Relationships (as shown in Figure 2):

Idiosyncratic Balance Heide & John 1992; Bucklin & Sengupta 1993

Interdependence "Anderson & Narus 1990; Buchanan 1992; Gundlach & Cadotte 1994;Rinehart & Page 1992

Antecedents ofTrust:


Outcomes Trust Ganesan 1994; Scheer & Stern 1992

Shared values " Anderson & Weitz 1989; Doney & Cannon 1997; Morgan & Hunt 1994

Personality " Doney & Cannon 1997; Moorman, Desphande & Zaltman 1993

CommunicationAnderson & Weitz 1989; Anderson & Narus 1990; Doney & Cannon

1997; Morgan & Hunt 1994

Idiosyncratic "Doney & Cannon 1997; Ganesan 1994; Moorman, Desphande &

Zaltman 1993

Balanced power "Anderson & Weitz 1989; Kumar, Scheer & Steenkamp 1995a; Scheer &

Stern 1992; Moorman, Desphande & Zaltman 1993

Antecedents ofCooperation:


Trust Cooperation Andaleeb 1995; Morgan & Hunt 1994

Communication " Anderson & Narus 1990; Mohr, Fisher & Nevin 1996

Commitment " Heide & John 1990; Morgan & Hunt 1994

Remaining causal links:


Interdependence Communicate Anderson & Narus 1990; Lusch & Brown 1996

Interdependence Flexibility Hallen, Johanson, Seyed-Mohamed 1991; Heide 1994; Lusch & Brown 1996Interpersonal Commercial Marketing Relationships (as shown in Figure 3):

Antecedents ofOutcomes:


Outcomes Outcomes Oliver & Swan 1989; Crosby & Stephens 1987

Competence "Brown & Swartz 1989; Crosby, Evans and Cowles 1990; Crosby &

Stephens 1987; Iacobucci & Ostrom 1993; Surprenant & Solomon 1987

Personality " Fine & Schumann 1992; Iacobucci & Ostrom 1993; Reingen & Kernan 1993

Absence conflict " Campbell et al 1988; Graham et al 1988; Menasco & Curry 1989

Similarity " Campbell et al 1988; Crosby, Evans & Cowles 1990; Ward & Reingen 1990

Relationship "Brown & Swartz 1989; Crosby, Evans & Cowles 1990; Iacobucci &

Ostrom 1993

Social closeness " Frenzen & Davis 1990; Ward & Reingen 1990

Communication " Brown & Swartz 1989; Crosby & Stephens 1987; Surprenant & Solomon 1987

Remaining Causal Links:


Social closeness Similarity Brown & Reingen 1987; Ward & Reingen 1990

Social closeness Communicate Brown & Reingen 1987; Frenzen & Nakamoto 1993



20

T A B L E 1

Continued


9/21

commitment (Anderson and Weitz, 1989;

Heide and John, 1990). States of interdepen-dence contribute to longer-term relationships(Ganesan, 1994; Lusch and Brown, 1996), inpart because independence allows for easier ter-mination.

The primary consequence of BMRs is thatthey can yield positive outcomes (Anderson and

Weitz, 1989; Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;Doney and Cannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1993; Kal-

wani and Narayandas, 1995; Lusch and Brown,1996). That is, we do not form or study BMRs asan end in themselves; rather, understanding afirms interconnected structure of relations en-ables the enhancement of effectiveness andprofitability. We now review those variant out-comes.

Outcomes of BMRs include results such asgreater profitability and strategic advantage(Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Bello and Gilliland,1997; Buchanan, 1992; Bucklin and Sengupta,1993; Lusch and Brown, 1996) and relationship

maintenance results, such as satisfaction

(Anderson and Narus, 1990; Mohr, Fisher, andNevin, 1996; Smith and Barclay, 1997) and an-ticipated future interaction (Doney and Can-non, 1997; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Successfulrelational outcomes are enhanced by an ab-sence of conflict (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993; Mohr, et al.,1996), the presence of trust (Anderson and Na-rus, 1990; Doney and Cannon, 1997), commu-nication (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Mohr, etal., 1996), interdependence (Anderson and Na-rus, 1990; Buchanan, 1992; Keith, et al., 1990;Lusch and Brown, 1996), a symmetric balanceof power between the partners (Buchanan,1992; Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993; Keith, et al.,1990; Mohr, et al., 1996; Rinehart and Page,1992; Scheer and Stern, 1992), and a long-termrelationship orientation (Anderson and Weitz,1989; Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993; Doney andCannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1993; Kalwani andNarayandas, 1995; Lusch and Brown, 1996).

F I G U R E 2

An Empirical Generalization of the Business Marketing Relationships (BMRs) Literature



21


10/21

Giving mutual goals a high priority also contrib-utes to their success (Buchanan, 1992; Bucklinand Sengupta, 1993; Heide and John, 1990).

It makes sense that productive relationshipsare enhanced by these good relational pro-

cesses. Firms in relationships rife with conflictand mistrust would presumably be less effectiveat agreeing upon mutual goals and would re-quire attention to maintenance to an extentthat would detract resources away from the jointgains. Of theoretical interest is that these pro-cesses have direct impacts on business perfor-mance, not just as mediated by long-term rela-tionships.

Recursive consequences of favorable perfor-mance outcomes are enhanced trust (Ganesan,1994; Scheer and Stern, 1992), and continuity

of the relationship (Ganesan, 1994; Kumar,Scheer, and Steenkamp, 1995b). As firms real-ize favorable outcomes attributable to their re-lationships, the expectations that their partnerscan and will deliver (i.e., trust) is strengthened,as is the duration of the relationship itself. Fi-nally, positive outcomes form a reinforcingfeedback loop, inducing subsequent continuedpositive outcomes: success breeds success; firmsin BMRs become practiced at how to do things

well (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Rinehart and

Page, 1992; Scheer and Stern, 1992).Commitmentis an implicit or explicit pledgeof relational continuity between exchange part-ners (Dwyer, et al., 1987, p.19), or the adop-tion of a long-term orientation toward the rela-tionshipa willingness to make short-termsacrifices to realize long-term benefits from therelationship (Anderson and Weitz, 1992, p.19;Gundlach, Achrol, and Mentzer, 1995). Com-mitment has been studied as multidimensional,explicating its instrumental and normative as-pects (Brown, Lusch, and Nicholson, 1995), orits calculative and affective facets (Geyskens,Steenkamp, Scheer, and Kumar, 1996).

