Toward A Theory of Business Marketing

TOWARD AN ENCOMPASSING THEORY
OF BUSINESS MARKETING
RELATIONSHIPS (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 of
Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. Her
research interests include services
marketing and customer
satisfaction, nonprots 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 the
Northwestern 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.
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 of
the premier issues in marketing is the under-
standing of the relational context in which ex-
changes occur (cf. Bagozzi, 1975; Kotler and
Levy, 1969). Several marketing researchers have
maintained that relationship marketing repre-
sents a paradigm shift in marketing (Parvatiyar
and Sheth, 1997; Webster, 1992), permanently
changing the competitive playing eld for rms
and consumers (McKenna, 1991).
Given its importance to the eld, we argue
that 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 consumer
marketing. To help guide this understanding of
relationships in marketing, we review and inte-
grate the empirical work that has been done by
marketing scholars in both the business and
consumer marketing realms.
OVERVIEW OF MARKETING
RELATIONSHIPS
Researchers operate with considerable consen-
sus in dening relationships using qualities as
intensity, frequency of interaction, duration of
relationship, and future relational expectations.
Relationships in marketing emphasize closer,
longer-term interactions, in contrast with
briefer, more distal, transactional exchanges
(Dwyer, Schurr and Oh, 1987).
In addition to the closeness and repeated
nature of the relational exchange, there is rec-
ognition that the parties involved in the rela-
tionship are inherently interdependent. As in
game 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 from
examining two entities working contiguously
but 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. It
is in this latter context that relational constructs
such as trust and cooperation become meaning-
ful. These interdependencies further enhance
the 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 that
may be classied into one of three categories.
First, research on relationships in marketing
has its strongest heritage under the purview of
interorganizational phenomena, e.g., channels
relationships (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 constructs
such as cooperation and power; for example,
representatives from manufacturing and distrib-
uting rms may be asked to characterize their
business ties in terms of the relationships out-
comes, such as market performance, and its
processes, such as the frequency of communi-
cation and the presence of conict or coopera-
tion.
Second, beyond business marketing settings,
there are a variety of marketing relationships that
can be characterized using the label interpersonal
commercial relationships (ICRs). In marketing, ICRs
include the potpourri of consumer-to-consumer
connections, service providertoconsumer inter-
actions, and salespersontocustomer relations.
Marketing has long posited word-of-mouth com-
munication as a mechanismfor diffusing informa-
tion about marketplace offerings; thus we also
include studies of customers networks for sharing
consumption 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
sonal relations in service-based interactions, e.g.,
that which occurs between a customer and a retail
representative (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles, 1990;
Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Front-line service
providers represent the rm to the customer, so
their interpersonal behaviors in these interactions
can have a strong impact on customers percep-
tions of the providers and their rms.
Third, many businesses are interested in
forming closer relationships with their custom-
ers through a variety of methods, such as data-
base marketing, direct marketing, interactive
marketing, and one-to-one marketing (Blatt-
berg and Deighton, 1991; Pine, Peppers, and
Rogers, 1995; Reichheld, 1993). This business-
to-consumer (B-to-C) category of relationship
involves interactions between an organization
and an individual customer, creating an inher-
ent asymmetry between different units that
raises a challenge for the relationship, as we
shall see. In addition, the perspectives may vary
within the dyad; e.g., rms may believe they are
building relationships with their customers by
providing unique offers or promotional mail-
ings, but many customers report that they do
not feel engaged in a relationship with the rm
or its brand (Fournier, Dobscha, and Mick,
1998). The current pursuit of relationships with
consumers is largely technology-driven, as rms
explore methods of discovering the idiosyn-
cratic preferences of their customers (Gilmore
and Pine, 1997; Pine, et al., 1995). Customers
and rms collaborate to fulll customer needs
when, as with the internet Firey Network, cus-
tomers provide their preferences and the soft-
ware agent searches for the optimal product
(Carroll, 1997; Whitestone, 1997), based on
known preferences of other, similar customers
(Lyons, 1997).
These three classes of marketing relation-
ships begin to convey the range of relational
forms. For instance, in BMRs, businesses may
work closely together as providers and users of
complex goods and services which require great
coordination and interactionfor example,
specialty chemicals or medical diagnostic equip-
ment. In ICRs, business and consumer services
such as advertising agency account manage-
ment or lawyerclient interactions can also of-
ten have strong relational components. In B-to-
Cs, frequent and knowledgeable consumer
users of a rms products and services may also
consider themselves to be highly involved with
the providing rm. Indeed, some loyalty be-
haviors and frequent user programs may be
classied as relational, and some researchers
are beginning to inquire about customers
relationships with their products and brands.
Clearly, a better understanding of these classes
of relations would be valuable.
Before proceeding, one more point of delin-
eation may prove useful. It is currently en vogue
to speak of a customer having a relationship
with a brand. This characterization is vacuous if
we dene a relationship using both qualities of
closeness and interdependence, as per the liter-
ature. Repeat purchases, or even loyalty, may
enjoy 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 dened as one partys
actions being contingent upon the others. A
related phenomenon occurs when a private cit-
izen projects a relationship onto a public-gure
stranger (e.g., fans sending baby shower gifts to
an actress in a soap opera whose character is
pregnant, teeny-bopper girls who claim to
love Leonardo DiCaprio, or the avor du
jour). There exist no interdependencies in
these fantastic relationships either. We would
label these pseudorelationships, or pararelation-
ships.
