The influence of complementarity, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance

of 98

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
98 pages
0 downs
Abstract Value creation through alliances requires the simultaneous pursuit of partners with similar characteristics on certain dimensions and different characteristics on other dimensions. Partnering firms need to have different resource and
  Editorial Staff Editor  P.RAJAN VARADARAJAN JAMS  Department of MarketingTexas A&M University4112 TAMUCollege Station, TX 77843-4112Phone:(979) 862-1019Fax:(979) Book Reviews  PEGGY H.CUNNINGHAMQueen’s UniversitySchool of Business229 Dunning Hall99 University AvenueKingston, Ontario K7L 3N6CanadaPhone:(613) 533-2327Fax:(613) Marketing and the Law  ANITA CAVAANN MORALES OLAZÁBALRENÉ SACASASBusiness Law DepartmentSchool of BusinessAdministrationUniversity of MiamiP.O.Box 248022Coral Gables, FL 33124Phone:(305) 284-4633Fax:(305) 284-3762 The Academy of MarketingScience is a member oftheInternationalAssociationforManagement Education(AACSB).It gratefullyacknowledges the financialsupport of the Mary KayCosmetics Excellence inMarketing Fund. The JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OFMARKETING SCIENCE is the official journalof the Academy of Marketing Science.It is aninternational, refereed journal intended tofurther the science of marketing throughout theworld by promoting the conduct ofresearch and the dissemination of researchresults through the study and improvement ofmarketing as an economic, ethical, and socialforce.For manuscript submission information,refer to the inside back cover. *Founding Fellow MANOJ K.AGARWALBinghamton UniversityCHRISTIE H.AMATOUniversity of North Carolina–CharlotteJONLEE ANDREWSIndiana UniversityKWAKU ATUAHENE-GIMACity University of Hong KongRICK BAGOZZIRice UniversitySHARON BEATTYUniversity of AlabamaDAN BELLOGeorgia State University*HAROLD W.BERKMANUniversity of MiamiSUNDAR BHARADWAJEmory UniversityDAVID M.BOUSHUniversity of OregonJAMES R.BROWNVirginia TechSTEVEN P.BROWNSouthern Methodist UniversityTOM J.BROWNOklahoma State UniversityMICHELE BUNNUniversity of AlabamaALAN BUSHUniversity of MemphisROGER CALANTONEMichigan State UniversityJOSEPH P.CANNONColorado State UniversityGOUTAM CHAKRABORTYOklahoma State UniversityGOUTAM CHALLAGALLAGeorgia Institute of TechnologyRAJESH CHANDYUniversity of MinnesotaBRUCE CLARKNortheastern UniversityJOSEPH COTEWashington State UniversityDAVID W.CRAVENSTexas Christian UniversityPEGGY H.CUNNINGHAMQueen’s UniversityMICHAEL R.CZINKOTAGeorgetown UniversityPRATIBHA DABHOLKARUniversity of TennesseePETER A.DACINQueen’s UniversityPETER DICKSONFlorida International UniversityPAM SCHOLDER ELLENGeorgia State UniversityELLEN GARBARINOCase Western Reserve UniversityJIM GENTRYUniversity of NebraskaRONALD C.GOODSTEINGeorgetown UniversityEVERT GUMMESSONStockholm UniversityGREG GUNDLACHUniversity of Notre DameCHRISTIAN HOMBURGUniversity of MannheimG.TOMAS M.HULTMichigan State UniversityMICHAEL HYMANNew Mexico State UniversityCHARLES A.INGENEUniversity of MississippiJEAN L.JOHNSONWashington State UniversitySUSAN KEAVENEYUniversity of Colorado at DenverAMNA KIRMANISouthern Methodist UniversityMASAAKI KOTABETemple UniversityVICKI LANEUniversity of Colorado at DenverMICHAEL R.LEVYBabson CollegeDEBBIE MACINNISUniversity of Southern CaliforniaSCOTT B.MACKENZIEIndiana UniversityGREG MARSHALLOklahoma State UniversityCHARLOTTE MASONUniversity of North CarolinaAJAY MENONColorado State UniversityANIL MENONIBM CorporationBANWARI MITTALNorthern Kentucky UniversityDAVID B.MONTGOMERYStanford UniversityMITZI MONTOYA-WEISSNorth Carolina State UniversityROBERT M.MORGANUniversity of AlabamaKENT NAKAMOTOVirginia TechCHERYL NAKATAUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoDAS NARAYANDASHarvard Business SchoolRICHARD C.NETEMEYERUniversity of VirginiaDAVID J.ORTINAUUniversity of South FloridaAMY L.OSTROMArizona State UniversityTHOMAS J.PAGEMichigan State UniversityA.PARASURAMANUniversity of MiamiROBERT A.PETERSONUniversity of Texas at AustinS.RATNESHWARUniversity of ConnecticutWILLIAM T.ROBINSONPurdue UniversitySAEED SAMIEEUniversity of TulsaSANJIT SENGUPTASan