أسلوب الدراسات الارتباطية

حبيبتي

من بعدك يا غالية

INDUSTRIAL SELLER’S RELATIONAL BEHAVIOR: RELATIONAL
STYLES AND THEIR IMPACT ON RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Björn Sven IVENS
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Erlangen, Germany
Abstract: Relationship marketing is often presented as a strategic meta-option, but little
attention has been paid to the concept’s potential differentiation. In this paper, I argue that
such a differentiation is possible and necessary. On the basis of the relational contracting
framework I identify ten dimensions of relational behaviour. I then present the results of an
empirical study conducted among 297 purchasing manages in two industries in which four
typical styles of relational behaviour are identified. Examining the link between relational
style and three dimensions of relationship quality (satisfaction, trust and commitment) I show
the close interrelationship between both constructs. Finally, I discuss the implications of the
study and hint to directions for future research.190 The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing
Modern competition theories see customers as scarce resources. Relationship marketing has
been discussed as a strategic meta-option for companies competing for customers
(Hunt, 2000). From a theoretical perspective, it represents an intermediary governance
mechanism between two extremes: a discrete (or transactional) approach to exchange on the
one hand and the integration of all actors into an organization on the other (Arndt, 1979;
Macneil, 1980; Ouchi, 1980; Williamson, 1985). However, for many purposes, theoretical as
well as managerial, this meta-orientation appears to be too large a category. A more
differentiated perspective on relationship marketing may be required in order to help
managers conduct business relationships effectively and efficiently.
This paper deals with the question whether relationship marketing really constitutes a
“monolithic” concept or whether it offers managers the opportunity to develop idiosyncratic
relational profiles. I argue that the second alternative is more likely. On this basis, and in
analogy to such research streams as management style studies, life style studies, or
negotiation style studies, I posit the existence of different relational styles. A company’s
relational style is defined as its constant and consistent behavioral pattern in interactions with
customers in long-term business relationships. In an empirical study I examine the existence
of such patterns as well as their impact on relationship quality.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next section provides some
arguments why a differentiated perspective on relationship marketing should be useful to
marketing scholars and practitioners. Following this, I conceptualize relational behavior and
relationship quality, two core concepts in this research. I then present the results from an
empirical study conducted in two industries. The final section serves the discussion of the
results.
WHY DIFFERENTIATE THE RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
CONCEPT?
Many authors classify exchange acts on a continuum with two extreme points. Depending
upon the uncertainty, specificity and frequency of a transaction, Williamson (1991, p.180)
distinguishes between markets, hierarchies, and hybrid forms. Hybrid forms comprise
„various forms of long-term contracting, reciprocal trading, regulation, franchising, and the
like“. Criticizing the „utopian world of classical economics“ Arndt (1979, p.70) argues for the
existence of hybrid forms which he labels „domesticated markets“. „In such arrangements,
transactions are planned and administered instead of being conducted on an ad hoc basis.“
Ouchi (1980), too, realizes that alternative governance mechanisms exist between markets and
hierarchies. Borrowing from Durckheim‘s concept of organic solidarity in groups (1933) he
compares the hybrid form to clan structures. Many of these taxonomies are based upon the
work of Macneil (e.g., 1978, 1980, 1981) who draws a distinction between discrete and
relational exchange.
Williamson‘s „hybrid form“, Arndt‘s „domesticated markets“ and Ouchi‘s „clan“, just as
much as Macneil‘s „rela tional exchange“ comprise various forms of vertical long-term market
arrangements. The management of such arrangements constitutes the domain of relationship
marketing (Diller, 1995a). The choice of the „right“ governance form for transactions with
customers may be interpreted as a strategic meta-orientation.The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing 191
The extant RM literature merely distinguishes different types of relationships, and if so, it
usually describes them on a high level of abstraction (e.g. vertical vs. horizontal
relationships). In this context, Werp (1997, p.29) posits that „different types of relationships
show distinct patterns of emergence, interaction and governance“. Although this claim is
plausible, I take the position that typical forms of relationship governance are not a
consequence of specific relationship types‘ existence. Rather, I posit that idiosyncratic
interaction and governance patterns should serve as criteria for the establishment of relational
taxonomies. I argue that the relational styles identified in this perspective should prove to be
of higher practical relevance than existing taxonomies. The need for such an approach is well
expressed by H?kansson and Snehota (1995, p.5):
„We need models, descriptive, explanatory or normative, that embrace relationships (...).