In addition to the three classes of relation-
ships that we are examining (BMRs, ICRs, and
B-to-Cs), researchers acknowledge that the
structures of relationships are becoming in-
creasingly complex: each rm is connected
through a web of interactions with suppliers
and distributors, customers, and assorted other
constituencies. The multitudes of relations can
be difcult to explicate, given corporate diver-
sication and the globalization of markets,
whereby organizations that are competitors in
one market often have cooperative or develop-
mental relationships in another, so connections
and alliances have become even more interde-
pendent and complicated.
B M R S A N D I C R S
15
As an example, Figure 1 depicts a simple web
of relations for one rm, to give the reader a
sense of the many connections with which a
rm deals in its competitive and operating en-
vironment. On the left side of the diagram
there is the focal rm, in this case an airline; its
business ties with its parent rm and its compet-
itors are represented, as are those with its chan-
nel suppliers, wholesalers, and retailers, and
governmental and industrial regulators. On the
right are depicted various customer bases, inno-
vative and inuential consumers, loyal and
former customers, all of whom may interact.
Finally, the rm and the customer meet in the
center of the gure. In earlier BMR studies, the
research focus typically was on the dyadsay, a
rm and its major distributora very small sub-
set of Figure 1, with all other connections sub-
sumed under a more general heading of the
environment within which the rm conducts
its business. More recent views appreciate that
the complexities within that environment (e.g.,
all other direct and indirect ties) impinge on
the focal relationship and therefore must also
be studied and modeled explicitly. To truly un-
derstand an organization in the future, we will
have to comprehend these complex networks of
interconnections (Achrol, 1997; Anderson, H-
kansson, and Johanson, 1994; Iacobucci and
Hopkins, 1992).
In surveying the literature, we will see that
the BMRs sphere is highly developed and rich
in interconnections. The literature on ICRs is
still developing, but as yet it does not have the
strong heritage of the relational tradition in the
business marketing studies. Newer and sparser
still is the literature on business-to-consumer
relationships. This literature largely consists of
material in popular publications that speculates
about the relationships consumers have with
rms or brands, with very few empirical results
on which to draw for theory building. Accord-
F I G U R E 1
Classifying and Connecting Relationships in Marketing
16
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 the
eld of marketing can use the knowledge of
marketing relationships effectively.
Thus, the goal of this paper is fundamentally
theoretical: to develop an encompassing theory
of relational constructs in marketing. We begin
by examining that which may be discerned in-
dependently in the BMR and ICR literature,
and then we make conceptual comparisons to
identify unifying theoretical themes. Finally, we
discuss some implications that our work has for
future 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 known
for centuries that a single study will not resolve
a major issue.[T]he foundation of science is
the cumulation of knowledge from the results
of many studies (Hunter, Schmidt, and Jack-
son, 1982, p.10).
With theory formation as our goal, we sought
to accumulate the knowledge to which many
scholars have contributed regarding marketing
relationships. We viewed our challenge as not to
compulsively annotate the past, but to summa-
rize the elds collective understanding of mar-
keting relationships, in order to look to the
future. We reviewed and integrated many arti-
cles published in top marketing journals, sys-
tematically making note of the nature of signif-
icant ndings. We collected those ndings to
develop an empirical generalizationessen-
tially a qualitative meta-analysis (cf. Hunter, et
al., 1982). Results from many studies were syn-
thesized into an overall model which is indica-
tive of the current state of knowledge. We now
describe our procedure in detail.
Our criteria for an articles inclusion in our
review 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 impact
on later papers.
2. We draw articles from the Journal of Mar-
keting, the Journal of Marketing Research,
and Marketing Science, acknowledging im-
perfections of the review process but
seeking those articles that surpassed
some critical threshold. (We acknowl-
edge that many ne papers examining
relational constructs have appeared in
such journals as the Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, the Journal of Business
Research, and the Journal of Retailing.) In
addition, given that a substantial volume
of international research has been pub-
lished outside these journals, we have
included the International Journal of Re-
search in Marketing. Finally, in the review
and analysis of services and consumer
types of relationships, we add the Journal
of 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 a
function of the parameters we set for this
synthesis. We tried to be comprehensive
yet judicious in our criteria, but we rec-
ognize that other researchers might have
preferred other criteria.)
3. We focus on interorganizational relation-
ships, but exclude intraorganizational re-
lations, e.g., interdepartmental or buying
center dynamics, not because they are
unimportant, but rather because they
tend to be more organizational than
marketing 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). (Many
ne papers examining relational con-
structs also appear in such top organiza-
tional and management journals as Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly and the
Academy of Management Journal, but they
17
tend to focus on employee relations, e.g.,
commitment to ones employing rm,
interdepartmental conict, t between
employee personality and organizational
culture, 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 the
associations between concepts, we be-
lieve that generalizations derived from
empirical ndings will have greater dura-
bility since they are based on letting the
data 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 made
note of all signicant ndings. We catalogued
these ndings, noting each constructs anteced-
ents and consequences.
With this collection of ndings, we drew the
resulting models, linking one construct to an-
other if at least two research ndings (in differ-
ent articles) conrmed the signicance of the
relationship. (Two ndings in the same article
did not count, since they would have come from
the same data set, possibly resulting from com-
mon method variance.) This criterion, much
like the literature itself, seeks convergence or
multiple informants conrming an apparent
phenomenon; a desire for replication is easy to
defend. The idiosyncrasies that occur in re-
search (e.g., a construct being operationalized
slightly differently across studies) will make for
a richness in the literature if they withstand the
tests of replicability and time. Through their
research, each team of researchers is building
an understanding of the pieces of the prover-
bial elephant, and we are trying to stand back
and represent to the reader that there is indeed
a whole elephant. Hence we focus on the com-
monalties across studies, but we emphasize that
constructs 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 literature
on BMRs (e.g., buyer-seller, channels, inter-rm
networks) 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 Business
Marketing Relationships (BMRs)
Literature
The result of this comprehensive analysis as
applied to the BMR literature is the conceptual
diagram depicted in Figure 2. While the dia-
gram is somewhat self-explanatory, we briey
characterize the rationale underlying each
path.