Francisco State UniversityVENKATESH SHANKARUniversity of MarylandJAGDIP SINGHCase Western Reserve UniversityJAMES M.SINKULAUniversity of VermontK.SIVAKUMARLehigh UniversityAMY K.SMITHGeorge Washington UniversityDANIEL C.SMITHIndiana UniversityN.CRAIG SMITHLondon Business SchoolRICHARD SPRENGMichigan State UniversityDEVANATHAN SUDHARSHANUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDAVID M.SZYMANSKITexas A&M UniversitySTEPHEN S.TAXUniversity of VictoriaSHIRLEY TAYLORQueen’s UniversityGLENN VOSSNorth Carolina State UniversityBRIAN WANSINKUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignROBERT B.WOODRUFFUniversity of TennesseeJOHN WORKMANCreighton UniversityMANJIT S.YADAVTexas A&M UniversityGEORGE M.ZINKHANUniversity of GeorgiaSHAOMING ZOUUniversity of Missouri at Columbia Editorial Review Board For Sage Publications:David Neyhart, Gillian Dickens, Ken Berthel, and Kelli Palma  Salesperson Cooperation:The Influence of Relational,Task,Organizational,and Personal Factors Cengiz Yilmaz and Shelby D.Hunt 335The Influence of Complementarity,Compatibility,and Relationship Capital on Alliance Performance MB Sarkar, Raj Echambadi, S.Tamer Cavusgil, and Preet S.Aulakh 358Customer Switching Behavior in Online Services:An Exploratory Study of the Role of SelectedAttitudinal,Behavioral,and Demographic Factors Susan M.Keaveney and Madhavan Parthasarathy 374Managing Culturally Diverse Buyer-Seller Relationships:The Role of Intercultural Disposition and Adaptive Sellingin Developing Intercultural Communication Competence Victoria D.Bush, Gregory M.Rose, Faye Gilbert, and Thomas N.Ingram 391COMMISSIONED ARTICLEGuidelines for Conducting Research and Publishing in Marketing:From Conceptualization Through the Review Process John O.Summers 405REVIEWS OF BOOKS416MARKETING AND THE LAW424INDEX427 Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science Fall 2001Volume 29Number 4 The ACADEMY of MARKETING SCIENCECentral Office:School of Business AdministrationUniversity of Miami Published by Sage PublicationsThousand Oaks • London • New Delhi  JOURNALOFTHEACADEMYOFMARKETINGSCIENCE FALL2001Yilmaz,Hunt/SALESPERSONCOOPERATION Salesperson Cooperation:The Influence of Relational,Task,Organizational,and Personal Factors Cengiz Yilmaz Gebze Institute of Technology, Turkey Shelby D.Hunt Texas Tech UniversitySalesperson cooperation has become a crucial issue for the overall performance of most sales organizations. Theauthorsexaminetheantecedentsoftask-specific,coopera-tive behaviors of salespersons toward other salespeopleworking in the same organization. The main theses of thestudy are that (1) the four major antecedent categories of  factors—relational, task, organizational, and personal— constitute,collectively,theprimarydeterminantsofsales- person cooperation and (2) each antecedent category ex-erts, independently, significant influence on the co-operative behaviors of salespersons. The results support the main theses and provide useful insights for sales man-agers attempting to foster cooperation among salespeo- ple. The relative impact of each antecedent category, aswell as the effects of specific variables within each, isdiscussed. Recent decades have witnessed a dramatic change inthe nature of the selling job for many companies. The tra-ditional view of a salesperson—a single, individualistic,persistent person who works independently on a commis-sion basis and who competes fiercely against even fellowsalespersons—has given way to a strikingly different con-ceptualization (Cespedes, Doyle, and Freedman 1989;Weitz and Bradford 1999). Selling in many businessestoday has become an integrated process that requires thecoordinated efforts of salespeople and other participants,both within and across product lines, functional depart-ments, and geographic districts. Cooperation, defined asthe willful contribution of individuals, groups, and so on,to the successful completion of common tasks and/or tothe achievement of mutual objectives (J. Anderson andNarus 1990; Deutsch 1949; Wagner 1995) has become acritical issue in sales management. Many companies seeksales forces composed of cooperative salespersons whocan work effectively in groups. In