The expected continuity of commitment(Anderson and Weitz, 1989) is enhanced byprecursors that smooth the interactivity: the ab-sence of conflict (Anderson and Weitz, 1992;Mohr, et al., 1996), and the presence of trustingattitudes (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Geyskens,et al., 1996; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) and idio-

syncratic investment behaviors (Anderson andWeitz, 1992; Gundlach, et al., 1995). Longer-term relationships have inertia; longer historiescontribute to still greater commitment (Ander-son and Weitz, 1989; Heide and John, 1990).

Symmetric power structures are more effectivethan unbalanced relationships in sustainingcommitment to a mutually rewarding relation-ship (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Kumar,Scheer, and Steenkamp, 1995a; Mohr, et al,1996). There tends to be greater commitmentand dedication for more important mutualprojects (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Heide and

John, 1990), and finally, partners committed toworking together tend to do so more coopera-tively (Heide and John, 1990; Morgan andHunt, 1994).

Conflictis generally considered to be a state ofdisagreement between two parties that shouldbe avoided, but researchers have also argued forthe functionality of dispute resolution in stimu-lating more creative and productive partner-ships (cf. Anderson and Narus, 1990, p. 45;Morgan and Hunt, 1994, p. 26). Inamicableconflict appears to be minimized in relation-ships characterized by trust that ones partner

will execute tactics as planned (Anderson andNarus, 1990; Dant and Schul, 1992; Morgan and

Hunt, 1994), cooperative behaviors (Andersonand Narus, 1990; Dant and Schul, 1992), andbalanced power rather than hierarchical subser-

vience (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Frazier andRody, 1991; Kumar, et al., 1995a). In turn, anabsence of conflict enhances commitment(Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Mohr, et al., 1996)and positive relational outcomes (Andersonand Narus, 1990; Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;Mohr, et al., 1996). In particular, negotiationstrategies for conflict resolution have become asubdiscipline (cf. Ganesan, 1993; Rinehart andPage, 1992) including international relations(Campbell, Graham, Jolibert, and Meissner,1988, in the U.K. and Europe, and Graham,Kim, Lin, and Robinson, 1988, in the PacificRim).

Trustis forward-looking, defined as one par-tys belief that its needs will be fulfilled in thefuture by actions undertaken by the otherparty (Anderson and Weitz, 1989, p. 312;



22


11/21

Ganesan, 1994; Smith and Barclay, 1997). Trustis conceptualized as being multidimensional innature, involving both the perceived credibilityand benevolence of the partner (Doney andCannon, 1997, p.36), where credibility is an

expectancy that the partners wordcan be re-lied on, and benevolence is the extent towhich one partner is genuinely interested in theother partners welfare and motivated to seek

joint gain. Thus, trust is not some heartfeltemotion, as its interpersonal analog may sug-gest, but rather an expectation that ones part-ner can and will behave as promised, and thatfuture relational behaviors will prove mutuallybeneficial. Researchers typically describe theutility of trust contingent upon the presence ofenvironmental uncertainty; without uncer-

tainty, there is no need for trust. Given thatmost industries are dynamic and their futurescannot be perfectly predicted, trust will con-tinue to be a focal relational construct.

Greater trust is found in relationships thatparticipate in greater communication, presum-ably because with increased interactions, partiescreate opportunities to clarify objectives andmisunderstandings before they become disrup-tive (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Anderson and

Weitz, 1989; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Morgan

and Hunt, 1994). Idiosyncratic investments (tobe defined shortly) also enhance trust (Doneyand Cannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1994; Moorman,Deshpande, and Zaltman, 1993), as do powerbalances (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Kumar, etal., 1995a; Moorman, et al, 1993; Scheer andStern, 1992). Not surprisingly, shared values orsimilarities in organizational goals and culturesenhance trust (Anderson and Weitz, 1989;Doney and Cannon, 1997; Morgan and Hunt,1994). Certain aspects of a boundary spannerspersonality (e.g., sincerity, expertise, likability)also strengthen trust in relationships (Doneyand Cannon, 1997; Moorman, et al., 1993); onecompany trusts another more if its human rep-resentatives trust the other firms agents.

In turn, greater trust reduces conflict (Ander-son and Narus, 1990; Dant and Schul, 1992;Morgan and Hunt, 1994), and increases coop-eration (Andaleeb, 1995; Morgan and Hunt,1994) and commitment (Anderson and Weitz,

1989; Geyskens, et al., 1996; Morgan and Hunt,1994). Trust also enhances performance out-comes (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Doney andCannon, 1997), which in turn contributes tostill greater trust (Ganesan, 1994; Scheer and

Stern, 1992).Power is the ability of one party to get an-other party to undertake an activity that [thesecond party] would not normally do (Ander-son and Weitz, 1989, p. 312) and control is anoutcome of power and results when a firm issuccessful in modifying its partners behaviors(Heide and John, 1992; Mohr, et al., 1996,p.104; also see Brown, Johnson, and Koenig,1995). That is, power is the ability to influenceand control is achieved influence (Mohr, etal., 1996, p.104).

Influence and attitudes toward the influ-encer are indeed the focus of most researchconcerned with power (cf. Boyle, Dwyer, Ro-bicheaux, and Simpson, 1992; Keith, et al.,1990; Scheer and Stern, 1992). These attemptsat influence are of interest because balanced,symmetric power structures are thought to bemore conducive to mutual, long-lasting rela-tionships (Buchanan, 1992). Asymmetric powerstructures are hierarchical, with one party hav-ing greater influential and dictatorial abilities

over the other. Imbalanced dyads do not sustainlongevity, so the apparent short-term advan-tages of power do not translate into effectivelong-term relationship management interac-tions.