For each construct that appears in the gure,
we dene the construct, give examples of its
operationalizations, and then describe its anteced-
ents and consequences, documenting the relevant
supporting citations. A summary of these causal
links and their supportive research is provided
in Table 1.
Longer-term relationships are those relational
exchanges 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 denitions
directly from the literature, for purposes of con-
tinuity and parsimony, rather than proffering
new denitions of our own). Operationaliza-
tions of longer-term relationships include long-
term orientation, age of relationship, experience with
partner, etc. The two primary antecedents of
BMRs upon which the data show consensus are
commitment and interdependence. In particu-
lar, commitment is the intention to continue, so
in the presence of greater commitment, there is
indeed greater continuity and retention
(Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Morgan and Hunt,
1994). (As we state each causal linkage, e.g.,
from commitment to long-term relationship, at least
two citations follow, given our criterion of rep-
lication. The number of cites represents the
frequency of empirical conrmations of the
link.) Long-term orientation in turn builds iter-
atively an intention to continue; i.e., enhanced
18
T A B L E 1
Citations Supporting Empirical Generalization Paths
Business Marketing Relationships (as shown in Figure 2):
Antecedents of Outcomes:
From 3 To Citations Supporting Causal Link
Trust
Outcome
Anderson &
Narus 1990;
Doney &
Cannon
1997
Absence conict "
Anderson & Narus 1990; Bucklin & Sengupta 1993; Mohr, Fisher &
Nevin 1996
Long-term
relation "
Anderson & Weitz 1989; Bucklin & Sengupta 1993; Doney & Cannon
1997; 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 & Crosby
1990; Rinehart & Page 1992; Scheer & Stern 1992; Mohr, Fisher & Nevin
1996
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:
From 3 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 conict " 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 of Absence of Conict:
Trust No conict 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 of Balanced Power:
19
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 of Trust:
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
Communication
Anderson & 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 of Cooperation:
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 1996
Interpersonal Commercial Marketing Relationships (as shown in Figure 3):
Antecedents of Outcomes:
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 conict " 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
commitment (Anderson and Weitz, 1989;
Heide and John, 1990). States of interdepen-
dence contribute to longer-term relationships
(Ganesan, 1994; Lusch and Brown, 1996), in
part because independence allows for easier ter-
mination.
The primary consequence of BMRs is that
they 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 as
an end in themselves; rather, understanding a
rms interconnected structure of relations en-
ables the enhancement of effectiveness and
protability. We now review those variant out-
comes.
Outcomes of BMRs include results such as
greater protability 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, and
Nevin, 1996; Smith and Barclay, 1997) and an-
ticipated future interaction (Doney and Can-
non, 1997; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Successful
relational outcomes are enhanced by an ab-
sence of conict (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, et
al., 1996), interdependence (Anderson and Na-
rus, 1990; Buchanan, 1992; Keith, et al., 1990;
Lusch and Brown, 1996), a symmetric balance
of 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-term
relationship orientation (Anderson and Weitz,
1989; Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993; Doney and
Cannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1993; Kalwani and
Narayandas, 1995; Lusch and Brown, 1996).
F I G U R E 2
An Empirical Generalization of the Business Marketing Relationships (BMRs) Literature
21
Giving mutual goals a high priority also contrib-
utes to their success (Buchanan, 1992; Bucklin
and Sengupta, 1993; Heide and John, 1990).
It makes sense that productive relationships
are enhanced by these good relational pro-
cesses. Firms in relationships rife with conict
and mistrust would presumably be less effective
at agreeing upon mutual goals and would re-
quire attention to maintenance to an extent
that would detract resources away from the joint
gains. 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 rms real-
ize favorable outcomes attributable to their re-
lationships, the expectations that their partners
can and will deliver (i.e., trust) is strengthened,
as is the duration of the relationship itself. Fi-
nally, positive outcomes form a reinforcing
feedback loop, inducing subsequent continued
positive outcomes: success breeds success; rms
in BMRs become practiced at how to do things
well (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Rinehart and
Page, 1992; Scheer and Stern, 1992).
Commitment is an implicit or explicit pledge
of 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-term
sacrices to realize long-term benets from the
relationship (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), or
its calculative and affective facets (Geyskens,
Steenkamp, Scheer, and Kumar, 1996).
The expected continuity of commitment
(Anderson and Weitz, 1989) is enhanced by
precursors that smooth the interactivity: the ab-
sence of conict (Anderson and Weitz, 1992;
Mohr, et al., 1996), and the presence of trusting
attitudes (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Geyskens,
et al., 1996; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) and idio-
syncratic investment behaviors (Anderson and
Weitz, 1992; Gundlach, et al., 1995). Longer-
term relationships have inertia; longer histories
contribute to still greater commitment (Ander-
son and Weitz, 1989; Heide and John, 1990).
Symmetric power structures are more effective
than unbalanced relationships in sustaining
commitment to a mutually rewarding relation-
ship (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Kumar,
Scheer, and Steenkamp, 1995a; Mohr, et al,
1996). There tends to be greater commitment
and dedication for more important mutual
projects (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Heide and
John, 1990), and nally, partners committed to
working together tend to do so more coopera-
tively (Heide and John, 1990; Morgan and
Hunt, 1994).