We need descriptive models that take into account the elements of relationships, the
processes that form relationships, and that capture the consequences of their
connectedness. We need maps where relationships are identified and put in relation to
other important constructs in business studies, such as costs, revenues, innovations and
strategies. We need explanatory models where relationships are either the explained or the
explaining variables.“ (italics not in original text)
In addition to the theoretical advantages of developing a governance-based relationship
taxonomy a certain number of additional arguments hint to the existence of differentiated
approaches to relationship marketing in management practice. I limit my discussion to the
following six points:
1. The strategic necessity for differentiation
Today, many companies apply relational strategies. Whenever numerous competitors on a
market follow an identical strategic option – and circumstantial evidence supports this
assumption – mutual neutralization threatens the strategy’s effectiveness. In customer’s eyes,
the competing companies lose their distinct profiles. Differentiation of relational policies is a
potential way out of this dilemma. Otherwise, competition might move back to variables such
as price – a competitive factor marketing strategists wanted to move away from by stressing
relational tools.
2. The strategic potential for differentiation
Relationship marketing offers marketers a large number of instruments they can employ in the
relationship marketing mix (Diller, 1995b). According to the needs of the individual customer
relationship, these instruments may be combined and prioritized in a large variety of ways.
Hence, companies dispose of the strategic possibility to create various types of relational
policies, enabling them to choose differentiated approaches to the competition for the
customer. Similar to market orientation (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990), relational orientation is a
multidimensional and continuous construct.192 The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing
3. Companies‘ internal resource restrictions
In customer- focused competition, companies do not dispose of the same resources. They have
to cope with resource restrictions. We observe important differences in financial,
technological, organizational and human capital. The resource based view of the firm explains
these differences: Barney argues that in a market in which all companies dispose of
homogeneous, identical, perfectly mobile and unlimited resources, no competitor can gain a
competitive advantage Barney, 1991). However, since in reality resources are heterogeneous,
scarce, and imperfectly mobile, the strategic options vary. In addition, limited resources for
relationship marketing also limit companies’ strategic options. Accordingly, we may expect
them to pursue heterogeneous relational strategies (Hunt, 2000).
4. divergence in goal systems between companies
Companies formulate goal functions in order to direct activities, motivate employees, define
decision criteria and dispose of control variables (Wöhe, 1990). For profit-oriented
companies, the overall goal resides in profit maximization or at least in superior financial
performance as compared to relevant competitors (Hunt, 2000). In order to achieve this goal,
management defines sub- goals that form hierarchical goal systems. Goal systems as well as
the means to achieve various sub- goals may differ tremendously from one company to
another (Mayo, 1945, Barnard, 1968).
5. operative restrictions inside companies
Rieker (1995) describes inter-organizational relationships as feedback loops as defined by
systems theory. He argues that such feedback loops are exposed to internal (e.g. functional
egoism, organizational frictions) and external (e.g. competitors, suppliers, third parties)
disturbances that influence the implementation of relational strategies (operative restrictions).
Ouchi (1980, p.130) speaks of the „impossibility of achieving a completely cooperative
effort“ that characterizes intra-company cooperation. The behavioral theory of the firm
(Simon, 1955, March and Simon, 1958, Cyert and March, 1995) and resource dependence
theory Pfeffer and Salanczik, 1978) explain the phenomenon through the fact that companies
are structured as coalitions of individuals. Inside the company, different „subcoalitions“
pursue goals that are more or less compatible. Because of each subcoalition pursuing the
goals it prioritizes, perfect goal harmonization is rare. Marketing pursues customer-related
goals. These goals might be in conflict with other subcoalitions’ respective goals which, in
turn, may impact the relational strategy’s efficiency and effectiveness.