In turn, greater balance in power structureshas positive impacts on trust (Anderson and

Weitz, 1989; Kumar, et al., 1995a; Moorman, etal., 1993; Scheer and Stern, 1992), the absenceof conflict (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Frazierand Rody, 1991; Kumar, et al., 1995a), commit-ment (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Gundlach, etal., 1995; Kumar, et al., 1995a), and positiveperformance outcomes (Buchanan, 1992; Buck-lin and Sengupta, 1993; Keith, et al., 1990;Mohr, et al., 1996; Rinehart and Page, 1992;Scheer and Stern, 1992). Interdependence alsocontributes to balanced power (Anderson andNarus, 1990; Buchanan, 1992; Gundlach andCadotte, 1994; Rinehart and Page, 1992). Bal-anced power structures are desirable for all



23


12/21

these reasons, yet they are less likely to be foundin the presence of greater idiosyncratic invest-ments by the partners, an important constructin the transaction cost analysis paradigm (Buck-lin and Sengupta, 1993; Heide and John, 1992),

because one party investing asymmetrically inanother makes the former more dependentupon the latter.

Interdependence is a mutual state of depen-dence; whereas dependence is an asymmetricstate of one party relying more heavily on an-other (cf. Buchanan, 1992; Gundlach and Ca-dotte, 1994; Hallen, Johanson, and Seyed-Mo-hamed, 1991; Heide, 1994; Kumar, et al.,1995a). The former state is desirable for effec-tive relationships, the latter begins to resembleundesirable unbalanced power structures. The

more interdependent are two business partners,the closer their relationship, nearly by defini-tion: the more they communicate (Andersonand Narus, 1990; Lusch and Brown, 1996), themore balanced their power (Anderson and Na-rus, 1990; Buchanan, 1992; Gundlach and Ca-dotte, 1994; Rinehart and Page, 1992), thegreater their adaptability or flexibility (Hallen,et al., 1991; Heide, 1994; Lusch and Brown,1996), the greater the likelihood of maintainingtheir long-term relationship (Ganesan, 1994;

Lusch and Brown, 1996), and the better theirperformance outcomes (Anderson and Narus,1990; Buchanan, 1992; Keith, et al., 1990; Luschand Brown, 1996).

We have been clear in stating the importanceof interdependence in defining relationships.The lack of interaction or contingent behaviorsoffers no causal interconnections between par-ties in an alliance. The forms of contingentbehaviors include greater frequencies of inter-action (communication), a striving towardpower balance, and an ability to react well toones partners requests (i.e., adaptability orflexibility).

Communicationcan be defined broadly as theformal as well as informal sharing of meaning-ful and timely information between firms(Anderson and Narus, 1990, p. 44; Andersonand Weitz, 1989; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Ithas been operationalized as the frequency ofbusiness contact (Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;

Doney and Cannon, 1997) and the exchange ofinformation (Lusch and Brown, 1996). It car-ries the antecedent of interdependence (Ander-son and Narus, 1990; Lusch and Brown, 1996)and the consequences of cooperation (Ander-

son and Narus, 1990; Mohr, et al., 1996), trust(Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Anderson and Na-rus, 1990; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Morganand Hunt, 1994), and performance outcomes(Anderson and Narus, 1990; Mohr, et al, 1996).

Cooperation is defined as similar or comple-mentary coordinated actions taken by firms ininterdependent relationships to achieve mutualoutcomes or singular outcomes with expectedreciprocation over time (Anderson and Narus,1990, p.45). It has been operationalized as anattitude of involvement, joint actions, and

coordination of efforts. Cooperation implies asynchronicity between firms that are interacting

with flexibility (Bello and Gilliland, 1997;Heide, 1994), adaptation (Hallen, et al., 1991),in mutually beneficial joint action (Heide and

John, 1990). Cooperative results are more likelyfor business partners with stronger communica-tion patterns (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Mohr, et al., 1996), trust (Andaleeb, 1995; Mor-gan and Hunt, 1994) and commitment betweenpartners (Heide and John, 1990; Morgan and

Hunt, 1994). Cooperative relations in turn re-sult in less conflict (Anderson and Narus, 1990;Dant and Schul, 1992).

Idiosyncratic investmentsare derived from thetransaction cost analysis paradigm and are de-fined as assets that are dedicated to a particularrelationship and involve sunk costs that wouldbe nonrecoverable in the event of termination(Erramilli and Rao, 1993; Heide and John,1992, p. 33). Indicator variables have rangedfrom transaction-specific investments to exclu-sivity and the willingness of ones partner tocustomize their market offerings. Greater in-

vestments in relationship-specific assets en-hance trust (Doney and Cannon, 1997; Moor-man, et al., 1993) and commitment (Andersonand Weitz, 1992; Gundlach, et al., 1995), butshift power structures to an imbalance in favorof the firm not making the specific investment(Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993; Heide and John,1992).



24


13/21

In sumthus far, Figure 2 represents an accu-mulation of findings in the BMR literaturethebeginning of theory development on a scale toencompass and integrate this broad literature.The aforementioned constructs are those focalin the BMR literature as evidenced by our em-pirical generalization on which there is interre-searcher agreement. Researchers have certainly

investigated other constructs that do not appearin this analysis (as a function of our researchparametersjournals, time scope, etc.); e.g.,opportunism, termination costs, uncertainty, re-lational norms vs. explicit contracting, percep-tions of procedural and outcome justice, gover-nance structures, etc. Nevertheless, suchconstructs clearly offer opportunities for fur-ther investigation, and additional studies willcontinue to explicate this overarching model.

We consider the model depicted in Figure 2 asrepresentative of the proverbial elephant, build-

ing upon research that has focused on its manyparts. Having completed the review and integra-tion of the BMR literature, we turn to ICRs.