Conict is generally considered to be a state of
disagreement between two parties that should
be avoided, but researchers have also argued for
the 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). Inamicable
conict appears to be minimized in relation-
ships characterized by trust that ones partner
will execute tactics as planned (Anderson and
Narus, 1990; Dant and Schul, 1992; Morgan and
Hunt, 1994), cooperative behaviors (Anderson
and Narus, 1990; Dant and Schul, 1992), and
balanced power rather than hierarchical subser-
vience (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Frazier and
Rody, 1991; Kumar, et al., 1995a). In turn, an
absence of conict enhances commitment
(Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Mohr, et al., 1996)
and positive relational outcomes (Anderson
and Narus, 1990; Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;
Mohr, et al., 1996). In particular, negotiation
strategies for conict resolution have become a
subdiscipline (cf. Ganesan, 1993; Rinehart and
Page, 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 Pacic
Rim).
Trust is forward-looking, dened as one par-
tys belief that its needs will be fullled in the
future by actions undertaken by the other
party (Anderson and Weitz, 1989, p. 312;
22
Ganesan, 1994; Smith and Barclay, 1997). Trust
is conceptualized as being multidimensional in
nature, involving both the perceived credibility
and benevolence of the partner (Doney and
Cannon, 1997, p.36), where credibility is an
expectancy that the partners wordcan be re-
lied on, and benevolence is the extent to
which one partner is genuinely interested in the
other partners welfare and motivated to seek
joint gain. Thus, trust is not some heartfelt
emotion, as its interpersonal analog may sug-
gest, but rather an expectation that ones part-
ner can and will behave as promised, and that
future relational behaviors will prove mutually
benecial. Researchers typically describe the
utility of trust contingent upon the presence of
environmental uncertainty; without uncer-
tainty, there is no need for trust. Given that
most industries are dynamic and their futures
cannot be perfectly predicted, trust will con-
tinue to be a focal relational construct.
Greater trust is found in relationships that
participate in greater communication, presum-
ably because with increased interactions, parties
create opportunities to clarify objectives and
misunderstandings before they become disrup-
tive (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Anderson and
Weitz, 1989; Doney and Cannon, 1997; Morgan
and Hunt, 1994). Idiosyncratic investments (to
be dened shortly) also enhance trust (Doney
and Cannon, 1997; Ganesan, 1994; Moorman,
Deshpande, and Zaltman, 1993), as do power
balances (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Kumar, et
al., 1995a; Moorman, et al, 1993; Scheer and
Stern, 1992). Not surprisingly, shared values or
similarities in organizational goals and cultures
enhance trust (Anderson and Weitz, 1989;
Doney and Cannon, 1997; Morgan and Hunt,
1994). Certain aspects of a boundary spanners
personality (e.g., sincerity, expertise, likability)
also strengthen trust in relationships (Doney
and Cannon, 1997; Moorman, et al., 1993); one
company trusts another more if its human rep-
resentatives trust the other rms agents.
In turn, greater trust reduces conict (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 and
Cannon, 1997), which in turn contributes to
still 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 [the
second party] would not normally do (Ander-
son and Weitz, 1989, p. 312) and control is an
outcome of power and results when a rm is
successful 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 inuence
and control is achieved inuence (Mohr, et
al., 1996, p.104).
Inuence and attitudes toward the inu-
encer are indeed the focus of most research
concerned with power (cf. Boyle, Dwyer, Ro-
bicheaux, and Simpson, 1992; Keith, et al.,
1990; Scheer and Stern, 1992). These attempts
at inuence are of interest because balanced,
symmetric power structures are thought to be
more conducive to mutual, long-lasting rela-
tionships (Buchanan, 1992). Asymmetric power
structures are hierarchical, with one party hav-
ing greater inuential and dictatorial abilities
over the other. Imbalanced dyads do not sustain
longevity, so the apparent short-term advan-
tages of power do not translate into effective
long-term relationship management interac-
tions.
In turn, greater balance in power structures
has positive impacts on trust (Anderson and
Weitz, 1989; Kumar, et al., 1995a; Moorman, et
al., 1993; Scheer and Stern, 1992), the absence
of conict (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Frazier
and Rody, 1991; Kumar, et al., 1995a), commit-
ment (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Gundlach, et
al., 1995; Kumar, et al., 1995a), and positive
performance 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 also
contributes to balanced power (Anderson and
Narus, 1990; Buchanan, 1992; Gundlach and
Cadotte, 1994; Rinehart and Page, 1992). Bal-
anced power structures are desirable for all
23
these reasons, yet they are less likely to be found
in the presence of greater idiosyncratic invest-
ments by the partners, an important construct
in the transaction cost analysis paradigm (Buck-
lin and Sengupta, 1993; Heide and John, 1992),
because one party investing asymmetrically in
another makes the former more dependent
upon the latter.
Interdependence is a mutual state of depen-
dence; whereas dependence is an asymmetric
state 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 resemble
undesirable unbalanced power structures. The
more interdependent are two business partners,
the closer their relationship, nearly by deni-
tion: the more they communicate (Anderson
and Narus, 1990; Lusch and Brown, 1996), the
more balanced their power (Anderson and Na-
rus, 1990; Buchanan, 1992; Gundlach and Ca-
dotte, 1994; Rinehart and Page, 1992), the
greater their adaptability or exibility (Hallen,
et al., 1991; Heide, 1994; Lusch and Brown,
1996), the greater the likelihood of maintaining
their long-term relationship (Ganesan, 1994;
Lusch and Brown, 1996), and the better their
performance outcomes (Anderson and Narus,
1990; Buchanan, 1992; Keith, et al., 1990; Lusch
and Brown, 1996).
We have been clear in stating the importance
of interdependence in dening relationships.
The lack of interaction or contingent behaviors
offers no causal interconnections between par-
ties in an alliance. The forms of contingent
behaviors include greater frequencies of inter-
action (communication), a striving toward
power balance, and an ability to react well to
ones partners requests (i.e., adaptability or
exibility).