6. cultural divergence between companies
Ad 6. In a recent study, Kiedaisch (1997) shows that domestic and international relationships
differ concerning variables such as trust or control. He identifies a cultural influence on
relationship marketing. Even if we bear in mind that the concept of organizational culture
differs from national culture, research proves that organizational behavior is influenced by
corporate culture (Deshpandé and Webster, 1989). Corporate culture comprises values and
beliefs shared by a company’s employees (Day, 1994). These values and beliefs determine
what is considered to constitute adequate behavior in specific situations. As a consequence,
one can expect differences between two supplier companies’ corporate cultures (cultural
divergence) to lead these companies to show divergent relational behaviors toward customers.The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing 193
Summarizing, different arguments lead to the expectation that relationship marketing as a
strategic meta-option is being implemented and practiced in different(iated) ways. In the next
section, I develop the dimensions of two constructs: relational behavior and relationship
quality. They represent the key constructs used in the empirical study I will discuss
subsequently.
RELATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Dimensions of relational behavior
To study to what extent two companies’ relational policies differ we examine their relational
behavior. Alternative approaches are possible. For example, one could focus on the
instruments a company employs or on the structural design it opts for. However, from a
customers point of view, the relational behaviors a supplier shows in interactions are the most
direct and observable manifestations relationship marketing policy. Hence, this research relies
on companies’ relational behavior in order to study whether differentiated approaches coexist
within the strategic meta-orientation.
Relational behavior is a multi-dimensional construct. Although in the extant literature the
construct has received considerable attention, its dimensionality remains subject to discussion.
(e.g. Leuthesser and Kohli, 1995). One of the most complete schemes for classifying
relational behaviors has been developed in the relational contracting literature (e.g.
Macneil, 1978, 1980, 1981, Dwyer et al., 1987, Heide, 1994). In his comprehensive review of
the field, Ivens (2001, 2002) shows that from this heterogeneous stream of literature, a total of
ten behaviors emerges as being central to the study of B2B relationships. Table 1 provides a
short characterization of these ten behaviors.
Norm Description
long-term orientation
(LTO)
the desire and utility of an economic actor of having a long-term relationship
with a specific exchange partner (Ganesan, 1994)
role integrity (ROLE) maintenance of complex multidimensional roles forming a network of
relationships (Kaufmann, 1987, p.76)
relational planning
(PLAN)
proactive and bilateral goal setting for joint future action; plans subject to
adaptation (Palay, 1984, Heide, 1994)
Mutuality (MUT) the actors‘ attitude that the realization of one’s own success passes through
the partners’ common success (Dant and Schul, 1992)
Solidarity (SOL) preservation of the relationship, particularly in situations in which one partner
is in predicament. (Kaufmann and Stern, 1988, Achrol, 1997)
Flexibility (FLEX) the actors’ readiness to adapt an existing implicit or explicit agreement to
new environmental conditions (Noordewier, John, and Nevin, 1990)
information exchange
(INFO)
the parties’ readiness to proactively provide all information useful to the
partner (Heide and John, 1992)
conflict resolution
(CONF)
application of flexible, informal and personal mechanisms to the resolution of
conflicts (Kaufmann, 1987)
Restraint in the use of
power (POW)
expectation that no actor will apply his legitimate power against the partner’s
interest (Kaufmann and Dant, 1992)
Monitoring behavior
(MON)
ex-ante and ex-post control or supervisory actions in business relationships
(Noordewier, John, Nevin, 1990)
Table 1: Aspects of relational behavior194 The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing
These ten constructs constitute the basis for the empirical study which aims at identifying
relational styles.
Relationship quality
Along with the identification of differentiated approaches to relationship marketing (relational
styles), a second goal of this research is to verify whether a causal link exists between the
relational style a company applies in a customer relationship and relationship specific
outcome variables. Numerous authors consider relationship quality to be an appropriate
indicator of relationship success (e.g. Bejou et al., 1996; Kiedaisch, 1997; Werner, 1997,
Hennig-Thurau, 2000). It is generally conceived of as a three-dimensional construct including
satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Garbarino and Johnson (1999) show that satisfaction,
trust, and commitment are not only three important indicators of relationship quality. They are
also distinct, complementary variables. On the basis of the extant relational contracting
literature (e.g. Kaufmann, 1987) we can also expect the dimensions of relational behaviour to
directly influence satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Given this paper’s perspective, we
expect customer-perceived relationship quality to be influenced by supplier’s relational
behaviour.
