Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior, and Conflict Resolution Techniques
Jakki Mohr; Robert Spekman
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Feb., 1994), pp. 135-152.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0143-2095%28199402%2915%3A2%3C135%3ACOPSPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H Strategic Management Journal is currently published by John Wiley & Sons.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/jwiley.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org Fri Sep 7 15:53:46 2007
/ CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS:
PARTNERSHIP ATTRIBUTES, COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR, AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION
/'- TECHNIQUES
JAKKl MOHR
College of Business and Administration,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.
\
ROBERT SPEKMAMDarden Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.
The formation of partnerships between firms is becoming an increasingly common way for firms to find and maintain competitive advantage. While the antecedents of partnership formation and the characteristics of the resulting cooperative working relationship have been explored in the literature, an understanding of characteristics associated with partnership success is lacking. Such an understanding is important in reconciling the prescriptions to form partnerships with the reality that a majority of such partnerships do not succeed. We hypothesize that partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques are related to indicators of partnership success (satisfaction and sales volume in the relationship). The hypotheses are tested with vertical partnerships between manufacturers and dealers. Results indicate that the primary characteristics of partnership success are:
partnership attributes of commitment, coordination, and trust; communication quality and participation; and the conflict resolution technique of joint problem solving. The findings offer insight into how to better manage these relationships to ensure success.
PURPOSE
To begin, partnerships are defined as purposive strategic relationships between independent firms who share compatible goals, strive for mutual benefit, and acknowledge a high level of mutual interdependence. They join efforts to achieve goals that each firm, acting alone, could not attain easily. The formation of these alliances and partnerships is motivated primarily to gain competitive advantage in the marketplace (Bleeke
Key words: Strategic partnership, success, communi- cation
CCC 0143-20951941020135-18
0
1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.and Ernst, 1991; Powell, 1990). Partnerships can afford a firm access to new technologies or markets; the ability to provide a wider range of products/services; economies of scale in joint research andlor production; access to knowledge beyond the firm's boundaries; sharing of risks;
and access to complementary skills (Powell, 1987:
71). However, prescriptions for the formation of such partnerships often overlook the drawbacks1 hazards of such relationships. For example, increasing complexity, loss of autonomy and information asymmetry (Provan, 1984; William- son, 1975) may accompany partnering relation- ships.
Although the number of attempted partnerships Received 31 July 1991 Final revision received 2 June 1993
has grown almost geometrically in recent years, the rates of success are rather low (Harrigan, 1988; Kanter, 1988; Levine and Byrne, 1986).
In fact, while the formation of partnering relationships is often viewed as a panacea for an individual firm's competitive woes, the prescrip- tion to 'form an alliance' to gain competitive advantage overlooks the fact that many strategic partnerships do not succeed. Unfortunately, the academic literature has been slow to embrace this important managerial concern (i.e., Day and Klein, 1987), and little guidance has emerged on how to better ensure partnership success.
Knowledge of factors that are associated with partnership success could aid in the selection of partners as well as in the on-going management of the partnership.
The purpose of this paper, then, is to address the characteristics of partnerships that are associ- ated with its success. First, we provide a brief overview of the literature on strategic alliances.
Then, we build a model of partnership success.
We empirically test our model in the context of vertical partnerships in the computer industry.
Finally, conclusions for managers and researchers are discussed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research on strategic alliances has posited theories addressing the reasons why firms enter into closer business relationships. For example, transactions costs analysis (Williamson, 1975, 1985), competitive strategy (i.e., Porter, 1980), resource dependence (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978;
Tnompson, 1967), political economy (Benson, 1975; Stern and Reve, 1980), and social exchange theory (e.g., Anderson and Narus, 1984) each make predictions about when partnerships will be formed. Implicit in this research is the assumption that, when used under the appropriate circumstances and environmental conditions, partnerships will be successful. Yet, as mentioned previously, a large percentage of these strategic partnerships do not succeed (e.g., Harrigan, 1985, 1988). Given this inconsistency, one must question what factors are associated with partner- ship success.
Developing a model of partnership success begs the question of what partnership success means. Although success in strategic partnerships
might be viewed as a function of continuation (e.g., Harrigan, 1988), relationship longevity (vs. dissolution) may not accurately capture partnership success-some partnerships arc pur- posively dissolved after a period of time (Hamel, Doz, and Prahalad, 1989). Ilm our model we use two indicators of partnership success: an objective indicator (sales volume flowing between dyadic partners) and an affective measure (satisfactiom of one party with the other).'
The objective indicator grows from the belief that strategic partnerships are formed to achieve a set of goals (e.g., to enhance a company's competitive position). The attainment of such goals can provide one indicator of relationship success. For example, in a partnership between firms in a distribution channel (e.g., Johnston and Lawrence, 1988; Narus and Anderson, 1987), manufacturers form partnerships with downstream channel members for a variety of reasons, including the ability to increase local market penetration. Manufacturers worlting in concert with these channel partners are able to provide better service to customers, thereby increasing their sales base in a particular geo- graphic region.
The affective indicator (satisfaction) is based on the notion that success is determined, in part, by how well the partnership achieves the performance expectations set by the partners (e.g., Anderson and Narus, 1990). A partnership which generates satisfaction exists when perform- ance expectations have been achieved.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Our framework is based Lapon the following two premises. First, partnerships tend to exhibit behavioral characteristics that distinguish these more intimate relationships from more traditional (conventional) business relationships (Borys and Jemison, 1989). Second, while partnerships in general tend to exhibit these behavioral character- istics, more successful partnerships will exhibit
We recognize that these two indicators of partnership success, while being applicable to many partnerships. rnay not be applicable to all partnerships. A s discussed subsequently in the Methods section. these two indicators are context- dependent, tailored for the specific empirical context for this study-vertical partnerships between rnanufacturcrs and dealers.
these characteristics with more intensity than less successful partnerships.
These behavioral characteristics might include attributes of the partnership, such as commitment and trust (e.g., Salmsnd and Spekman, 1986):
communication behaviors, such as information sharing between the partners (e.g., Mohr and Nevin, 1990); and conflict resolution techniques, which tend towards joint problem solving, rather than domination or ignoring the problems (e.g., Borys and Jemissn, 1989). Figure 1 serves as an organizing framework for both the theoretical discussion and the subsequent testing of hypoth- eses.