Empirical Generalization of theInterpersonal Commercial

Relationships (ICRs) Literature

Whereas the BMR literature is fairly well-delin-eated, the literature that is concerned with ICRs

in marketing is more diverse, but shares theelement that the relationship is interpersonal.

We examined studies within the services mar-keting literature that consider the relationalabilities of service providers when interacting

with clients, as opposed to their core competen-cies. We studied the salesperson literature thatexamines such qualities as the concordance of

personality factors between retail salespeopleand customers. We also included studies fromthe literature on the relations among consum-ers that are activated in word-of-mouth commu-nication networks. While initially we were in-clined to summarize each body of literatureseparately, it became apparent we would needto combine them to achieve our criterion ofreplication. The ICR constructs and linkagesare presented in Figure 3, which was developedfrom the basic template of Figure 2, so as toenhance the ability to compare literatures.

Relationship Interactions. For BMRs, the focalconstruct is that of long-term relationship. In theICRs setting, this constructs corollary is thequality of the relationship interactions be-tween two parties (e.g., a service provider andclient; Crosby and Stephens, 1987). The rela-tionship between two firms certainly includesinterpersonal phenomena, but two firms may

F I G U R E 3

An Empirical Generalization of the Interpersonal Commercial Relationships (ICRs) Literature



25


14/21

be contractually joined regardless of the inter-personal skills or affective connections betweentheir representatives. In ICRs, the emphasis re-

versesthere is certainly a commercial compo-nenta customer approaches a firms represen-

tative with a consumption goal, but theinterpersonal exchange yields a larger presencein the consumer-provider transactions. It mat-ters more whether a client likes his or her doc-tor or lawyer, for example, than whether Firm

As Research Director likes Firm Bs StrategicManager.

Similar to what was demonstrated by theBMR literature, stronger, long-term relation-ships have been shown to enhance ICRs out-comes (Brown and Swartz, 1989; Crosby, et al.,1990; Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1993). Customers,

like firms, are goal-oriented; one returns toones hairdresser because one likes the result,or one returns to ones lawyer or therapist be-cause it minimizes start-up costs with anotherprovider.

Outcomes in the ICR setting included profit-ability, satisfaction, positive evaluations of theprovider or salesperson and of that representa-tives firm, anticipation of future interactions,preferences, and intentions to generate refer-rals. Positive outcomes were enhanced by strong

relationships (Brown and Swartz, 1989; Crosby,et al., 1990; Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1993). Fur-thermore, positive outcomes were enhanced byability of the parties to communicate (Brownand Swartz, 1989; Crosby and Stephens, 1987;Surprenant and Solomon, 1987), similarities inpreferences or shared belief systems (Campbell,et al., 1988; Crosby, et al., 1990; Ward and Rein-gen, 1990), perceptions of social closeness(Frenzen and Davis, 1990; Ward and Reingen,1990), and an ability to compromise or bargainfairly, comparable to the BMR construct of con-flict resolution (or absence of conflict; Camp-bell, et al., 1988; Graham, et al., 1988; Menascoand Curry, 1989). Positive outcomes were alsoenhanced when the provider was characterizedas competent (Brown and Swartz, 1989; Crosby,et al., 1990; Crosby and Stephens, 1987; Iaco-bucci and Ostrom, 1993; Surprenant and So-lomon, 1987). Other personality factors werealso helpful in producing positive outcomes;

e.g., friendliness (Fine and Schumann, 1992);gender (Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1993); physicalattractiveness (Reingen and Kernan, 1993). Fi-nally, as for BMRs, we find a self-reinforcingprocess for positive commercial outcomes

(Crosby and Stephens, 1987; Oliver and Swan,1989).Communication in ICRs is defined as an ex-

change of information, and operationalized inmanners ranging from sociometric analysis ofrespondents reporting on others with whomthey share consumption information (e.g.,Frenzen and Davis, 1990; Ward and Reingen,1990) to small talk that occurs between custom-ers and service providers. Communication en-hances customers perceptions of the quality oftheir transactions and their satisfaction (Brown

and Swartz, 1989; Crosby and Stephens, 1987;Surprenant and Solomon, 1987). Communica-tion itself results partly from the social closenessbetween the parties communicating (Brownand Reingen, 1987; Frenzen and Nakamoto,1993). The closer two individuals are, the morecompany they keep, the more frequent the op-portunities to interact and communicate.

Similarities or shared belief systems have beenmeasured as similarities in preferences or ap-parent personality and demographic variables

(e.g., Campbell, et al., 1988; Davis, Hoch, andRagsdale, 1986) or the similarities in the goalsand connections of respondents cognitive rep-resentations of beliefs (e.g., Ward and Reingen,1990). Similarities in ICRs enhance outcomes(Campbell, et al., 1988; Crosby, et al., 1990;

Ward and Reingen, 1990). The classic similarity-attraction hypothesis is supported in this litera-ture: similarities in preferences or beliefs areenhanced by social closeness (Brown and Rein-gen, 1987; Ward and Reingen, 1990). Closenessand like-mindedness are presumably iterative,but to date the literature has only demonstratedthe impact of close relationships on formingsimilar judgments, not yet the effect of similarperceptions on greater attraction.

By social closeness, we mean the explicit mea-sures of the social networks of the consumers(e.g., Brown and Reingen, 1987; Frenzen andDavis, 1990; Ward and Reingen, 1990). (Notethat social researchers sometimes speak of cul-



26


15/21

tural closenessrelevant, for example, in com-paring U.S. negotiators to those in the PacificRim or European countries [Graham, et al.,1988; Campbell, et al., 1988], but we treat cul-tural closeness as the aforementioned similar-

ity construct.) In Figure 3 we see that socialcloseness enhances outcomes (Frenzen andDavis, 1990; Ward and Reingen, 1990) and sim-ilarities in preference structures (Brown andReingen, 1987; Ward and Reingen, 1990), andthat persons who are close are more likely tocommunicate (Brown and Reingen, 1987; Fren-zen and Nakamoto, 1993).