such sales forces, sales-people share their skills, knowledge, time, and effort withcoworkers to achieve common objectives. This emerging“era of the cooperative salesperson” is manifested in thegrowing use of team selling (Moon and Armstrong 1994),relationship selling (Weitz and Bradford 1999), sellingcenters (Hutt, Johnston, and Ronchento 1985), and keyaccount programs (Cohen 1996).As a result of the growing importance of cooperativeselling, research in sales force management has begun tofocus on understanding the dynamics of a salesperson’sinterpersonalrelationshipswithcoworkers.Issuesinvesti-gatedincludefeedbackprovidedbycoworkers(KohliandJaworski 1994), sales force socialization (Dubinsky,Howell, Ingram, and Bellenger 1986), peer mentoring(Pullins, Fine, and Warren 1996), and altruistic behaviorstoward coworkers as a form of organizational citizenshipbehaviors (e.g., Netemeyer, Boles, McKee, andMcMurrian 1997). Nonetheless, salesperson cooperation,acriticaldeterminantoftheeffectivenessofsellingeffortsfor many businesses, has received little attention.Consider the problem faced by a sales manager whobelieves that salesperson cooperation is important for Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.Volume 29, No. 4, pages335-357.Copyright © 2001 by Academy of Marketing Science.  salesperformanceandwantstotakeactionordeveloppol-icies to increase such cooperation. The literatures of thedifferent research traditions that have examined coopera-tiongivedifferent,sometimesconflicting,advice.Assug-gested by the relationship marketing literature (e.g.,Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh 1987; Morgan and Hunt 1994;J. Smith and Barclay 1997), should the sales managerfocusontakingstepstoincreasethetrustandcommitmentof salespeople? Or, should the manager focus on increas-ing the task interdependence of the salespeople, as sug-gested by Deutsch (1973); Van De Ven, Delbecq, andKoenig (1976); and Wageman and Baker (1997)? Or,should the manager simply focus on hiring salespeoplewho have a general proclivity toward cooperativeness, assuggestedbytheworksofArgyle(1991)andChatmanandBarsade (1995)? Answering these questions requiresresearch that crosses disciplinary lines.Using an interdisciplinary approach, we address thequestion: Why do some salespeople, more than others,cooperatewithcoworkers?Wedevelopandtestamodelof antecedent factors that affect salesperson cooperation,which is viewed as task-specific, cooperative behaviorsamong salespeople. On the basis of a review of themultidisciplinary literature on interpersonal cooperationin organizations and workgroups, we propose that each of the antecedent factors suggested by prior research can becategorized into one of four categories: relational, task,organizational,andpersonal.Themainthesesofourstudyarethat(1)thefourmajorantecedentcategoriesconstitute,collectively, major determinants of salesperson coopera-tion; (2) each antecedent category exerts, independently,significant influence on cooperative tendencies amongsalespeople; and therefore, (3) sales managers shouldendeavor to address factors in all four categories and not just focus on one or two. Thus, our study aims to providesalesmanagerswithguidanceonhowtopromotecoopera-tion among their salespeople.The article is organized as follows. First, we brieflyreview the literature on interpersonal cooperation in orga-nizations. Next, we describe the four main antecedent cat-egories and develop a structural model that incorporatespredictor variables from each. Third, we test the proposedmodelusingalargesampleofsalespersons(  N  =531)from112 different automobile dealerships. The final sectionsinclude implications and suggestions for future research. INTERPERSONAL COOPERATION K. Smith, Carroll, and Ashford (1995) suggest thatapproachestothestudyofcooperationcanbegroupedintofivebroadtraditions.First,aninfluentialresearchtraditionexplains the emergence of cooperation based on thecalculative orientations of individuals (e.g., Williamson1975).Inthisview,individualswillcooperateifandonlyif cooperation is in their long-term self-interests based ontheir rational calculations. According to K. Smith et al.