Attributes of the partnership
Kaneer (1988) suggests that strategic partnerships result in blurred boundaries between firms in which there emerge close ties that bind the two parties. John (1984) describes the long and sticky nature of the relationship between firms that serves to reduce the potential for opportunistic behavior. In such relationships there exists a set of process-related constructs that help guide the
Atmbutes of the Partnership
-Commitment
-Coordinat~on
I -Interdependence
-Trust
Cornmun~cat~onBehav~or
-Qual~ty
-Information Sharing
-Participat~on
I Conflict Resolution Pechn~ques
I -Joint Problem Solving
-
Persuasion-
Dominationflow of information between partners, manage the depth and breadth of interaction, and capture the complex and dynamic interchange between partners. Extant literature has focused on commit- ment, coordination, interdependence and trust as important attributes of partnerships (e.g., Anderson and Narus, 1990; Day and Klein, 1987;
Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh, 1987; Frazier, Spekman, and O'Neal, 1988; Salmond and Spekman, 1986).
The existence of these attributes implies that both partners acknowledge their mutual depen- dence and their willingness to work for the survival of the relationship. Should one party act opportunistically, the relationship will suffer and both will feel the negative consequences.
Commitment refers to the willingness of trading partners to exert effort on behalf of the relation- ship (Porter et al., 1974). It suggests a future orientation in which partners attempt to build a relationship that can weather unanticipated problems. A high level of commitment provides the context in which both parties can achieve
Success of Partnersh~p
-Satisfaction
-Dyadic Sales
! I
Figure 1. Factors associated with partnership success
138 J. Mohr a n d
R.
Spekmanindividual and joint goals without raising the specter of opportunistic behavior (e.g., Cum- mings, 1984). Because more committed partners will exert effort and balance short-term problems with long-term goal achievement, higher levels of commitment are expected to be associated with partnership success (Angle and Perry, 1981).
Coordination
Coordination is related to boundary definition and reflects the set of tasks each party expects the other to perform. Narus and Anderson (1987) suggest that successful working partnerships are marked by coordinated actions directed at mutual objectives that are consistent across organizations.
Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) suggest that stability in an uncertain environment can be achieved via greater coordination. Without high levels of coordination, Just-in-Time processes fail, pro- duction stops, and any planned mutual advantage cannot be achieved.
Iizterdeperidence
As firms join forces to achieve mutually beneficial goals, they acknowledge that each is dependent on the other. This perspective flows directly from an exchange paradigm (e.g., Cook, 1977).
Interdependence results from a relationship in which both firms perceive mutual benefits from interacting (e.g., Levine and White, 1962) and in which any loss of autonomy will be equitably compensated through the expected gains (Cummings, 1984). Both parties recognize that the advantages of interdependence provide bene- fits greater than either could attain singly.
Pruitt (1981) indicates that trust (i.e., the belief that a party's word is reliable and that a party will fulfill its obligation in an exchange) is highly related to firms' desires to collaborate. Williamson (1985) states that, other things being equal, exchange relationships featuring trust will be able to manage greater stress and will display greater adaptability. Zand (1972) contends that the lack of trust will be deleterious to information exchange, to reciprocity of influence, and will diminish the effectiveness of joint problem solving. Anderson and Narus (1990) add credence to the above and
suggest that once trust is established, firms learn that joint efforts will lead to outcomes that exceed what the firm would achieve had it acted solely in its own best interests.
In sum, the literature cited above suggests that more successful partnerships are expected to be characterized by higher levels of commitment, coordination, interdependence and trust than are less successful partnerships. This can be stated more formally by the following hypothesis.
H I : More successfi~l partizerships, compared with less successful partnershijjs, exhibit higher levels of:
a. commitment b. coordination c. interdependence d. trust.
Communication behavior
Because communication processes underlie most aspects of organizational functioning, communi- cation behavior is critical to organizational success (Kapp and Barnett, 1983; Mohr and Nevin, 1990;
Snyder and Morris, 1984). In order to achieve the benefits of collaboration, effective communi- cations between partners are essential (Cummings, 1984). Communication captures the utility of the information exchanged and is deemed to be a key indicant of the partnership's vitality. Three aspects of communication behavior are discussed here: communication quality, extent of information sharing between partners, and participation in planning and goal setting.
Communication quality
Communication quality is a key aspect of information transmission (Jablin et al., 1987).
Quality includes such aspects as the accuracy, timeliness, adequacy, and credibility of infor- mation exchanged (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Huber and Daft, 1987; Stohl and Redding, 1987).
Across the range of potential partnerships, communication quality is a key factor of success.
Timely, accurate, and relevant information is essential if the goals of the partnership are to be achieved. MacNeil(l981) and others acknowledge the importance of honest and open lines of communication to the continued growth of close ties between trading partners.
Information sharing
Information sharing refers to the extent to which critical, often proprietary, information is communicated to one's partner. Huber and Daft (1987) report that closer ties result in more frequent and more relevant information exchanges between high performing partners. By sharing information and by being knowledgeable about each other's business, partners are able to act independently in maintaining the relationship over time. The systematic availability of infor- mation allows people to complete tasks more effectively (Guetzkow, 1965), is associated with increased levels of satisfaction (Schuler, 1979), and is an important predictor of partnership success (Devlin and Bleackley, 1988).
Participation
Participation refers to the extent to which partners engage jointly in planning and goal setting. When one partner's actions influence the ability of the other to effectively compete, the need for participation in specifying roles, responsibilities, and expectations increases. And- erson, Lodish and Weitz (1987) and Dwyer and Oh (1988) suggest that input to decisions and goal formulation are important aspects of participation that help partnerships succeed. Briscoll (1978) also found that participation in decision-making is associated with satisfaction. Joint planning allows mutual expectations to be established and cooperative efforts to be specified.
In sum, more successful partnerships are expected to exhibit higher levels of communi- cation quality, more information sharing between partners, and more participation in planning and goal setting than less successful partnerships.
Stated more formally, we hypothesize that:
H2: More successful partnerships, compared with less successful partnerships, will exhibit higher levels of:
a. communication quality b. information sharing c. participation in planning.