Personality factors include traits as diverse as aservice providers friendliness, whether the gen-ders of providers and customers are matched, andthe physical attractiveness of a salesperson, each

of which produced positive commercial outcomes(e.g., Fine and Schumann, 1992; Iacobucci andOstrom, 1993; Reingen and Kernan, 1993).

The competence of the front-line service pro-vider or retail representative in interacting withthe customer is also consistently seen to impactoutcomes (Brown and Swartz, 1989; Crosby, etal., 1990; Crosby and Stephens, 1987; Iacobucciand Ostrom, 1993; Surprenant and Solomon,1987). Although competence can be consid-ered a personality factor, it has been studied so

frequently that it has become a more focal con-struct. Nevertheless, its effects in the nomolog-ical network are simple and identical to thosefor the other personality factors. So, while theyare represented separately in the conceptualmap in Figure 3, theoretically they are bestthought of subsumed together, until future re-search suggests discriminant validation. Finally,an absence of conflict, or an ability to resolvedisputes, has a positive impact on relationshipsoutcomes (Campbell, et al., 1988; Graham, etal., 1988; Menasco and Curry, 1989).

Insights from Comparing the BMRsand ICRs Models

At this juncture, we compare the conceptualiza-tions in the BMRs and ICRs literatures. We firstdiscuss some of the similarities between the twosets of constructs and interrelationships amongthe constructs, and then we note some of thedifferences that materialized. Finally, we derive

some predictions for future research on market-ing relationships by anchoring our logic accord-ing to a framework of characteristic dimensionsof relationships.

The models for BMRs and ICRs demonstrate

a number of similarities. First, there appears tobe convergence in some of the relational pro-cesses that enhance long-term relationships andpositive relational outcomes. For example, wesee that both BMRs and ICRs benefit from com-munication and an absence of conflict. Andcloseness in ICRs, or commitment and interde-pendence in BMRs, also contribute to longer-term relationships.

There was also a great deal of consistency inhow the constructs were operationalized. Forexample, researchers used similar definitions

and measures of long-term relationships inBMRs and relationship quality in ICRs; in bothliteratures, outcomes included business mea-sures such as profitability, and process measuressuch as satisfaction; and an absence of conflictor an ability to resolve disputes were indexedsimilarly across the two realms.

Perhaps one exception is that whereclosenessbetween parties in ICRs may seem similar to theconstruct of commitmentin the BMR literature,their effects on other constructs in their respec-

tive nomological networks are rather different;accordingly, it is not logically defensible to talkabout them as the same construct. The effectsof social closeness in ICRs in Figure 3 actuallyappear more analogous to the construct of in-terdependence in BMRs in Figure 2; for bothBMRs and ICRs, closeness or interdependenceenhances both communication and outcomes.(Given that the BMR literature does not pursuea closeness construct nor explicit networkmeasure, it is possible that this ICR conceptmaps onto some hybrid of the BMR constructsof commitment and interdependence, but cur-rently such a statement is only a hypothesis,suggesting an opportunity for clarification infuture research.)

The BMR and ICR models portray a numberof other differences. Apart from the simple ex-planation that the ICR literature is still relativelynew and developing, there may be a more the-oretical explanation for the differences. The



27


16/21

models may differ because they represent dis-tinct relational phenomena. To consider thisexplanation more thoroughly we draw from re-search that describes relationships along fourdimensions:

1. valence: were the parties trusting and co-operative (positive valence) versus hos-tile and competitive (negative valence);

2. intensity: in their interactions, were theparties closer (more interdependent,committed, higher frequency of interac-tions) or more distant;

3. symmetry of the dyad: were the parties rel-atively equal or unequal in their power;and

4. formality of the dyad: e.g., was the rela-tionship primarily social or work-related.

Along these dimensions, Iacobucci and Os-trom (1996) found that relations between firms(what we term BMRs in this paper) tended to beclose and intense, relatively symmetric, not nec-essarily positive in valence, and obviously highly

work-related. They found that services and con-sumer marketing relationships (our ICRs)tended to be distant and short-term in nature,relatively symmetric, neutral-to-positive in va-

lence, and could have a social component. Fi-nally, they found that consumer marketing re-lationships (B-to-Cs) tended to be distant,relatively asymmetric, neutral-to-positive in va-lence, and work-related.

In applying these dimensions to our modelsof BMRs and ICRs, we believe some theoreti-cally grounded propositions can be developed.For example, researchers studying BMRs thatare unusual in having a high social component,e.g., interlocking directorates, golf partners, or

nepotism, might gain better leverage in under-standing their likely outcomes by relying moreheavily on the associations indicated in Figure 3among the ICR constructs. Thus, we might sug-gest the following proposition:

P1: Researchers investigating BMRs with ahigh social component should findICRs constructs, e.g. competence, per-sonality factors, and shared beliefs, and

their interrelationships more helpful inunderstanding outcomes.

Alternatively, if researchers are studying ICRsthat appear to be relatively close and intense,e.g., a psychotherapist and client, they might

better understanding the relational process byrelying more heavily on the BMR constructs andassociations. Thus, conversely:

P2: Researchers investigating ICRs that areclose and intense in nature will findBMRs constructs, e.g. trust, interdepen-dence, more helpful in understandingthe relationship and its outcomes.

While we have attempted to recognize theimportance of B-to-C relationships, the sparse-

ness of the empirical work in this area did notallow us to construct an empirical generaliza-tion. However, the theoretical models we devel-oped for the BMR and ICR literatures allow usto suggest some tentative predictions in regardto these types of relationships. For example,

with regard to the dimensions of closeness andvalence, B-to-C relationships classify similarly toICRs, e.g., more distant and neutral-to-positive.

With regard to the dimension of formality, B-to-C relationships classify similarly to BMRs,e.g., more work-related, less social. Thus, forB-to-C relationships:

P3a: Along the dimensions of closeness andvalence, researchers investigatingB-to-Cs are more likely to find the con-structs in the model of ICRs usefulrelative to the BMRs model.