(1995), most well-known theoretical explanations of cooperation belong to this first category (e.g., transactioncost theory and game theory). A second research traditionaddresses the noneconomic aspects of cooperative rela-tionships (e.g., Thibaut and Kelley 1959). Rooted in thesocial exchange literature, research in this traditionfocuses on the effects of interpersonal attraction, psycho-logical attachment, and norms of reciprocity.A third approach relies heavily on power and conflicttheories (e.g., Emerson 1962). Conflict, the opposite of cooperation according to some authors and a key conceptin these theories, stems from diversity in individuals’resources, perceptions of injustice, values, and goals. Afourth approach relies on social-structure theories andemphasizes dimensions outside the focal relationship toexplain cooperation (e.g., P. Blau 1974). Social, cultural,and structural aspects of the environment in which therelationship occurs are seen as drivers of cooperation.Finally, the fifth approach involves modeling theories andemphasizes the impact of social learning and imitation oncooperative tendencies (e.g., Bandura 1971). Given thediffering underlying assumptions and units of analysisadopted by each research tradition, the current state of inquiry on cooperation is replete with explanatory vari-ables (K. Smith et al. 1995).Differences notwithstanding, at least three similaritiesexist across the research traditions that explore coopera-tion.First,definitionsofcooperationinthetraditionscon-verge on a common conceptual domain, and all include awillful-contribution element and a common task or objec-tiveelement. 1 Second,theresultingoutcomeformosttasksituations is increased productivity, especially in complextask situations (Tjosvold 1984; Tjosvold and Tsao 1989),because of cooperating individuals tending to (1) provideeach other with necessary information, (2) more willinglyassist and help each other, (3) understand each other’spoints of view, (4) be influenced by each other’s interestsand ideas, and (5) rely on division of labor (Laughlin1978). 2 Third, some conceptual overlap exists among theexplanatory variables suggested by each approach, eventhough research in each tradition—true to the “silo” viewofacademia—seldomcrosseslines(K.Smithetal.1995).Perhaps this lack of an interdisciplinary approachaccounts for the low variance explained in most studies of cooperation.Indeed,researchineachofthetraditionshas(necessar-ily) been limited in scope (i.e., in terms of including allmajor antecedents of cooperation). For example, studiesusing game theory generally emphasize structural andpsychological determinants such as task characteristicsand personalities of the participants (e.g., Murnighan1994), whereas studies based on social-exchange theoryfocus on the aspects of the relationship between 336 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2001  cooperatingparties.Similarly,whilesocial-structuretheo-riesfocussolelyonthebroadercontextinwhichacooper-ative relationship occurs, such as the structural and cul-tural environment, modeling theories highlight theinfluence of third parties outside the focal relationship(e.g., managers). However, as Pinto, Pinto, and Prescott(1993)note,factorsthatactasfacilitatorsofcooperationinorganizationsmaybelongtoabroadsetofantecedentcate-gories,ranging“fromindividualfactorssuchaspersonali-tiesofgroupmembers,interpersonalrelationsandtrainingand skills . . . to organizational factors such as strategy,structure, reward systems, and cultural norms” (p. 1282).Therefore,usinginferencesfromeachofthetraditions,weargue that the cooperative behaviors of salespeopleemergefromthecombinedeffectsofvariablesinfourdis-tinct categories: (1) the quality of interpersonal relation-ships between organizational members, that is, relational factors;(2)specificpropertiesandrequirementsofthetaskathand,thatis, task  factors;(3)thestructural,cultural,pro-cedural, and managerial dimensions of the organization,that is, organizational factors; and (4) individual charac-teristics of organizational members, that is, personal fac-tors.Table1providesareviewoftheexplanatoryvariablesinthecooperationresearch.Eachantecedentvariableusedinthevariousresearchapproachescanbegroupedintooneof