Conflict resolution techniques
Conflict often exists in interorganizational relationships due to the inherent interdependen-
cies between parties. Given that a certain amount of conflict is expected, an understanding of how such conflict is resolved is important (Borys and Jemison, 1989). The impact of conflict resolution on the relationship can be productive or destruc- tive (Assael, 1969; Deutsch, 1969). Thus, the manner in which partners resolve conflict has implications for partnership success.
Firms in a strategic partnership are motivated to engage in joint problem solving since they are, by definition, linked in order to manage an environment that is more uncertain andlor turbulent than each alone can control (Cummings, 1984) and integrative outcomes satisfy more fully the needs and concerns of both parties (Thomas, 1976). When parties engage in joint problem solving, a mutually satisfactory solution may be reached, thereby enhancing partnership success.
Partners often attempt to persuade each other to adopt particular solutions to the conflict situation.
These persuasive attempts will generally be more constructive than the use of coercion or domination (Deutsch, 1969). The use of destructive conflict resolution techniques (e.g., domination, confrontation) are seen as counter-productive and are very likely to strain the fabric of the partnership.
In some partnerships, the method of conflict resolution is institutionalized, and third party arbitration is sought. While such mediation can be helpful in producing beneficial outcomes (Anderson and Narus, 1990), 'internal resolution' (i.e., not relying on outside parties) shows a greater promise of long-term success (Assael, 1969: 580). While outside arbitration may be effective for a particular conflict episode, ongoing use of arbitrators may indicate inherent problems in the relationship.
Other conflict resolution techniques (e.g., smoothing over or ignoringlavoiding the issue) are somewhat at odds with the norms and values espoused in more successful strategic partnerships (see Ruekert and Walker, 1987). Such techniques do not 'fit' with the more proactive tone of a partnership in which problems of one party become problems affecting both parties. As a result, smoothing or avoiding fails to go to the root cause of the conflict and tends to undermine the partnership's goal of mutual gain. Thus, we hypothesize that:
H3: More successful partnerships, compared with less successful partnerships, will exhibit:
1.40 J. Mohr
and
R. Spekmana. higher use of constructive resolution tech- niques, including joint problem solving and persuasion
b. lower use of destructive conflict resolution techniques including domination and harsh words
c, lower use of conflict resolution techniques including outside arbitration, and smoothing!
avoiding issues.
METHOD
Data collection: Context and sample
Although strategic partnerships can take many forms, including both horizontal and vertical relationships (Borys and Jemison, 1989), this study focused on vertical relationships between manufacturers and dealers (e.g., Anderson and Narus, 1990; Heide and John, 1990). While not all channel relationships are strategic partnerships, manufacturers and dealers often form bonds that transcend a more market-based set of transactions. These closer, more intimate, bonds are what separates these partnerships from a more transaction-based set of exchanges which are limited in scope and purpose. Partners have jointly aligned goals to accomplish mutually beneficial ends. They are linked in form and substance in ways that go beyond the more conventional flow of products and paper trail found in other manufacturer-retailer relation- ships. In fact, the trend towards partnerships in channels relationships appears to be quite pronounced (Johnston and Lawrence, 1988;
Sethuraman, Anderson, and Narus, 1988).
The context selected for this study was the personal computer industry. As the market has matured, manufacturers have relied less on direct sales and more on dealer networks to help reach the vast market of small business customers (Bertrand, 1989; Business Week, 1989).2 These manufacturers found that dealers in local markets were able to develop tailored solutions for specific market applications and to undertake the selling job, both more effectively and
In recent years, mail order channels (e.g., Dell) have taken a portion of the PC market (Business Week, 1991).
Nonetheless, retail channels still account for the majority of PC sales and even Dell has begun to distribute through retail channels.
efficiently. In addition, such dealer partnerships enabled manufacturers to retain some control over dealer strategies and provided more accurate and valuable 'street-level' market knowledge.
Although single-industry studies often lack generalizability, they do afford greater control over sources of extraneous variation due to industry characteristics, environmental noise, and the like (e.g., McDougall and Robinson, 1990;
see also Spekman and Gronhaug, 1986). We have attempted to enhance the study's internal validity, with full recognition that it is achieved with some loss in its external validity (Cook and Campbell, 1979).
The unit of analysis in this study was the relationship between a computer dealer and one of its suppliers (i.e., manufacturers). We focused on the dealer's perceptions of the relationship with a 'referent' manufacturer (described below).
While dyadic data (collected from both the dealer and the manufacturers) would have been desirable, both time and expense considerations necessitated focusing on one side of the dyad.
A list of computer dealers was obtained from the Association of Better Computer Dealers, the personal computer industry trade association.
Each dealer was contacted by telephone prior to mailing a questionnaire in order to identify the ownerimanager (the key informant), to solicit cooperation for the study, and to assign a referent manufacturer. One informant from the dealer firm was deemed to be appropriate (see Ander- son, 1985; Campbell, 1955) since the owner!
manager is typically the top decision maker within the dealer firm; has key contact with the manufacturer with respect to strategic decisions (as opposed to contact for technical support, etc.); and, is the focal point for these small businesses (average number of employees ranges from 9-34, Computer Reseller News, 1988).
During the initial phone contact, dealers were randomly assigned a referent manufacturer about whom the questionnaire centered. This random assignment ensured that dealer respondents did not pick either their most or least favored (i.e., best or worst) manufacturer as the referent.
Five hundred fifty-seven surveys were mailed, with follow-up letters 4 weeks later. A total of 140 dealers returned surveys (25% response rate). This response rate was lower than expected, and likely due to the lengthy nature of the questionnaire and the busy time of the year at
which it was mailed (November-December).
Nonetheless, the response rate is quite acceptable and is consistent with the rate found in other studies (cf. Pearce and Zahra, 1991; Weiss and Anderson, 1992). Sixteen surveys were eliminated from analysis due to incomplete responses, leaving a total of 124 surveys for analysis.