satisfaction: Geyskens and Steenkamp (2000) interpret satisfaction in B2B relationships as a
two-dimensional construct. They distinguish between economic and social satisfaction. The
first dimension refers to „evaluation of the economic outcomes that flow from the
relationship“, the other to „psychosocial aspects of (the) relationship“ (p.13).
trust: Anderson and Narus (1986, P.326) define trust as „the (customer) firm’s belief that
another company will perform actions that will result in positive outcomes for the firm as well
as not take unexpected actions that would result in negative outcomes for the firm.“ Trust is
an attitude that influences behaviour in the sense that in a decision situation, a manager can
choose between certain alternatives that imply costs (for contracting, monitoring etc.) and
trusting behaviors. The choice of trusting behaviours reduces costs and thus transaction
efficiency (Ganesan, 1994, Volery and Mensik, 1998).
commitment: like trus t, relationship commitment is generally interpreted as an attitude.
Morgan and Hunt define the construct as „an exchange partner believing that an ongoing
relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it; that
is, the committed party believes the relationship is worth working on to ensure that it endures
indefinitely“ (1994, p.23). This definition reveals two core aspects. Commitment expresses a
value judgement. Committed customers believe a relationship to be of high value. In addition,
commitment stabilizes relationships because the actors involved are ready to make certain
efforts in order to preserve the relationship (Moser, 1996, p.34).
The next section presents the empirical study in which I examine whether (1) it is possible to
identify different relational styles and whether (2) effects of relational styles on relationship
quality exist. The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing 195
EMPIRICAL STUDY
Research design
The study is based on a written survey among managers involved in professional purchasing
processes. In order to control for environmental influences it was conducted in a business-tobusiness setting. Two industries were selected. The packaging industry represents a classical
industrial goods market whereas the market research sector was chosen as an industrial
service market. In both industries, long-term relationships play an important role.
Questionnaires were distributed to purchasing managers for packaging goods on the leading
German trade show „FachPack 2001“. Potential participants were identified at the entrance,
asked to complete the questionnaire at their office and to return it within four weeks. Only
German participants were included in the final sample in order to control for cultural bias in
this study. On the market research side questionnaires were sent out to those members of the
leading German market research association (BVM) who are concerned with the purchasing
process of market information. Participants were asked to select one important supply
relationship and to answer all questions referring to this one supplier. Selection criteria were
relationship duration (at least two years) and the supplier’s economic importance to the
customer company.
The response rate for the packaging sample was 28.5 %. In the market research sample it
amounts to 31.9%. Empirical results are based on a total of 297 questionnaires. These
questionnaires are completely filled-in. An analysis of potential non-response effects
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977, comparison of early vs. late responses) revealed no
significant differences concerning the core constructs.
Basic characteristics of the data set
The different facets of relational behaviour resp. relationship quality were measured on
multi- item scales. The operationalization was based upon the extant literature (c.f.
Ivens, 2001). In order to reduce overlap between scales used in previous studies, certain scale
items were eliminated. The complete questionnaire is available from the author upon request.
Scale reliability was tested in two steps. First, coefficient alpha was calculated. Results for
both sub-samples as well as for the complete sample are documented in table 2. All scales
fulfil the generally accepted criterion of alpha > 0.7.196 The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing
Coefficient alpha, basis: n = 297 (sample 1 „market research“, n = 206, sample 2
„packaging“, n = 91)
multi-item-scale no. of
items
sample 1 sample 2 total sample
trust 6 0,8539 0,8896 0,8623
solidarity 5 0,7886 0,8512 0,7866
long-term orientation 4 0,9321 0,9252 0,9303
information exchange 5 0,7642 0,8692 0,8076
flexibility 6 0,9279 0,8760 0,9104
monitoring 4 0,8038 0,9070 0,8418
planning behavior 4 0,8749 0,9008 0,8824
mutuality 6 0,8691 0,9139 0,8860
conflict resolution 4 0,7365 0,7431 0,7368
restraint in use of power 3 0,8670 0,8596 0,8608
commitment 5 0,8392 0,8781 0,8434
economic satisfaction 4 0,8680 0,8969 0,8720
social satisfaction 4 0,9173 0,8641 0,9080
Table 2: scale reliability
In addition to the alpha test, each scale was submitted to confirmatory factor analysis in order
to verify its reliability and validity. Results (factor reliability, average variance extracted, and
t-values) are documented in table 3. Again, most scales fulfill the required criteria (c.f.