P3b: Along the dimension of formality, re-searchers investigating B-to-Cs aremore likely to find the constructs inthe model of BMRs useful relative to

the ICRs model.In regard to the dimension of symmetry, B-to-Crelationships appear to classify distinctly fromboth BMRs and ICRs, which are viewed as usu-ally relatively symmetric types of relationships.

We anticipate this distinction will yield qualitiesof B-to-Cs that are highly challenging: Figure 2(the BMRs findings) indicates that symmetryenhances relationships. Thus, managers of B-to-



28


17/21

Cs, which are inherently asymmetric, will findmore initial levels of distrust and conflict andlesser opportunities for communicationhighhurdles indeed for the firm to overcome inestablishing relationships with customers.

The framework of these four dimensions maybe extended tohypothesize more dimensionsand additional classes of relationships, e.g.,those between consumers and their brands, in-ternal marketing exchanges, external relations

with regulatory bodies, and so forth. However,they are robust in social relations literature, andthey served our purpose of illustrating the syn-thesis of our models. Note that the field couldbenefit from exploring and expanding thesedimensionsthe main criteria heretofore es-tablished for defining relationships in market-

ing are long-term orientations and interdepen-dencies (as previously described), both of whichare subsumed under the second dimension, in-tensity. For the purposes of this field, we may

wish to divide intensity into at least these twosubcomponents, and we well may wish to elim-inate the possibility of a distant (non-intense)dyad as relational, given that we tend to preferto label such phenomena as transactional. Theframework is a starting point that we shouldmodify according to our needs.

DISCUSSION

In closing, we offer some implications and sug-gestions for research, theory, and practice. Fu-ture research may be enhanced by addressinganalytical concerns. Primary field data might besupplemented with increasingly available andenhanced secondary data sets that record his-torical (and recent) behavior between firms (cf.Kalwani and Narayandas, 1995; Park and Russo,1996), often on numerous variables and obser-

vations, spanning multiple industries and mul-tiple points in time. In addition, beyond thequalities of the data themselves, we can explorecomplementary models, such as those specifi-cally tailored to questions of dyads, networks,and interdependence structures (e.g., Iaco-bucci, 1996).

In terms of theoretical directions, we believeour research builds on the literature of relation-

ships by identifying and connecting key rela-tional constructs. We know of no attempt likeours to synthesize even one of the BMR or ICRliteratures, much less to begin to build system-atically an overarching theoretical structure for

relationships. We hope our efforts have laid thebasics of a theory foundation on which re-searchers can continue to build, test, and re-fine. Certainly researchers will wish to continuedeveloping portions of the framework ingreater detail, focusing on the constructs thatinterest them. However, collectively we nowhave a broader map that gives each individualresearchers empirical efforts additional per-spective.

We recommend three initiatives for futuretheoretical development: (a) continued re-

search on relationships in business and con-sumer markets, of course; (b) further integra-tion of these conceptualizations to develophigher-order theoretical understandings of re-lationship structures in general, so that businessand consumer relationships may be deducedsimply as special cases; and (c) intense effortdirected at understanding how business unitsinteract directly with consumers. Researchersmay test the fuller models as represented inFigures 2 and 3; e.g., Figure 2 indicates a link

from cooperation to an absence of conflict, asevidenced from certain studies, and a link fromabsence of conflict to positive business out-comes from other studies, yet it may be that

when the constructs are tested simultaneously,conflict may not mediate the relationship, butrather cooperation may have a direct link tooutcomes. That is, the model as a whole may betested.

In terms of practice, we scarcely need re-minding that the economic environment is in-creasingly competitive and dynamic. Businesses

will maintain their flexibility and ability to de-liver customer requests profitably if their part-nerships are effective. Relationships are not atrendthey will not be going away. There arecertainly swings from diversification and verticalintegration, whereby firms seek to function asbusiness islands, to specialization and outsourcepartnering, wherein firms recognize their in-ability to optimally execute every task. In either



29


18/21

scenario, some sort of relationship will remainkey to functioning effectively in the market-place.

Further, marketing itself is defined with aneye on the customer, so firms must manage not

only relationships with other firms with the endgoal of better serving the customer, but increas-ingly they will be directly interacting with, orforming relationships with, those end users.Managers may benefit from considering the is-sue described earlier; i.e., just because a firmbelieves it has developed relationships with cus-tomers does not mean that customers view theinteractions similarly. If marketing is an ex-change, managers may find greater customersatisfaction resulting from a continual consider-ation of the possible benefits derived by the

customer from the interaction with the firm.Leaders at many companies talk about market-ing relationships, but are less often observedincorporating relationships into the frameworkof the marketing mix, and rarely is relational

value accounted as an asset on the balancesheet.

In Figure 1, we depicted a network with anairline as a focal companyairplanes are com-plex entities and they require relationships withnumerous parts suppliers, and they must answer

to many governing boards. They must also co-ordinate efforts on behalf of the end user, whocan be demanding of access, service, and pric-ing. There are many relationships in Figure 1,each of which will comprised processes of com-munication, commitment, and trust. Bettermanagement of relationships is a challenge, butthe recognition of the extensive network is astarting point.

Since the 1970s, marketing has been concep-tualized quite generally, as an exchange of ben-efits and resources, so the applicability of rela-tional exchange theories is meaningfulwe donot simply transact goods and monies, but a vastarray of tangible and intangible benefits. Thoseexchanges occur in the context of relationships.

Accordingly, relationships must become a cen-tral focus in the field of marketing. In this pa-per, we have attempted to project a broad con-ceptual frame from which predictions aboutmany types of relationships might be derived

theoretically and pursued empirically for sometime to come.

REFERENCES

Achrol, R. S. (1997). Changes in the Theory of Inter-organizational Relations in Marketing: Toward aNetwork Paradigm. Journal of the Academy of Mar-keting Science, 25, 5671.