An ideal assessment of nonresponse bias compares characteristics of respondents to characteristics of the population from which the sample was drawn, in this case, the trade association membership. However, this trade association did not keep detailed records on their membership. In fact, it lacked meaningful information on even basic data, such as dealer size and sales volume. Absent this comparison base, we assessed nonresponse bias by compar- ing early to late respondents, as suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1977). They argue that late respondents are more representative of those in the sample who did not respond than are early respondents. This comparison indicated no significant differences between early and late respondents on characteristics such as sales volume and length of relationship with the referent manufacturer. Early respon- dents were, however, slightly smaller than later respondents in terms of number of employees (t = -2.36, p
<
0.02) and total sales volume (t = -1.68, p < 0.10). Based on these results, nonresponse bias did not appear to present a problem in testing our framework.Five of the dealers who responded to the survey indicated that they were owned by the manufacturer (i.e., Heath Zenith, Radio Shack).
Because vertical integration is an alternative governance form to partnerships (Achrol, Scheer, and Stern, 1990; Harrigan, 1985) these five dealers were omitted from data analysis. Additionally, dealers who did not deal directly with the manufacturer (i.e., purchased from distributors) were also omitted from the data analysis (n = 17).
The remaining sample (n = 102) was comprised of dealers with an average of 24 employees, and total monthly sales of $1.15 million. These dealers reported on relationships with the following vendors: IBM (n = 21), Apple (n = 21), Compaq (n = 14), Hewlett Packard (n = 7), Epson (n = 6), NEC (n = 5 ) , Hyundai (n = 4), with the remaining 24 dealers responding on 16 manufacturers. The average length of these trading relationships was 3.87 years.
Measurement
All measures were pretested in a series of personal interviews with computer dealers in which the items were revised iteratively until no further changes were suggested. The Appendix lists items used to measure each of the constructs.
Reliability analysis was conducted and items with low item-to-total correlations were deleted.
Cronbach's alphas were computed, and all scales (with one exception, as noted) exceeded Nunnally's (1978) reliability guidelines of 0.7 or above. The one exception, Information Sharing, had a Chronbach alpha of 0.68, which was deemed acceptable to further analysis. Principal component factor analyses with varimax rotations also were conducted for the variables in each h y p ~ t h e s i s . ~Through this process, measures retained for the analysis exhibit favorable reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity (Churchill, 1979). Table 1 lists summary scale statistics.
Success of the partnership
Because vertical partnerships in the computer industry are formed in order to gain competitive advantage by more effectively and efficiently selling product, dealer sales volume of the referent manufacturer's product served as one indicator of partnership success. In a vertical partnership one would expect that closer ties between the manufacturer and the dealer would result in the dealer selling more of that particular manufacturer's product.
Two objective measures of sales volume were taken; one was a direct measure and one was indirectly computed from two other items. The first (direct) measure asked the dealer:
@ What is your approximate volume of sales of this manufacturer's product, on a monthly basis?
The second measure was computed based on the dealer's response to two items:
What are the total monthly sales of your dealership?
@ Of the total sales of your dealership, what percent comes from this manufacturer's product?
The factor analyses are available from the first author, upon request.
142 J . Mohr and R. Spekman
For this second measure, the two items were multiplied together as an indirect measure of the dealer's monthly sales volume of the referent manufacturer's product.
We felt that by assessing dyadic sales volume
Table 1. Summary statistics for measures
Variable Mean* Coefficient
(S.D.) Alpha Dependent variables
Dyadic sales
Satisfaction with support from mftr
Satisfaction with profit Independent variables HI: Trust
Commitment Coordination Interdependence H2: Communication quality
Participation Information sharing H3: Joint problem solving
Persuasion Smoothing Arbitration
Severe resolution** * * Covariate
Closeness
*
* * Means are scaled from 1-5, with 5 being highest.
Correlation coefficient, rather than coefficient alpha, is reported for a 2-item scale.
* * * Mean of sales (log) ranges from 3.92 to 13.69. See text in the Measurement Section for elaboration.
* * * * Severe Resolution includes the average of Harsh Words
f Manufacturer Domination.
NA Because Conflict Resolution Techniques were measured using composite indicators, which are comprised of single items, no reliability analysis is conducted (e.g., Howell, 1987).
in two different ways, we would get a more accurate assessment of this variable. These sales measures were adjusted for the size of the dealer (in terms of the number of employees). This adjustment was necessary in order to remove dealer size as an alternative explanation for greater sales volume, and therefore, a more successful partnership. The two sales measures were transformed with a logarithmic transfor- mation to account for the increasing size of the categories (e.g., Govindarajan, 1988) and summed to form one measure, Dyadic Sales (see Table
An additional indicator of partnership success was also taken. Anderson and Narus (1990) suggested that satisfaction with aspects of the working relationship between partners can serve as a proxy for partnership success. Satisfaction1 dissatisfaction is a cognitive state and examines the adequacy of the rewards received through the relationship (e.g., Frazier, 1983). Hence, an additional indicator of success in this study examined one partner's satisfaction with the other across several aspects of the relationship, ranging from the general nature of personal dealings, to the level of promotional support, to profitability (Ruekert and Churchill, 1984).
The factor analysis for the satisfaction items resulted in a two-factor solution. One factor, comprised of the two items tapping satisfaction with profit and margins, was termed 'Satisfaction and Profit.' The second factor, comprised of the remaining satisfaction items, was termed 'Satisfaction with Manufacturer Support.' Table 1shows the relevant scale statistics and reliability coefficients of these two scales.
Attributes of the partnership
Commitment, coordination, and trust were each measured with 3-item scales. The Commitment and Trust scales exhibited acceptable reliabilities, as shown in Table 1. One of the coordination items had a low item-to-total correlation and was dropped from analysis; the remaining two items had an intercorrelation of r = 0.68 (p
<
0.001).Interdependence was measured with a two item scale and examined the ease with which each
Note that the variable 'Dyadic Sales' is a scale and the values that it takes do not (and are not meant to) represent actual sales volume.
party could switch to a new trading prartner (Phillips, 1981). While the intercorrelation between these two items was relatively low (r = 0.26, p
<
0.001), one would not necessarily expect both dealer and manufacturer depentdence on the other to covary. In fact, it is possiblle that one party may find it easy to switch, while the other does not (see Spekman and Salnnond, 1992). In any case, as the sum of these two1 items increases, so too does interdependence iin the relationship.All items exhibited high loadings on their respective factors, with only one item cross- loading (one coordination item on trust); how- ever, in order to avoid using single-item meiasures this item was retained. The impact o~f this decision on the discriminant validity of trust and coordination must be kept in mind in interp,reting the results.