Communication can be dened broadly as the
formal as well as informal sharing of meaning-
ful and timely information between rms
(Anderson and Narus, 1990, p. 44; Anderson
and Weitz, 1989; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). It
has been operationalized as the frequency of
business contact (Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;
Doney and Cannon, 1997) and the exchange of
information (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; Morgan
and Hunt, 1994), and performance outcomes
(Anderson and Narus, 1990; Mohr, et al, 1996).
Cooperation is dened as similar or comple-
mentary coordinated actions taken by rms in
interdependent relationships to achieve mutual
outcomes or singular outcomes with expected
reciprocation over time (Anderson and Narus,
1990, p.45). It has been operationalized as an
attitude of involvement, joint actions, and
coordination of efforts. Cooperation implies a
synchronicity between rms that are interacting
with exibility (Bello and Gilliland, 1997;
Heide, 1994), adaptation (Hallen, et al., 1991),
in mutually benecial joint action (Heide and
John, 1990). Cooperative results are more likely
for 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 between
partners (Heide and John, 1990; Morgan and
Hunt, 1994). Cooperative relations in turn re-
sult in less conict (Anderson and Narus, 1990;
Dant and Schul, 1992).
Idiosyncratic investments are derived from the
transaction cost analysis paradigm and are de-
ned as assets that are dedicated to a particular
relationship and involve sunk costs that would
be nonrecoverable in the event of termination
(Erramilli and Rao, 1993; Heide and John,
1992, p. 33). Indicator variables have ranged
from transaction-specic investments to exclu-
sivity and the willingness of ones partner to
customize their market offerings. Greater in-
vestments in relationship-specic assets en-
hance trust (Doney and Cannon, 1997; Moor-
man, et al., 1993) and commitment (Anderson
and Weitz, 1992; Gundlach, et al., 1995), but
shift power structures to an imbalance in favor
of the rm not making the specic investment
(Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993; Heide and John,
1992).
24
In sum thus far, Figure 2 represents an accu-
mulation of ndings in the BMR literaturethe
beginning of theory development on a scale to
encompass and integrate this broad literature.
The aforementioned constructs are those focal
in 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 appear
in this analysis (as a function of our research
parametersjournals, 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, such
constructs clearly offer opportunities for fur-
ther investigation, and additional studies will
continue to explicate this overarching model.
We consider the model depicted in Figure 2 as
representative of the proverbial elephant, build-
ing upon research that has focused on its many
parts. Having completed the review and integra-
tion of the BMR literature, we turn to ICRs.
Empirical Generalization of the
Interpersonal 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 the
element that the relationship is interpersonal.
We examined studies within the services mar-
keting literature that consider the relational
abilities of service providers when interacting
with clients, as opposed to their core competen-
cies. We studied the salesperson literature that
examines such qualities as the concordance of
personality factors between retail salespeople
and customers. We also included studies from
the 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 literature
separately, it became apparent we would need
to combine them to achieve our criterion of
replication. The ICR constructs and linkages
are presented in Figure 3, which was developed
from the basic template of Figure 2, so as to
enhance the ability to compare literatures.
Relationship Interactions. For BMRs, the focal
construct is that of long-term relationship. In the
ICRs setting, this constructs corollary is the
quality of the relationship interactions be-
tween two parties (e.g., a service provider and
client; Crosby and Stephens, 1987). The rela-
tionship between two rms certainly includes
interpersonal phenomena, but two rms may
F I G U R E 3
An Empirical Generalization of the Interpersonal Commercial Relationships (ICRs) Literature
25
be contractually joined regardless of the inter-
personal skills or affective connections between
their representatives. In ICRs, the emphasis re-
versesthere is certainly a commercial compo-
nenta customer approaches a rms represen-
tative with a consumption goal, but the
interpersonal exchange yields a larger presence
in 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 Strategic
Manager.
Similar to what was demonstrated by the
BMR 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 rms, are goal-oriented; one returns to
ones hairdresser because one likes the result,
or one returns to ones lawyer or therapist be-
cause it minimizes start-up costs with another
provider.
Outcomes in the ICR setting included prot-
ability, satisfaction, positive evaluations of the
provider or salesperson and of that representa-
tives rm, 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 by
ability of the parties to communicate (Brown
and Swartz, 1989; Crosby and Stephens, 1987;
Surprenant and Solomon, 1987), similarities in
preferences 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 bargain
fairly, comparable to the BMR construct of con-
ict resolution (or absence of conict; Camp-
bell, et al., 1988; Graham, et al., 1988; Menasco
and Curry, 1989). Positive outcomes were also
enhanced when the provider was characterized
as 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 were
also helpful in producing positive outcomes;
e.g., friendliness (Fine and Schumann, 1992);
gender (Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1993); physical
attractiveness (Reingen and Kernan, 1993). Fi-
nally, as for BMRs, we nd a self-reinforcing
process for positive commercial outcomes
(Crosby and Stephens, 1987; Oliver and Swan,
1989).
Communication in ICRs is dened as an ex-
change of information, and operationalized in
manners ranging from sociometric analysis of
respondents reporting on others with whom
they 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 of
their transactions and their satisfaction (Brown
and Swartz, 1989; Crosby and Stephens, 1987;
Surprenant and Solomon, 1987). Communica-
tion itself results partly from the social closeness
between the parties communicating (Brown
and Reingen, 1987; Frenzen and Nakamoto,
1993). The closer two individuals are, the more
company they keep, the more frequent the op-
portunities to interact and communicate.