Homburg and Baumgartner, 1998).
The only scale to fail the tests is the one measuring conflict behaviour. Given its low score in
the alpha test, this outcome reveals measurement problems. Two alternative solutions exist.
The scale can either be withdrawn from the study. This approach would make sense if a
company’s power behaviour could easily be explained through the other behavioural
constructs integrated in our study. However, regression analysis led to the results that the
remaining nine constructs merely account for 19.6% in the variance of a supplier’s power
behaviour. Given that the elimination of this aspect would imply a serious limitation to our
aim to cover a large variety of relational behaviours, we opted for a second approach. The
four scale items measuring power behaviour were submitted to exploratory factor analysis
(principal component analysis). The two-dimensional solution explains 82.3% of variance.
Each factor represents two items. Accordingly, we decided to maintain power behaviour in
the analysis by defining two distinct constructs. Factor 1 was labeled CONF A, factor 2
became CONF B. Whereas CONF A reflects the formality of a company’s conflict resolution
processes, CONF B measures how extensive conflict analysis and solution processes are. As a
consequence of this decision, the subsequent analysis contains eleven relational behaviour
scales.The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing 197
scale FR AVE t-values
trust 0,89 0,58 10,12< t <15,18
solidarity 0,82 0,50 09,11< t <16,33
long-term orientation 0,94 0,80 16,20< t <22,26
information exchange 0,85 0,53 11,33< t <17,04
flexibility 0,93 0,68 13,72< t <19,90
monitoring 0,88 0,66 12,74< t <20,36
planning behaviour 0,89 0,68 18,66< t <21,85
mutuality 0,92 0,66 11,20< t <16,99
conflict resolution 0,68 0,41 02,51< t <08,87
restraint in the use of power 0,87 0,70 13,20< t <22,92
commitment 0,85 0,53 10,57< t <16,16
economic satisfaction 0,88 0,64 12,90< t <18,76
social satisfaction 0,92 0,74 13,85< t <18,74
Table 3: goodness criteria
1
In order to determine whether the number of aspects included in the study could possibly be
reduced, an exploratory factor analysis (principle component analysis) of the eleven
constructs measuring relational behaviour was conducted. The results indicated that applying
either Kaiser criterion and the scree test, a two-dimensional solution best represented the
data.
2
Seven variables (long-term orientation, solidarity, information exchange, mutuality,
planning, role integrity and flexibility) loaded high on factor 1 whereas 4 variables
(monitoring, power use, and the two aspects of conflict behaviour) loaded high on factor 2.
This constellation is plausible. It is in accordance with Kaufmann’s (1987) theoretical
classification of seven relational constructs into norms that create value and norms that
control value-claiming behaviour. Hence, I decided to label the two dimensions “value
creation” and “value claiming”. A close parallel is observable with two principles or (core
processes) which receive considerable attention in the strategic management literature (e.g.
Ghosh and John, 1999, Porter, 1996). However, the factors identified merely explain 53% of
the variance in the data. With each additional factor extracted, the variance explained
augments only slowly. Hence, in order to preserve as much information as possible about
potential variations in companies’ relational behaviour it has been decided to maintain all
eleven constructs in the study.

1
According to Homburg and Baumgartner (1998) FR should be > 0.6, AVE > 0.5 and t -values > 1.645.
2
KMO value = 0.85, anti-image test 18.2% < 25%, Bartlett-test negative at significance level < 0.01.198 The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing
Relational styles
Cluster analysis was used in order to examine whether relationship marketing is a monolithic
strategic meta-option or whether different relational styles exist. I n a first step, the whole data
set was submitted to single- linkage clustering (SLC) using similarity measures. SLC tends to
form small clusters and to create chain structures. It permits the elimination of elements that
do not fit well into a cluster structure. The remaining elements were then clustered using a
method that tends to form larger, clearly distinct samples such as complete- linkage or
average- linkage clustering (CLC resp. ALC) (Büschken and von Thaden, 1999). As a result of
SLC, 70 cases were removed from the total sample. The eliminated cases represent relational
behaviour that are untypical compared to the remaining 227 cases. 62% of the eliminated
relationships stem from the market research sub-sample, 38% stem from the packaging
sample. This percentage distribution is approximately proportional to the two sub-samples
relative importance. The cases concerned are heterogeneous concerning variables such as
customer industry, turnover or relationship duration. Hence, we suspect no systematic error.