Aspects of communication behavior
Communication quality was assessed with a : S t e m scale; participation was measured with a '4-item scale and tapped the extent to which the d(ealer7s input was solicited by the manufacturer for planning purposes. Both of these measures exhibited good reliability and clean factor loadings.
Information sharing tapped the exte:nt to which partners kept each other informed about important issues on a voluntary basis anid was assessed with an 8-item scale. Two items; were dropped during initial reliability assessme:nt. In the initial factor analysis, the two items that assessed the manufacturer's sharing of infor- mation with the dealer did not exhibit clean loadings and, in fact, loaded more stirongly on the other two measures of communi~cation behavior. Thus, these two items were dropped, and four items were retained for the dealer's information sharing with the manufacturer (coefficient alpha = 0.68). The items f a r this measure loaded cleanly on one factor, a n d were retained in the analysis.
ConJlict resolution
The measures for conflict resolution includled six modes by which conflict could be resolved. These items were designed to cover a spectrum of conflict resolution modes as described previously.
Howell (1987) refers to this type of mesaurement
as a 'check list,' or composite scale, in which each item taps a different dimension of the construct. Hence, traditional reliability analysis is not appropriate. Four of these items (joint problem solving, persuasive attempts by either party, smoothing over the problem, and arbitration) were treated as unitary items. The remaining two items (harsh words and manufac- turer domination) exhibited a relatively high intercorrelation (r = 0.56, the highest intercorre- lation of the conflict resolution modes, the next highest at r = 0.45), and in the interest of parsimony, were summed and labeled Severe Conflict Resolution. Again, each variable loaded cleanly on its own factor.
Covariate
In testing the hypotheses, it was important to rule out alternative explanations for the findings, or other causal factors of partnership success. It was particularly important to establish that the independent variables (detailed above) were actually predictors of the success of the partner- ship, and not merely characteristics of partner- ships in general. In order to control for this possibility, an additional measure was taken for the degree of closeness in the relationship. Such an analysis allows for partialing out the effects of partnerships in general (i.e., that they are closer relationships and thus exhibit more of the characteristics posited here to be predictors of partnership success) before testing the hypotheses for predictors of partnership success.
Varadarajan and Rajaratnam (1986) portray closeness as the proximity of the relationship as it pertains to joint programs and the ties that bind the working relationship between parties.
Closeness, as operationalized here, reflects notions of joint action and shared norms and is consistent with work by Heide and John (1990) and MacNeil (1981). The four items comprising this scale loaded on one factor and had a coefficient alpha of 0.83.
Multicollinearity
Correlation matrices were computed for the variables tested in each of the hypotheses.
Multicollinearity becomes a concern with h&h intercorrelations among the independent vari- ables (Cohen and Cohen, 1983; Mason and
144 J . Mohr and R. Spekman
Perreault, 1991). For H1, only one pair-wise correlation was problematic, that between trust and coordination ( r = 0.56). The remaining correlations ranged from r = 0.04-0.37. For both H2 and H3, the pair-wise correlations among the independent variables ranged from r = 0.01-0.39.
While these correlations indicate that multicolli- nearity is not a severe problem, the analysis for M1 was also conducted on 85 percent and 90 percent of the ample.^
RESULTS
The hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis. For each h y p ~ t h e s i s , ~ models were run separately for each of the dependent variables: satisfaction with manufacturer support, satisfaction with profit, and dyadic sales. While conducting analyses in this fashion may result in an inflated Type 1 error rate, this approach is consistent with other research (e.g., Kohli, 1989b). As an additional precaution, we also compared the findings with a multivariate multiple regression approach (e.g., Sinha, 1990). The multivariate statistics are also reported with each hypothesis. The multivariate findings are significant for all three hypotheses, with univari- ate tests confirming those found with standard regression techniques.
The handling of the covariate in the regression equations followed guidelines suggested by Cohen and Cohen (1983). As indicated, the covariate was added to the model before adding the independent variables in order to partial out its effects prior to hypothesis testing (see also the Change in F statistic reported in Tables 2-4).
The regression assumptions were tested for outliers and for normality of the residuals and revealed no problems.
These analyses are premised upon the notion that, if multicollinearity is present, beta coefficients are unstable.
To the extent that the estimated coefficients are similar (i.e., remain stable) in sign and magnitude on subsets of the data, one can infer that multicollinearity is not affecting the results (cf. Kohli, 1989a). Hence, the hypotheses were tested three times--once on 100 percent of the sample, again on 85 per- cent of the sample, and a third time on 90 percent of the sample. The beta coefficients remained stable In each of the analyses, indicating that multicollinearity was likely not influencing the results.
W e also ran the analyses in one overall regression equation.
Results were similar to those presented here.
Hypothesis 1
Recall H1 posited that higher levels of commitment, coordination, trust, and interdependence are associ- ated with more successful partnerships, compared to less successful partnerships. The results for H I are shown in Table 2. The multivariate test was significant (Wilk's Lambda = 7.68, p < 0.001).
As Table 2 shows, commitment and coordination are positively associated with satisfaction with manufacturer support. Trust is significantly associ- ated with satisfaction with profit. Predictors of dyadic sales include both commitment and coordi- nation. Interdependence is not significantly related to any of the dependent variables.
Hypothesis 2
Recall H2 stated that higher levels of communi- cation quality, participation, and information sharing are associated with more successful partnerships, compared to less successful partner- ships. The multivariate test for H2 was significant (Wilk's Lambda = 9.49, p
<
0.001). Table 3 shows that as communication quality and participation are higher, satisfaction with manu- facturer support is higher (participation atp
<
0.10). Interestingly, as information sharingis higher, satisfaction with profit is lower.
Participation is the only significant predictor of dyadic sales. Thus, H2 receives partial support.
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 stated that the use of constructive conflict resolution techniques is positively associ- ated with more successful partnerships, compared to less successful partnerships, and that the use of destructive conflict resolution techniques is negatively associated with successful partnerships.
The multivariate test for H 3 was significant (Wilk's Lambda = 4.03, p < 0.001). Table 4 shows that joint problem solving is significantly related to satisfaction with manufacturer support.