Andaleeb, S. S. (1995). Dependence Relations and theModerating Role of Trust: Implications for Behav-ioral Intentions in Marketing Channels. Interna-tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 157172.

Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1989, Fall). Determinantsof Continuity in Conventional Industrial ChannelDyads. Marketing Science, 8, 310323.

Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1992, February). The Useof Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment inDistribution Channels. Journal of Marketing Re-search, 29, 1834.

Anderson, J. C., Hkansson, H.,and Johanson, J.(1994). Dyadic Business Relationships Within a Busi-ness Network Context. Journal of Marketing, 58,115.

Anderson, J. C. and Narus, J. A. (1990, January). AModel of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm

Working Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 54,4258.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as Exchange. Journal

of Marketing, 39, 3239.Bello, D. C. and Gilliland, D. I. (1997). The Effect of

Output Controls, Process Controls, and Flexibilityon Export Channel Performance. Journal of Market-ing, 61, 2238.

Blattberg, R. C. and Deighton, J. (1991, Fall). Interac-tive Marketing: Exploiting the Age of Addressability.Sloan Management Review, 514.

Boyle, B. F., Dwyer, R., Robicheaux, R. A., and Simpson,J. T. (1992). Influence Strategies in Marketing Chan-nels: Measures and Use in Different RelationshipStructures. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 462

473.Brown, J. R. and Lusch, R. F. (1992). Using Key Infor-

mants in Marketing Channels Research: A Critiqueand Some Preliminary Guidelines. Advances in Dis-tribution Channel Research, 1, 4579.

Brown, Johnson, and Koenig (1995).

Brown, J J. and Reingen, P. H. (1987, December).Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior.

Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 350 362.

Brown, J. R., Lusch, R. F., and Nicholson, (1995).



30


19/21

Brown, S. W. and Swartz, T. A. (1989, April). A GapAnalysis of Professional Service Quality. Journal ofMarketing, 53, 9298.

Buchanan, L. (1992, February). Vertical Trade Rela-tionships: The Role of Dependence and Symmetryin Attaining Organizational Goals. Journal of Mar-

keting Research, 29, 6575.Bucklin, L. P. and Sengupta, S. (1993, April). Organiz-

ing Successful Co-Marketing Alliances. Journal ofMarketing, 57, 3246.

Campbell, N. C. G., Graham, J. L., Jolibert, A., andMeissner, H. G. (1988, April). Marketing Negotia-tions in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, andthe United States. Journal of Marketing, 52, 4962.

Carroll, J. (1997) Intelligent Agents. Computer LifeOnline.

Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., and Cowles, D. (1990, July).Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interper-

sonal Influence Perspective. Journal of Marketing,54, 68 81.

Crosby, L. A. and Stephens, N. (1987, November). Ef-fects of Relationship Marketing on Satisfaction, Re-tention, and Prices in the Life Insurance Industry.

Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 404 411.

Dant, R. P. and Schul, P. (1992, January). ConflictResolution Processes in Contractual Channels of Dis-tribution. Journal of Marketing, 56, 3854.

Davis, H. L., Hoch, S. J., and Ragsdale, E. K. E. (1986).An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of SpousalPredictions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 25

37.Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U.and Webster, F. E., Jr.

(1993). Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation,and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad

Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57, 2327.

Doney, P. M. and Cannon, J. P. (1997, April). An Ex-amination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-SellerRelationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 3551.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H. and Oh, S. (1987, April).Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal ofMarketing, 51, 1127.

Erramilli, M. K. and Rao, C. P. (1993). Service Firms

International Entry-Mode Choice: A Modified Trans-action-Cost Analysis Approach. Journal of Market-ing, 57, 1938.

Fine, L. M. and Schumann, D. W. (1992). The Natureand Role of Salesperson Perceptions: The Interac-tive Effects of Salesperson/Customer Personalities.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 285296.

Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., and Mick, D. G. (1998).Preventing the Premature Death of RelationshipMarketing. Harvard Business Review, 76 (1), 4244.

Frazier, G. L. and Rody, R. C. (1991, January). The Useof Influence Strategies in Interfirm Relationships inIndustrial Product Channels. Journal of Marketing,55, 5269.

Frazier, G. L., Spekman, R. E. and ONeal, C. R. (1988,October). Just-in-Time Exchange Relationships in

Industrial Markets. Journal of Marketing, 52, 5267.Frenzen, J. K. and Davis, H. L. (1990, June). Purchasing

Behavior in Embedded Markets. Journal of Con-sumer Research, 17, 112.

Frenzen, J. K. and Nakamoto, K. (1993). Structure,Cooperation, and the Flow of Market Information.

Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 360 375.

Ganesan, S. (1993, May). Negotiation Strategies andthe Nature of Channel Relationships. Journal ofMarketing Research, 30, 183203.

Ganesan, S. (1994, April). Determinants of Long-TermOrientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of

Marketing, 58, 119.Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Scheer, L. K., and

Kumar, N. (1996). The Effects of Trust and Interde-pendence on Relationship Commitment: A Trans-

Atlantic Study. International Journal of Research inMarketing, 13 (4), 303317.

Gilmore, J. H. and Pine, B. J. II (1997, JanFeb). TheFour Faces of Mass Customization. Harvard BusinessReview, 91101.

Graham, J. L., Kim, D. K., Lin, C.-Y., and Robinson, M.(1988, June). Buyer-Seller Negotiations Around thePacific Rim: Differences in Fundamental Exchange

Processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 4854.

Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., and Mentzer, J. T. (1995,January). The Structure of Commitment in Ex-change. Journal of Marketing, 59, 7892.

Gundlach, G. T. and Cadotte, E. R. (1994). ExchangeInterdependence and Interfirm Interaction: Re-search in a Simulated Channel Setting. Journal ofMarketing Research, 31, 516532.

Hallen, L., Johanson, J., and Seyed-Mohamed, N.(1991). Interfirm Adaptation in Business Relation-ships. Journal of Marketing, 55, 2937.

Heide, J. B. (1994). Interorganizational Governance inMarketing Channels. Journal of Marketing, 58, 7185.