Subsequently, the remaining 227 cases were analysed using CLC and ALC. The so-called
elbow test hinted to potential solutions at 9, 4 or 2 clusters for ALC resp. 7, 4 or 3 clusters for
CLC. The most appropriate solution was determined using discriminant analysis. Independent
from the cluster method applied, the four cluster structure appeared to best represent the data
structure. ALC classification scores were clearly superior to CLC scores. Accordingly, we
chose to rely on the 4 cluster ALC solution. Its success rate for classification is 92.6%.
Cluster analysis for both subsamples (following the identical approach) confirmed the
superiority of the 4-cluster-solution in the two cases. Hence, although the identified clusters’
relative importance varies between the two subsamples, there is evidence that the results are
valid for industrial goods as well as for industrial services markets.
Figure 1 shows the profiles (arithmetic means) of the four relational style clusters across the
eleven variables included in the analysis. The four styles differ more or less clearly according
to the observed variable. A total of 20 intersections between profiles indicates that (in
accordance with our objective) the cluster solution does not represent different levels of
relationalism, but relational styles that stress different behaviours in customer interaction. 66
pairwise t-tests show that significant differences can be expected at the 1%- level for 80% of
the calculated means.
Table 4 shows, that the four styles‘ relative importance varies. Three styles are relatively
common whereas the fourth style (7% of clustered cases) represents a „niche“ style practiced
by a minority of suppliers. Based upon a summary of those dimensions on which the four
clusters score high (resp. low) on relationalism, it also describes the characteristics of each
relational style. Cluster 1 was labeled the “value oriented style”. It shows high scores of
relationalism for constructs such as solidarity, long-term orientation, information exchange,
planning and mutuality. However, relationalism is particularly low for monitoring and
conflict behaviour A. Scores for conflict behaviour B and power use are also comparatively
low. Thinking back of the exploratory factor analysis conducted across the eleve n relational
variables, it becomes quite obvious that companies practicing the value-oriented style are
willing to create value for their customers through strongly relational behaviours.
Nevertheless, they do not forget that the objective of such a strategy is to produce value for
their own company. Hence, they show strong value-claiming behaviours.The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing 199
Figure 1: The four relational styles‘ profiles across the eleven dimensions of relational behavior.
Cluster 2, too, scores high on some aspects of value creation (role integrity and flexibility).
However, other behaviours (e.g. solidarity, information exchange) are relatively little
relational. As compared to cluster 1, companies practicing this style appear to be focussing
their relational efforts on selected core tasks: they attempt to fulfil the roles their customers
expect them to fulfil on a high level. In addition, they are flexible. They pay less attention to
other behaviours of potential value such as information exchange or solidarity. The low scores
for long-term orientation and relationship planning even indicate neglect towards relationship
maintenance. This is paralleled by high relationalism scores on the value claiming side. The
conclusion is that as long as no problems arise, suppliers practicing this style show but limited
relationship involvement. Hence this cluster is considered to practice a “laissez- faire” style.
The central characteristic of cluster 3 is its comparatively low score for role integrity. With a
mean of 5.12 it probably remains on a tolerable level from the customer’s vantage point, but
clearly, customer delight is not the focal concern for this cluster. Moreover, low scores for
planning, flexibility and mutuality stress that companies in this cluster only deploy restricted
efforts in value creating behaviours. In value claiming (e.g. conflict behaviour A and power
use), however, these companies show more relational behaviours than those in other clusters.
Our interpretation is, that these companies wait for problems to arise (and threaten the
relationship) in order to act up. In that case, relationship preservation guides their behaviour.