Both severe resolution tactics (harsh words and domination) and smoothing over problems are negatively associated with satisfaction with profit, while arbitration is positively associated with satisfaction with profit
O,
< 0.10). The regression equation for dyadic sales as the dependent variable is not significant. Thus, H 3 also receives partial support.Table 2. Beta coefficients from regression analyses for HI
Dependent Satis. with mftr Satis. with profit Dyadic sales
variables: support (log)
Covariate:
Closeness
Independent variables:
Commitment 0.22** - 0.28**
Coordination 0.42*** - 0.32**
Trust 0.32** -
Interdependence - -
Change in F A A 11.95*** 2.52* 5.23***
R2 adjusted for df. 0.53*** 0.19*** 0.16***
A p <0.10; " p <0.05; **p <0.01: * * * p <0.001: -nonsignificant
" The change in F-statistic shows the significance of the variance explained by the independent variables ufter accounting for (partialing out) the variance explained by the covariate.
Table 3. Beta coefficients from regression analysis for H2
Dependent Satis. with mftr Satis. with profit Dyadic sales
variables: support (1%)
Covariate:
Closeness
Independent variables:
Commun. quality 0.48*** - -
Information sharing - -0.20* -
Participation 0.14 A - 0.45***
Change in F " " 13.79*** 3.08* 7.97***
R2adjusted for df 0.51*** 0.19*** 0.19***
A p <0.10; * p <0.05; * * p <0.01; * * * p <0.001; -nonsignificant
The change in F-statistic shows the significance of the variance explained by the independent variables after accounting for (partialing out) the variance explained by the covariate
DISCUSSION (both negatively related to satisfaction with profit). Our research suggests that as these The following variables were found to be variables are present in greater amounts, the significant in predicting the success of the success of the partnership is likely to be greater.
partnership (either satisfaction or sales): coordi- Interdependence, and persuasive tactics as a nation, commitment, trust, communication qual- method to resolve conflict were found not to be ity, information sharing, participation, joint predictors of partnership success.
problem solving, and avoiding the use of smooth- The strong, consistent findings for coordination ing over problems or severe resolution tactics as a predictor of partnership success are similar to
146 J. Mohr and
R.
SpekmanTable 4. Beta coefficients from regression analysis for H3 Dependent
variables:
Covariate:
Closeness
Independent variables:
Joint problem solving Persuade
Severe resolution Smooth
Arbitration Change in F ^A
RZadjusted for df
Satis. with mftr Satis. with profit Dyadic sales
support (1%)
A <0.10; * p <0.05; * * p <0.01; * * * p <0.001; -nonsignificant
A The change in f-statistic shows the significance of the variance explained by the independent variables after accounting for (partialing out) the variance explained by the covariate.
other findings on closer business relationships.
Frazier et al. (1988) suggested in their study of Just-in-Time relationships that high levels of coordination are associated with mutually ful- filled expectations.
The findings for trust and commitment are also consistent with emerging research on partnering relationships. Anderson and Narus (1990) and Anderson and Weitz (1992) suggest that such feelings are important in mollifying a partner's fear of opportunistic behavior. In particular, the relationship between Trust and Satisfaction with Profits is interesting. Profits derived from a particular vendor might contrib- ute to a dealer's feeling of vulnerability.
Powerful, and popular, manufacturers tend not to give the best margins. Yet, believing that the vendor will act fairly and in the best interest of the relationship might serve to calm the dealer's fear of opportunistic behavior and might lead to greater perceived satisfaction with this aspect of the partnership.
This study adds credence to the notion that communication problems are associated with a lack of success in strategic alliances (Mohr, 1989; Sullivan and Peterson, 1982). Without comrnunication quality and participation, the success of the partnership is placed in doubt.
The importance of communication becomes critical in signaling future intentions and might be interpreted as an overt manifestation of more subtle phenomena such as trust and commitment. These findings are consistent with Anderson et al. (1987) who found that mutual participation was associated with resource allo- cation among channel members.
The negative association between Information Sharing and Satisfaction with Profits is both counter-intuitive and inconsistent with this discussion. It is possible, however, that greater information sharing may give the dealer the impression that heishe is entitled to a greater share of the fruits of the partnership, as evidenced by higher margins from the manufac- turer. Greater information transfer might be interpreted as closeness between manufacturer and dealer in which margins are viewed, albeit incorrectly, as 'joint property.'
This study indicates that the manner in which conflict is resolved has an impact on relationship success. Joint problem solving, whereby griev- ances are aired and the underlying issues are brought to the surface, fosters a win-win solution between partners. Arbitration has also been beneficial to the success of the relationship in extreme conflict situations. Anderson and
Narus (1990) indicate that distributor councils and distributor ombudsmen are two mechanisms by which conflicts can be diffused and settled constructively. At the same time, arbitration is viewed by some (Assael, 1969) as an effective but a less preferred conflict resolution mechan- ism when compared with internal solutions.
Harsh Words and Smoothing Over Problems as conflict resolution modes d o little to uncover the underlying problems associated with conflict and tend to exacerbate the fundamental differ- ences that exist between trading partners. Both serve to solve short-term difficulties but do not begin to address the longer-term issues that might affect the relationship. Neither of these conflict resolution mechanisms work towards joint resolution of problems nor d o they focus on information sharing and communication as important components of problem solving.
The nonsignificant findings in this study bear discussion. Interdependence was not related to any of the measures of partnership success.
The nonsignificance of this relationship may be due, in part, to the measure used by interdependence. Interdependence may be more than each party's dependence on the other, and may include issues of magnitude as well as symmetry (Gundlach and Cadotte, 1989). The measures for Communication Behavior appeared to do a better job of predicting the more qualitative aspects of partnership success; only participation was significantly related to the quantitative outcome of sales. Communication Behaviors may eventu- ally impact quantitative outcomes such as sales volume in a two-step process in which higher levels of satisfaction are associated with more effort on behalf of the partnership; eventually these efforts are associated with increased performance (Mohr and Nevin, 1990). The fact that none of the conflict resolution modes was significantly related to Dyadic Sales is surprising-and only one of the modes, Joint Problem Solving-was related to Satisfaction with Support. These nonsignificant findings may be explained by the use of single-item measures, or by the two-step process mentioned for Communication Behaviors previously.