the four categories. A MODEL OF SALESPERSONCOOPERATION Our model of salesperson cooperation is shown in Fig-ure1.Althoughthemodelincorporatesantecedentfactorsfromeachmaincategory,itisobviousthatnotallpotentialfactors can be included. Thus, the factors from each cate-gory included in our model are those we propose are mostrelevant to salesperson cooperation in the context of thepresent study. For example, factors such as organizationalcommitmentandjobsatisfactionareincludedinthemodelbecause these factors are frequently used attitudinal vari-ables in the sales management literature in explainingsalesperson behaviors. Similarly, factors such as trust incoworkers and task interdependence are included sincesuch factors are key explanatory factors suggested in atleast one of the research traditions exploring cooperation.We discuss each variable in the four antecedent categoriesand the theoretical and empirical grounds for 15 specifichypotheses. Relational Factors Relational factors are those that cause salespersons tovalue their relationships with coworkers and developmutually beneficial, long-term orientations in workingrelationships. The social-exchange literature implies thatinterpersonal attraction, psychological attachment, andnorms of reciprocity—stimulated by loyalties, friendship,and faithful expectations—affect individuals’ behavioralchoices in relationships. Although such relational vari-ables as communication quality (J. Anderson and Narus1990), shared values (Chatman 1991; Morgan and Hunt1994), cultural differences (McAllister 1995), person-organization fit (Chatman 1991; Netemeyer et al. 1997),and expectations regarding the future behaviors of rolepartners(WienerandDoescher1994)havebeentheorizedto affect cooperative tendencies, the most prominent rela-tional factors are trust and commitment (Achrol 1991;Morgan and Hunt 1994).Indeed, commitment and trust are considered key fordistinguishing social from purely economic exchange(K. Cook and Emerson 1978; G. McDonald 1981). Coop-eration entails vulnerability, and both commitment andtrust are considered necessary for individuals to value arelationship and to be willing to be vulnerable (Mayer,Davis, and Schoorman 1995; Weitz and Bradford 1999).Morgan and Hunt (1994) theorize that an individual’scommitment to a relationship and trust in the exchangepartnerarekeydeterminantsofseveralbehavioraltenden-cies in the relationship, including a disposition to cooper-ate. Similarly, we argue that a salesperson’s trust incoworkers and his or her commitment to the organizationare central to understanding how relational factors facili-tate cooperation. Specifically, with respect to salespersoncooperation, we model (1) organizational commitment asmediatingtheeffectsofintrinsicandextrinsicjobsatisfac-tion,(2)trustincoworkersasmediatingtheeffectsofpastopportunistic behaviors of coworkers and communicationquality, and (3) both trust and commitment as mediatingthe effect of shared values. Organizational commitment and cooperation . Organi-zational commitment was srcinally defined as “thestrengthofanindividual’sidentificationwithandinvolve-ment in a particular organization” (Porter, Steers,Mowday, and Boulian 1974:604). Stated this way, highlevels of organizational commitment are characterized bypositiveaffectiveresponsestowardvarioussubgroups,in-cluding coworkers, that form the organization (Becker1992). Thus, a salesperson’s commitment to the organiza-tion should facilitate his or her cooperative tendencies to-ward coworkers. Salespeople who are committed to theorganization should attach more importance to their rela-tionships with coworkers, anticipate future interactionswithcoworkersforalongertimehorizon,andhighlyvaluetheir associations with coworkers (O’Reilly and Chatman1986). Each of these variables, in turn, positively affectscooperative tendencies (Axelrod 1984; Heide and Miner1992). Supporting this view, organizational commitmenthas been shown to promote several forms of constructiveorganizational behaviors (O’Reilly and Chatman 1986), Yilmaz, Hunt / SALESPERSON COOPERATION 337
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!