After all, this seems to be a rational attitude. Because cluster 3 represents cases in which a
given objective is to be achieved with minimum input, we label it the “economic” style. Note
however that we will have to verify empirically whether this attitude leads to superior
relationship outcomes.
Cluster 4 is similar to cluster 3 in that the companies comprised in it obtain low scores for
planning and information exchange, too. The scores for solidarity, mutuality, and other value
creating behaviours are in the middle between other clusters’ scores. However, role integrity
2,25
2,75
3,25
3,75
4,25
4,75
5,25
5,75
6,25
SOL LTO INFO FLEX ROLE MON PLAN MUT CONF A CONF B POW
Mean
1
2
3
4200 The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing
is being taken seriously. In addition, cluster 4 is characterized by low relationalism in
behaviours reflecting value claiming: they do apply power in order to achieve their unilateral
objectives and problems are being solved using formal conflict resolution procedures.
Because companies in this cluster focus on core activities in value creation and because they
are concerned about preserving their own interests first, we label this cluster the “defensive”
style.
Cluster 1 2 3 4
style “value-oriented “
style
“laissez-faire” style “economic” style “defensive” style
features aims at mutual
value creation
tough position in
value claiming
reactive customer
relationship
management
limited input into
relationship
soft reaction in
case of conflict
aggressive
defence of own
interests
focus mutually beneficial
relationship
core functions;
subject-related
level
relationship
preservation
value preservation
+ e.g. solidarity,
information,
mutuality
role integrity,
flexibility
conflict resolution,
power reduction
monitoring
- monitoring, conflict
resolution
long-term
orientation
role integrity,
flexibility, mutuality
conflict resolution,
power reduction
percentage 43.2 % 27.3 % 22.5 % 7.0 %
Table 4: characteristics of the four relational styles
All in all, the existence of four distinct relational styles and the analysis of the styles’
characteristics show that in relationship marketing differentiation is not only possible, it is
also a reality. A question yet to be answered, however, is whether differentiation is being
practiced at the company or at the relationship level. In order to answer this question,
participants in the study were asked to provide their supplier company’s name. A total of 141
participants identified their supplier, 15 of which were evaluated several times. The analysis
showed that for all cases of multiple evaluation, the respective supplier is classified in at least
2 clusters. Customer rankings of a leading German market research institute (evaluated by 18
different participants) were distributed across all four clusters. Hence, we conclude that
companies cannot be characterized by a corporate relational style they invariantly apply to all
customers. Rather, each relationship is managed on an individual basis.
Effects of relational styles on relationship quality
The existence of distinct relational styles is an interesting result. However, implications for
marketing practice depend on whether the identified clusters differ concerning their impact on
relationship success. In this study, I focus on relationship quality with its four dimensions
satisfaction (economic and social), trust, and commitment as indicators for success. Oneway
ANOVAs lead to the result that significant differences (< .01- level) exist between the
identified relational styles’ impact on the four focal constructs measuring relationship quality.
Figure 2 visualizes these results.The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing 201
Figure 2: Differences in relational styles’ impact on dimensions of relationship quality
Even though non of the four styles is absolutely superior to all others, the value oriented style
(cluster 1) obtains the best scores for economic and social satisfaction as well as for
commitment. Its trust score is the second highest. Hence, the overall relationship quality
achieved through relational behaviours expressing this style is comparatively good. Clusters 2
and 4 do not differ tremendously, they obtain comparable scores on all four success
constructs. Finally, scores for cluster 3 (“economic style”) are clearly inferior to the other
clusters’ results.
We interpret these results as follows: companies showing relatively low relationalism in
customer interactions obtain less trust and commitment from their customers. Also, they
satisfy them less then their competitors. The respective suppliers’ striving for interaction
efficiency (e.g. limited role integrity) is being penalized by their customers. A fairly relational
reaction to complaints and conflicts cannot compensate for the lack of value creation
orientation. On the other hand, customers seem to appreciate cluster 1’s win-win-orientation.
They accept strict value claiming behaviours because of the suppliers’ strong attempts to
provide value through behaviours such as flexibility, solidarity, or information exchange.