The findings from this research, as in all research, must be tempered by the limitations of the study. Clearly, the findings are contingent upon the context and the type of partnerships
studied-partnerships between computer manu- facturers and their dealers. The generalizability of these results across a broad range of strategic partnerships is cautioned. In addition, data were collected from only one side of the dyad-the manufacturer's perceptions of the partnership remain unknown. Data were col- lected from only a single informant from the dealer's organization. While use of a single informant met Campbell's (1955) criteria, it is clear that these respondents were providing their perceptions of organizational-level phenomena.
In any study, it is important to control for alternative explanations of the findings. Two alternative explanations for these results could be that the size of the dealer, the closeness of the relationships, or the length of the relationship accounted for the findings. In this study, the size of the dealer was explicitly controlled for in testing the hypotheses related to sales (by adjusting the sales measure). (Size was unrelated to the satisfaction measures; hence, it was unnecessary to add as a control variable for those hypotheses). Closeness of the relation- ship was explicitly added as a covariate in all analysis, so the results cannot be explained by the degree of closeness of the partnership.
Length of relationship duration was uncorre- lated with the two satisfaction measures (and therefore was unnecessary as a control variable) and significantly correlated with the Dyadic Sales measure. However, when adding length of the relationship as a control variable, the results remain unchanged.
Finally, there might exist a common method variance problem since data on both the dependent and independent variables were collected from the same respondent. However, two possibilities mitigate against such an expla- nation for the results. First, the questionnaire was fairly lengthy, addressing aspects of manu- facturerldealer relationships beyond those used in this study. It is unlikely that respondents would have been able to guess the purpose of the study and forced their answers to be consistent. Second, the dependent variables asked not only for perceptual data, but also objective (sales) data. Objective data are less likely to be subject to halo effects than are affectivelperceptual data (i.e., satisfaction measures).
148 J . Mohr and R. Spekman CONCLUSIONS
The rationale for and the decision to form strategic partnerships appears to be fairly well- documented both in the marketing and strategy literatures as well as in the trade press. However, very little guidance exists regarding the processes required to develop and nurture the partnership beyond the initial decision to forge such a relationship. Given both the costs and risks associated with mismanaging a potentially valu- able partnership, insight into the factors affecting partnership success is quite useful. This research sheds light on these issues and offers an improved understanding of the form and substance of the interaction between partners.
This study suggests that trust, the willingness to coordinate activities, and the ability to convey a sense of commitment to the relationship are key. Critical also to partnership success are the communications strategies used by the trading parties. The quality of information transmitted and the joint participation by partners in planning and goal setting send very important signals to the trading parties. Recent pronouncements by both P & G and Wal-Mart, for example, who have dedicated resources for the sole purpose of effectively managing the interface between these two firms, support our findings. Although the level of magnitude is quite different, the funda- mental processes and mechanisms mirror our results and add support.
Joint participation enables both parties to better understand the strategic choices facing each other. Such openness is not natural for management and it must develop its communi- cations skills and learn to accommodate1modify its traditional concern for decision autonomy.
This skill is nontrivial to the success of the partnership. Management must also move towards processes and behavioral mechanisms that support working with another firm to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Consistent with this view is the importance of joint problem solving as a conflict resolution mechanism. The partners' ability to take the other's perspective and attempt to reconcile differences improves problem solv- ing.
While we demonstrate that certain character- istics and processes are associated with partner- ship success, there is a certain irony that arises in managing these partnerships. That is, it is
likely that managers feel they are trading one set of risks and uncertainty for another. In a number of instances, partners are unprepared to answer questions related to the management of this new relationship, and research has not systematically addressed the array of skills needed to help ensure that the partners' mutual goals are achieved.
The managerial implications to be drawn from this research relate to the manner in which partners attempt to manage the future scope and tone of their relationship. Trust, commitment, communication quality, joint planning, and joint problem resolution all serve to better align partners' expectations, goals, and objectives.
These factors all contribute to partnership success.
The challenge, however, lies in developing a management philosophy or corporate culture in which independent and autonomous trading parties can relinquish some sovereignty and control, while also engaging in planning and organizing which takes into account the needs of the other party. Such a wilful abdication of control (and autonomy) does not come easily but appears to be a necessary managerial requirement for the future. For example, Corning, a company admired for its partnering acumen, espouses corporate values that add credence to our results.
While it would seem that similarities across organizational cultures would improve the prob- ability of partnership success (see Harrigan, 1988), such compatibility cannot be ensured. In many cases, differences in culture, operating procedures, and practices become apparent only during the course of the partnership. Effort must be dedicated to the formation and implementation of management strategies that promote and encourage the continued growth and maintenance of the partnership.
In light of the scant and fragmented nature of the literature which address those factors that differentiate succcssful from unsuccessful partner- ships, this research has attempted to clarify this problem. Managerially, such research offers insight into how to proactively manage partner- ships in order to reap the benefits of success, and to avoid the damaging costs inherent in their failure. Theoretically, a specification of the linkages between characteristics of the partnership and its success can provide a useful framework for future research. The empirical test reported
h e r e provides a first a t t e m p t t o better understand partnership success a n d t h e factors t h a t contribute t o success.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
T h e a u t h o r s gratefully acknowledge t h e helpful c o m m e n t s of J a n H e i d e , Michael Lawless, Jack Nevin, a n d L i n d a Price, a n d t h r e e a n o n y m o u s SM9 reviewers o n this p a p e r .
REFERENCES
Achrol, R . , L. Scheer and L. Stern (1990). 'Designing successful transorganizational marketing alliances', Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, Report #90-118.
Anderson, E. (1985). 'The salesperson as outside agent or employee: A transaction cost analysis', Marketing Science, 4, pp. 234-254.
Anderson, E. and B. Weitz (1986). 'Make or buy decisions: Vertical integration and marketing pro- ductivity', Sloan Management Review, 27, pp. 3-20.
Anderson, E. and B. Weitz (February 1992). 'The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels', Journal of Marketing Research, 29, pp. 18-34.
Anderson, E., L. Lodish and B. Weitz (February 1987). 'Resource allocation behavior in conventional channels', Journal of Marketing Research, 24, pp. 85-97.