Similarities or shared belief systems have been
measured as similarities in preferences or ap-
parent personality and demographic variables
(e.g., Campbell, et al., 1988; Davis, Hoch, and
Ragsdale, 1986) or the similarities in the goals
and 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 are
enhanced by social closeness (Brown and Rein-
gen, 1987; Ward and Reingen, 1990). Closeness
and like-mindedness are presumably iterative,
but to date the literature has only demonstrated
the impact of close relationships on forming
similar judgments, not yet the effect of similar
perceptions 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 and
Davis, 1990; Ward and Reingen, 1990). (Note
that social researchers sometimes speak of cul-
26
tural closenessrelevant, for example, in com-
paring U.S. negotiators to those in the Pacic
Rim 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 social
closeness enhances outcomes (Frenzen and
Davis, 1990; Ward and Reingen, 1990) and sim-
ilarities in preference structures (Brown and
Reingen, 1987; Ward and Reingen, 1990), and
that persons who are close are more likely to
communicate (Brown and Reingen, 1987; Fren-
zen and Nakamoto, 1993).
Personality factors include traits as diverse as a
service providers friendliness, whether the gen-
ders of providers and customers are matched, and
the physical attractiveness of a salesperson, each
of which produced positive commercial outcomes
(e.g., Fine and Schumann, 1992; Iacobucci and
Ostrom, 1993; Reingen and Kernan, 1993).
The competence of the front-line service pro-
vider or retail representative in interacting with
the customer is also consistently seen to impact
outcomes (Brown and Swartz, 1989; Crosby, et
al., 1990; Crosby and Stephens, 1987; Iacobucci
and 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 those
for the other personality factors. So, while they
are represented separately in the conceptual
map in Figure 3, theoretically they are best
thought of subsumed together, until future re-
search suggests discriminant validation. Finally,
an absence of conict, or an ability to resolve
disputes, has a positive impact on relationships
outcomes (Campbell, et al., 1988; Graham, et
al., 1988; Menasco and Curry, 1989).
Insights from Comparing the BMRs
and ICRs Models
At this juncture, we compare the conceptualiza-
tions in the BMRs and ICRs literatures. We rst
discuss some of the similarities between the two
sets of constructs and interrelationships among
the constructs, and then we note some of the
differences 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 dimensions
of relationships.
The models for BMRs and ICRs demonstrate
a number of similarities. First, there appears to
be convergence in some of the relational pro-
cesses that enhance long-term relationships and
positive relational outcomes. For example, we
see that both BMRs and ICRs benet from com-
munication and an absence of conict. And
closeness in ICRs, or commitment and interde-
pendence in BMRs, also contribute to longer-
term relationships.
There was also a great deal of consistency in
how the constructs were operationalized. For
example, researchers used similar denitions
and measures of long-term relationships in
BMRs and relationship quality in ICRs; in both
literatures, outcomes included business mea-
sures such as protability, and process measures
such as satisfaction; and an absence of conict
or an ability to resolve disputes were indexed
similarly across the two realms.
Perhaps one exception is that where closeness
between parties in ICRs may seem similar to the
construct of commitment in the BMR literature,
their effects on other constructs in their respec-
tive nomological networks are rather different;
accordingly, it is not logically defensible to talk
about them as the same construct. The effects
of social closeness in ICRs in Figure 3 actually
appear more analogous to the construct of in-
terdependence in BMRs in Figure 2; for both
BMRs and ICRs, closeness or interdependence
enhances both communication and outcomes.
(Given that the BMR literature does not pursue
a closeness construct nor explicit network
measure, it is possible that this ICR concept
maps onto some hybrid of the BMR constructs
of commitment and interdependence, but cur-
rently such a statement is only a hypothesis,
suggesting an opportunity for clarication in
future research.)
The BMR and ICR models portray a number
of other differences. Apart from the simple ex-
planation that the ICR literature is still relatively
new and developing, there may be a more the-
oretical explanation for the differences. The
27
models may differ because they represent dis-
tinct relational phenomena. To consider this
explanation more thoroughly we draw from re-
search that describes relationships along four
dimensions:
1. valence: were the parties trusting and co-
operative (positive valence) versus hos-
tile and competitive (negative valence);
2. intensity: in their interactions, were the
parties 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 rms
(what we term BMRs in this paper) tended to be
close 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 models
of BMRs and ICRs, we believe some theoreti-
cally grounded propositions can be developed.
For example, researchers studying BMRs that
are 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 more
heavily on the associations indicated in Figure 3
among the ICR constructs. Thus, we might sug-
gest the following proposition:
P1: Researchers investigating BMRs with a
high social component should nd
ICRs constructs, e.g. competence, per-
sonality factors, and shared beliefs, and
their interrelationships more helpful in
understanding outcomes.
Alternatively, if researchers are studying ICRs
that appear to be relatively close and intense,
e.g., a psychotherapist and client, they might
better understanding the relational process by
relying more heavily on the BMR constructs and
associations. Thus, conversely:
P2: Researchers investigating ICRs that are
close and intense in nature will nd
BMRs constructs, e.g. trust, interdepen-
dence, more helpful in understanding
the relationship and its outcomes.
While we have attempted to recognize the
importance of B-to-C relationships, the sparse-
ness of the empirical work in this area did not
allow us to construct an empirical generaliza-
tion. However, the theoretical models we devel-
oped for the BMR and ICR literatures allow us
to suggest some tentative predictions in regard
to these types of relationships. For example,
with regard to the dimensions of closeness and
valence, B-to-C relationships classify similarly to
ICRs, 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, for
B-to-C relationships:
P3a: Along the dimensions of closeness and
valence, researchers investigating
B-to-Cs are more likely to nd the con-
structs in the model of ICRs useful
relative to the BMRs model.