Heide, J. B. and John, G. (1990, February). Alliances inIndustrial Purchasing: The Determinants of Joint

Action in BuyerSupplier Relationships. Journal ofMarketing Research, 27, 2436.

Heide, J. B. and John, G. (1992, April). Do NormsMatter in Marketing Relationships. Journal of Mar-keting, 56, 244.



31


20/21

Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., and Jackson, G. B. (1982).Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings AcrossStudies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Iacobucci, D. (Ed.) (1996). Networks in Marketing.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Iacobucci, D. and Hopkins, N. (1992, February). Mod-

eling Dyadic Interactions and Networks in Market-ing. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 517.

Iacobucci, D. and Ostrom, A. (1993). Gender Differ-ences in the Impact of Core and Relational Aspectsof Services on the Evaluation of Service Encounters.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (3), 257286.

Iacobucci, D. and Ostrom, A. (1996). Commercial andInterpersonal Relationships. International Journalof Research in Marketing, 13, 5372.

Kalwani, M. U. and Narayandas, N. (1995). Long-TermManufacturer-Supplier Relationships: Do They PayOff for Supplier Firms? Journal of Marketing, 59,

116.Keith, J. E., Jackson, D. W., Jr., and Crosby, L. A. (1990,

July). Effects of Alternative Types of Influence Strat-egies Under Different Channel Dependence Struc-tures. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3041.

Kotler, P. and Levy, S. J. (1969, January). Broadeningthe Concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 33,1015.

Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., and Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M.(1995a). The Effects of Perceived Interdependenceon Dealer Attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research,32, 348356.

Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., and Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M.(1995b). The Effects of Supplier Fairness on Vulner-able Resellers. Journal of Marketing Research, 32,5465.

Luce, R. D. and Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and Deci-sions: Introduction and Critical Survey. London:

Wiley.

Lusch, R. F. and Brown, J. R. (1996, October). Interde-pendency, Contracting, and Relational Behavior inMarketing Channels. Journal of Marketing, 60, 1938.

Lyons, D. (1997, June 29). How an Agent Works for

You. New York Times on the Web, CyberTimes,http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/tech/index-cyber.html.

McKenna, Regis (1991). Relationship Marketing: Suc-cessful Strategies for the Age of the Customer. Read-ing, MA: Addison Wesley.

Menasco, M. B. and Curry, D. J. (1989). Utility andChoice: An Empirical Study of Wife/Husband Deci-sion Making. Journal of Consumer Research, 16,8797.

Mohr, J. J., Fisher, R. J. and Nevin, J. R. (1996, July).Collaborative Communication in Interfirm Relation-ships: Moderating Effects of Integration and Con-trol. Journal of Marketing, 60, 103115.

Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., and Zaltman, G. (1993,January). Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research

Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57, 81101.Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994, July). The Com-

mitmentTrust Theory of Relationship Marketing.Journal of Marketing, 58, 20 38.

Oliver, R. L. and Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer Percep-tions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction inTransactions: A Field Survey Approach. Journal ofMarketing, 53, 2135.

Park and Russo (1996)

Parvatiyar, A. and Sheth, J. N. (1997). Paradigm Shift inInterfirm Marketing Relationships: Emerging Re-search Issues, in Jagdish N. Sheth and Atul Parvatiyar

(eds.), Research in Marketing, Greenwich, CT: JAIPress Inc., 13, 233255.

Pine, B. Joseph II, Peppers, Don and Rogers, Martha(1995), Do You Want to Keep Your Customers For-ever?, Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, 103114.

Reichheld, Frederick F. (1993), Loyalty-Based Manage-ment, Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, 6473.

Reichheld, F. F., and Sasser, W. E. Jr. (1990, Septem-berOctober). Zero Defections: Quality Comes toServices. Harvard Business Review, 105111.

Reingen, P. H. and Kernan, J. B. (1986). Analysis ofReferral Networks in Marketing: Methods and Illus-tration. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 370378.

Reingen, P. H. and Kernan, J. B. (1993). Social Percep-tion and Interpersonal Influence: Some Conse-quences of the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype ina Personal Selling Setting. Journal of Consumer Psy-chology, 2, 2538.

Rinehart, L. M. and Page, T. J. Jr. (1992, October). TheDevelopment and Test of a Model of TransactionNegotiation. Journal of Marketing, 56, 18 32.

Scheer, L. K. and Stern, L. W. (1992, February). The

Effect of Influence Type and Performance Out-comes on Attitude Toward the Influencer. Journal ofMarketing Research, 29, 128142.

Schlesinger, L. A., and Heskett, J. L. (1991, Spring).Breaking the Cycle of Failure in Services. Sloan Man-agement Review, 1728.

Slater, S. F. and Narver, J. C. (1994, January). DoesCompetitive Environment Moderate the Market Ori-entationPerformance Relationship? Journal of Mar-keting, 58, 4655.



32


21/21

Smith, J. B. and Barclay, D. W. (1997). The Effects ofOrganizational Differences and Trust on the Effec-tiveness of Selling Partner Relationships. Journal ofMarketing, 61, 321.

Stern, L. W., El-Ansary, A. I., and Coughlan, A. T.(1996). Marketing Channels, 5th ed. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Surprenant, C. F. and Solomon, M. R. (1987, April).

Predictability and Personalization in the Service En-counter. Journal of Marketing, 51, 8696.

Thibault, J. and Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psy-chology of Groups. New York: Wiley.

Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theoryof Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Ward, J. C. and Reingen, P. H. (1990, December).Sociocognitive Analysis of Group Decision Making

Among Consumers. Journal of Consumer Research,

17, 245261.Webster, F. E. Jr. (1992, October). The Changing Role

of Marketing in the Corporation. Journal of Market-ing, 56, 117.

Whitestone, R. (1997, Jan 13). Microsoft Says Intelli-gent Agents Not So Smart. Interactive Week.



Toward a Theory of Business Marketing

Documents

Transcript of Toward a Theory of Business Marketing