Anderson, J. and J. Narus (Fall 1984). 'A model of the distributor's perspective of distributor- manufacturer working relatio~lships'. Jozirnal of Marketing, 48, pp. 62-74.
Anderson. J. and J. Narus (January 1990). 'A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships', Journal of Marketing, 54, pp. 42-58.
Angle, H. and J. Perry (March 1981). 'An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness', Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, pp. 1-14.
Armstrong, J. S. and T. Overton (July 1977). 'Estimat- ing nonresponse bias in mail surveys', Journal of Marketing Research, 51, pp. 71-86.
Assael, H. (December 1969). 'Constructive role of interorganizational conflict', Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, pp. 573-582.
Benson, J . K. (June 1975). 'The interorganizational network as a political economy', Administrative Science Quarterly, 20. pp. 229-249.
Bertrand, K . (May 1989). 'The channel challenge', Business Marketing, pp. 42-50.
Bleeke, J. and D . Ernst (November-December 1991).
'The way to win in cross-border alliances', Harvard Business Review, pp. 127-135.
Borys, B. and D . Jemison (April 1989). 'Hybrid
arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in organizational combinations', Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 234-249.
Business Week (July 17. 1989). 'The power surge at computer dealers', pp. 134-135.
Business Week (July 1, 1989). 'PC slump? What PC slump?', pp. 66-67,
Campbell, D . (1955). 'The informant in quantitative research', American Journal of Sociology, 60, pp. 339-342.
Churchill, G . A., Jr. (February 1979). 'A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing con- structs', Jozirnal of Marketing Research, 16, pp. 64-73.
Cohen, J. and P. Cohen (1983). Applied Multiple RegressionICorrelation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, (2nd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Computer Reseller News (1988). Research Publications from Media Kit, CMP Publications, Manhasset, NY.
Cook, K. (Winter 1977). 'Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations', The Sociological Quarterly, 18, pp. 62-82.
Cook, T . C. and D . T. Campbell (1979). Quasi- Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Cummings, T. (1984). 'Transorganizational develop- ment', Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, pp. 367-422.
Daft, R . and R. Lengel (1986). 'Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design', Management Science, 32 ( 9 , pp. 554-571.
Day, G . and S. Klein (1987). 'Cooperative behavior in vertical markets: The influence of transaction costs and competitive strategies'. In M. Houston (ed.), Review of Marketing, pp. 39-66.
Deutsch, M. (1969). 'Conflicts: Productive and destruc- tive', Journal of Social Issues, 25 ( I ) , pp. 7-41.
Devlin, G. and M. Bleackley (1988). 'Strategic alliances-Guidelines for success', Long Range Planning, 21 (5), pp. 18-23.
Driscoll, J. (1978). 'Trust and participation in organiza- tional decision making as predictors of satisfaction', Academy of Marzagement Journal, 21, pp. 44-56.
Dwyer, F. R. and S. Oh (April 1988). 'A transactions cost perspective on vertical contractual structure and interchannel competitive strategies', Journal of Marketing, 52, pp. 21-34.
Dwyer, F. R., P. Schurr and S. Oh (April 1987).
'Developing buyer-seller relationships', Journal of Marketing, 51, pp. 11-27.
Frazier, G . (Fall L983). 'Interorganizational exchange behavior in marketing channels: A broadened perspective', Journal of Marketing, 47, pp. 68-78.
Frazier, G.. R. Spekman and C. O'Neal (October 1988). 'Just-in-time exchange relationships in indus- trial markets', Jozlrizal of Marketing, 52, pp. 52-67.
Govindarajan, V . (1988). 'A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level:
Integrating administrative mechanisms with strat- egy', Academy of Management Journal, 311 (4), pp. 828-853.
150 J . Mohr and R. Spekrnan
Guetzkow, H. (1965). 'Communications in organiza- tions'. In J. March (ed.), Handbook of Organiza- tions. Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, IL, pp. 534573.
Gundlach, G. and E. Cadotte (1989). 'Manufacturer and distributor interdependence as a predictor of interorganizational interaction and outcomes', Working Paper, University of Notre Dame.
Wamel, G . , Y. Doz and C . K . Prahalad (January-February 1989). 'Collaborate with your competitors-and win', Harvard Business Review, pp. 133-139.
Harrigan, K. R. (1985). 'Vertical integration and corporate strategy', Academy of Management Jour- nal, 28 (2), pp. 397425.
Harrigan, K. R. (1988). 'Strategic alliances and partner asymmetries', Management International Review, 28 (Special Issue), pp. 53-72.
Heide. J. and G. John (February 1990). 'Alliances in industrial purchasing: The determinants of joint action in buyer-supplier relationships', Journal of Marketing Research, 27, pp. 2 4 3 6 .
Howell, R. (February 1987). 'Covariance structure modeling and measurement issues: A note on interrelations among a channel entity's power sources', Journal of Marketing Research, 24, pp. 119-126.
Huber, G. and R. Daft (1987). 'The information environment of organizations'. In F. Jablin et al.
(ed.), Handbook of Organizational Conztnunication.
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 130-164.
Jablin, F., L. Putnam, K. Roberts and L. Porter (1987).
Handbook of Organizational Communication. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
John, G. (August 1984). 'An empirical investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a marketing channel', Journal of Marketitzg Research, 21, pp. 278-289.
Johnston, R . and P. Lawrence (July-August 1988).
'Beyond vertical integration-the rise of the value- adding partnership', Harvard Business Review, pp. 9 4 1 0 1 .
Kanter, R. M. (1988). 'The new alliances: How strategic partnerships are reshaping American busi- ness'. In H. Sawyer (ed.), Business in a Contetpo- rary World. University Press of America, New York, pp. 59-82.
Kapp, J. and G . Barnett (1983). 'Predicting organiza- tional effectiveness from communication activities:
A multiple indicator model', Hutnan Communi- cation Research, 9 , pp. 239-254.
Kohli, A . (July 1989a). 'Determinants of influence in organizational buying: A contingency approach', Journal of Marketing, 53, pp. 50-65.
Kohli, A . (October 198%). 'Effects of supervisory behavior: The role of individual differences among salespeople'