P3b: Along the dimension of formality, re-
searchers investigating B-to-Cs are
more likely to nd the constructs in
the model of BMRs useful relative to
the ICRs model.
In regard to the dimension of symmetry, B-to-C
relationships appear to classify distinctly from
both BMRs and ICRs, which are viewed as usu-
ally relatively symmetric types of relationships.
We anticipate this distinction will yield qualities
of B-to-Cs that are highly challenging: Figure 2
(the BMRs ndings) indicates that symmetry
enhances relationships. Thus, managers of B-to-
28
Cs, which are inherently asymmetric, will nd
more initial levels of distrust and conict and
lesser opportunities for communicationhigh
hurdles indeed for the rm to overcome in
establishing relationships with customers.
The framework of these four dimensions may
be extended tohypothesize more dimensions
and 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, and
they served our purpose of illustrating the syn-
thesis of our models. Note that the eld could
benet from exploring and expanding these
dimensionsthe main criteria heretofore es-
tablished for dening relationships in market-
ing are long-term orientations and interdepen-
dencies (as previously described), both of which
are subsumed under the second dimension, in-
tensity. For the purposes of this eld, we may
wish to divide intensity into at least these two
subcomponents, and we well may wish to elim-
inate the possibility of a distant (non-intense)
dyad as relational, given that we tend to prefer
to label such phenomena as transactional. The
framework is a starting point that we should
modify 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 addressing
analytical concerns. Primary eld data might be
supplemented with increasingly available and
enhanced secondary data sets that record his-
torical (and recent) behavior between rms (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 the
qualities of the data themselves, we can explore
complementary models, such as those speci-
cally tailored to questions of dyads, networks,
and interdependence structures (e.g., Iaco-
bucci, 1996).
In terms of theoretical directions, we believe
our research builds on the literature of relation-
ships by identifying and connecting key rela-
tional constructs. We know of no attempt like
ours to synthesize even one of the BMR or ICR
literatures, much less to begin to build system-
atically an overarching theoretical structure for
relationships. We hope our efforts have laid the
basics of a theory foundation on which re-
searchers can continue to build, test, and re-
ne. Certainly researchers will wish to continue
developing portions of the framework in
greater detail, focusing on the constructs that
interest them. However, collectively we now
have a broader map that gives each individual
researchers empirical efforts additional per-
spective.
We recommend three initiatives for future
theoretical development: (a) continued re-
search on relationships in business and con-
sumer markets, of course; (b) further integra-
tion of these conceptualizations to develop
higher-order theoretical understandings of re-
lationship structures in general, so that business
and consumer relationships may be deduced
simply as special cases; and (c) intense effort
directed at understanding how business units
interact directly with consumers. Researchers
may test the fuller models as represented in
Figures 2 and 3; e.g., Figure 2 indicates a link
from cooperation to an absence of conict, as
evidenced from certain studies, and a link from
absence of conict to positive business out-
comes from other studies, yet it may be that
when the constructs are tested simultaneously,
conict may not mediate the relationship, but
rather cooperation may have a direct link to
outcomes. That is, the model as a whole may be
tested.
In terms of practice, we scarcely need re-
minding that the economic environment is in-
creasingly competitive and dynamic. Businesses
will maintain their exibility and ability to de-
liver customer requests protably if their part-
nerships are effective. Relationships are not a
trendthey will not be going away. There are
certainly swings from diversication and vertical
integration, whereby rms seek to function as
business islands, to specialization and outsource
partnering, wherein rms recognize their in-
ability to optimally execute every task. In either
29
scenario, some sort of relationship will remain
key to functioning effectively in the market-
place.
Further, marketing itself is dened with an
eye on the customer, so rms must manage not
only relationships with other rms with the end
goal of better serving the customer, but increas-
ingly they will be directly interacting with, or
forming relationships with, those end users.
Managers may benet from considering the is-
sue described earlier; i.e., just because a rm
believes it has developed relationships with cus-
tomers does not mean that customers view the
interactions similarly. If marketing is an ex-
change, managers may nd greater customer
satisfaction resulting from a continual consider-
ation of the possible benets derived by the
customer from the interaction with the rm.
Leaders at many companies talk about market-
ing relationships, but are less often observed
incorporating relationships into the framework
of the marketing mix, and rarely is relational
value accounted as an asset on the balance
sheet.
In Figure 1, we depicted a network with an
airline as a focal companyairplanes are com-
plex entities and they require relationships with
numerous parts suppliers, and they must answer
to many governing boards. They must also co-
ordinate efforts on behalf of the end user, who
can 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. Better
management of relationships is a challenge, but
the recognition of the extensive network is a
starting point.
Since the 1970s, marketing has been concep-
tualized quite generally, as an exchange of ben-
ets and resources, so the applicability of rela-
tional exchange theories is meaningfulwe do
not simply transact goods and monies, but a vast
array of tangible and intangible benets. Those
exchanges occur in the context of relationships.
Accordingly, relationships must become a cen-
tral focus in the eld of marketing. In this pa-
per, we have attempted to project a broad con-
ceptual frame from which predictions about
many types of relationships might be derived
theoretically and pursued empirically for some
time to come.
REFERENCES
Achrol, R. S. (1997). Changes in the Theory of Inter-
organizational Relations in Marketing: Toward a
Network Paradigm. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 25, 5671.
Andaleeb, S. S. (1995). Dependence Relations and the
Moderating Role of Trust: Implications for Behav-
ioral Intentions in Marketing Channels. Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 157
172.
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1989, Fall). Determinants
of Continuity in Conventional Industrial Channel
Dyads. Marketing Science, 8, 310323.