In order to determine the relative importance of the eleven constructs reflecting relational
behaviours on relationship quality, regression models were formulated for all 4 success
constructs. With adjusted r²s between 44.2% for trust and 60.7% for economic satisfaction
(significance < 0.01) the influence of the constructs studied is considerable. Cluster- and
sample- level regression models confirmed these results’ general validity. However, the
individual relational behaviours’ standardized beta-coefficients vary from model to model.
Only few behaviours (role integrity, information exchange, flexibility, and solidarity) have
significant effects across almost all models. Monitoring, on the other hand, is a behaviour
with almost no influence on customers’ perception of relationship quality constructs.
3,50
4,00
4,50
5,00
5,50
economic satisfaction social satisfaction trust commitment
cluster 1 ("value oriented" style)
cluster 2 ("laissez faire" style)
cluster 3 ("economic" style)
cluster 4 ("defensive" style)202 The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing
IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
The results from the empirical study show the existence of four distinct relational styles. The
identified styles differ regarding their impact on dimensions of relationship quality.
Moreover, it has been shown that the relevant level of analysis is the individual customer
relationship. Hence, relational behaviours and relational styles prove to be parameters of
relationship marketing or – as Heide (1994) puts it – they represent strategic decision
variables in their own right. These variables can be made subject to deliberate design. Firms
must be aware of the fact that their “relationship marketing mix” does not only consist of
instruments such as bonus programs, customer events or business gifts. It also comprises all
behaviours, individual or collective, the customer is confronted with. The necessity to manage
this vector of relationship marketing is stressed by our results. They clearly show that the
value a customer derives from a business relationship is not only influenced by product
quality or price. Relational utilities complement the “hardware”, and the “software’s” relative
importance is approximately equal to that of the more tangible factors.
The behaviours considered in the context of this study have been formulated at a rather high
level of abstraction. In practice, a customer interaction consists of much more concrete and
specific behaviours. Not all behaviours occur in all interactions and sometimes a specific
behaviour may express two or more of the constructs studied here. Nevertheless, the
categories formed for the purpose of this study have proven to be helpful as well as valid and
reliable measures of interaction behaviours. Moreover, this study is the first to include such a
broad variety of different behaviours. The results of an exploratory factor analysis seem to
indicate tha t although some of the constructs may be overlapping, it is difficult to reduce them
to a smaller set of dimensions or factors without losing explanatory power.
The results also hint to another point. In the past, efficiency has been a major concern in
marketing research and practice. Outsourcing, benchmarking or concentration on core
competencies have received tremendous attention (e.g. Porter, 1996). The discussion of
governance mechanisms, too, has been guided by this perspective (Heide, 1994). Efficienc y
certainly is an important topic in relationship marketing. But the exclusive focus on
transaction costs is biased. Resource advantage theory (e.g. Hunt, 2000) argues that firms
occupy positions of competitive advantage when they dispose of resource advantages.
Amongst other factors, customer relationships are considered to be valuable resources. At the
same time, customers only engage in relationships if they provide them value. Otherwise, they
prefer discrete transactions. Hence, relationship value is a key issue in competitive strategy.
Resource advantage theory posits that relationship value can be created by offering customers
superior efficiency and / or effectiveness. The present study shows that certain relational
behaviours help create customer value and that they thus enhance relational effectiveness
from a customer point of view. From a management perspective this implies shifting focus
from efficiency management to integrated value management.
The limitations of this study are at least threefold. First, the sample covered only two
industries. Although the four clusters could be identified in both subsamples it remains
unclear whether they constitute a general pattern or whether other forms of relational
behaviour are being practiced in other industries. Second, the study has been limited to the
context of domestic relationships inside Germany. This approach allowed to control for a
potential cultural bias. Nevertheless, other studies (e.g. Kiedaisch, 1997) have shown that
national and internationa l business relationship do not follow the same rules. Future studies
must prove whether the identified relational styles are a cultural product. Third, in order to The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing 203
determine relational styles’ impact on relationship success, this study focused on dimensions
of relationship quality. The respective constructs were measured on the customer side. From a
supplier’s vantage point, relationship quality constitutes an important objective. However, it is
unclear to what extent it is directly linked to economic success (contribution margins,
turnover, penetration rate etc.). Future research might examine this link. Alternatively, the
validity of this study might be increased by using multiple respondents on the customer side
instead of focusing on one purchasing manager.