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1992, February). The Use
of Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment in
Distribution 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). A
Model 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 Flexibility
on 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). Inuence Strategies in Marketing Chan-
nels: Measures and Use in Different Relationship
Structures. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 462
473.
Brown, J. R. and Lusch, R. F. (1992). Using Key Infor-
mants in Marketing Channels Research: A Critique
and 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, 350362.
Brown, J. R., Lusch, R. F., and Nicholson, (1995).
30
Brown, S. W. and Swartz, T. A. (1989, April). A Gap
Analysis of Professional Service Quality. Journal of
Marketing, 53, 9298.
Buchanan, L. (1992, February). Vertical Trade Rela-
tionships: The Role of Dependence and Symmetry
in 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 of
Campbell, N. C. G., Graham, J. L., Jolibert, A., and
Meissner, H. G. (1988, April). Marketing Negotia-
tions in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and
the United States. Journal of Marketing, 52, 4962.
Carroll, J. (1997) Intelligent Agents. Computer Life
Online.
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., and Cowles, D. (1990, July).
Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interper-
sonal Inuence Perspective. Journal of Marketing,
54, 6881.
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, 404411.
Dant, R. P. and Schul, P. (1992, January). Conict
Resolution 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 Spousal
Predictions. 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-Seller
Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 3551.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H. and Oh, S. (1987, April).
Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of
Erramilli, M. K. and Rao, C. P. (1993). Service Firms
International Entry-Mode Choice: A Modied Trans-
action-Cost Analysis Approach. Journal of Market-
ing, 57, 1938.
Fine, L. M. and Schumann, D. W. (1992). The Nature
and 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 Relationship
Marketing. Harvard Business Review, 76 (1), 4244.
Frazier, G. L. and Rody, R. C. (1991, January). The Use
of Inuence Strategies in Interrm Relationships in
Industrial 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, 360375.
Ganesan, S. (1993, May). Negotiation Strategies and
the Nature of Channel Relationships. Journal of
Marketing Research, 30, 183203.
Ganesan, S. (1994, April). Determinants of Long-Term
Orientation 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 in
Marketing, 13 (4), 303317.
Gilmore, J. H. and Pine, B. J. II (1997, JanFeb). The
Four Faces of Mass Customization. Harvard Business
Review, 91101.
Graham, J. L., Kim, D. K., Lin, C.-Y., and Robinson, M.
(1988, June). Buyer-Seller Negotiations Around the
Pacic Rim: Differences in Fundamental Exchange
Processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 48
54.
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). Exchange
Interdependence and Interrm Interaction: Re-
search in a Simulated Channel Setting. Journal of
Hallen, L., Johanson, J., and Seyed-Mohamed, N.
(1991). Interrm Adaptation in Business Relation-
ships. Journal of Marketing, 55, 2937.
Heide, J. B. (1994). Interorganizational Governance in
Marketing Channels. Journal of Marketing, 58, 71
85.
Heide, J. B. and John, G. (1990, February). Alliances in
Industrial Purchasing: The Determinants of Joint
Action in BuyerSupplier Relationships. Journal of
Heide, J. B. and John, G. (1992, April). Do Norms
Matter in Marketing Relationships. Journal of Mar-
keting, 56, 244.
31
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., and Jackson, G. B. (1982).
Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across
Studies. 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 Aspects
of Services on the Evaluation of Service Encounters.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (3), 257286.
Iacobucci, D. and Ostrom, A. (1996). Commercial and
Interpersonal Relationships. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 13, 5372.
Kalwani, M. U. and Narayandas, N. (1995). Long-Term
Manufacturer-Supplier Relationships: Do They Pay
Off 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 Inuence Strat-
egies Under Different Channel Dependence Struc-
tures. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3041.
Kotler, P. and Levy, S. J. (1969, January). Broadening
the Concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 33,
1015.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., and Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M.
(1995a). The Effects of Perceived Interdependence
on 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 in
Marketing Channels. Journal of Marketing, 60, 19
38.
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 and
Choice: 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 Interrm 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, 2038.
Oliver, R. L. and Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer Percep-
tions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in
Transactions: A Field Survey Approach. Journal of
Park and Russo (1996)
Parvatiyar, A. and Sheth, J. N. (1997). Paradigm Shift in
Interrm Marketing Relationships: Emerging Re-
search Issues, in Jagdish N. Sheth and Atul Parvatiyar
(eds.), Research in Marketing, Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press 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, 103
114.
Reichheld, Frederick F. (1993), Loyalty-Based Manage-
ment, Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, 64
73.
Reichheld, F. F., and Sasser, W. E. Jr. (1990, Septem-
berOctober). Zero Defections: Quality Comes to
Services. Harvard Business Review, 105111.
Reingen, P. H. and Kernan, J. B. (1986). Analysis of
Referral 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 Inuence: Some Conse-
quences of the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype in
a Personal Selling Setting. Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology, 2, 2538.
Rinehart, L. M. and Page, T. J. Jr. (1992, October). The
Development and Test of a Model of Transaction
Negotiation. Journal of Marketing, 56, 1832.
Scheer, L. K. and Stern, L. W. (1992, February). The
Effect of Inuence Type and Performance Out-
comes on Attitude Toward the Inuencer. Journal of
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). Does
Competitive Environment Moderate the Market Ori-
entationPerformance Relationship? Journal of Mar-
keting, 58, 4655.
32
Smith, J. B. and Barclay, D. W. (1997). The Effects of
Organizational Differences and Trust on the Effec-
tiveness of Selling Partner Relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 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). Theory
of 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.
33

Toward A Theory of Business Marketing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toward A Theory of Business Marketing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOWARD AN ENCOMPASSING THEORY

You might also like