THE ROLE OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN FACILITATING SUPPLY CHAIN COMMUNICATIONS: A QUALITATIVE STUDY

DAVID M. GLIGOR AND CHAD W. AUTRY The University of Tennessee

While the importance of communication between companies within the supply chain has been well established in the literature, a number of gaps remain pertaining to how individuallevel employee relationships inuence rmtorm communications. One such gap in the literature represents the focus of the current study; little research has addressed the role of nonwork focused personal relationships (i.e., friendships) formed between employees of supply chain partner rms, and specically how such relationships impact businessrelated communication processes. Because research in this area is limited, and qualitative methods are considered most appropriate to assess emergent research phenomena, grounded theory building (Strauss and Corbin 1990) via semistructured interviews was undertaken. The results reveal that interpersonal relationships facilitate business communications through four emergent process themes. Our analysis thus allows us to develop initial theory related to how two different personal social network layers personal relationships and interorganizational communications relate within supply chain settings. Implications for future research are also considered. Keywords: behavioral supply chain management; partnering; supplier management; qualitative data analysis; grounded theory building

INTRODUCTION
The key role communications play in enabling interorganizational processes has long been recognized. Well before supply chain management (SCM) emerged as a distinct scholarly eld, Forresters (1958) marketing treatise introduced a seminal theory of distribution management that cited communications between members of different companies as a critical predictor of overall channel performance. In subsequent marketing work, Mohr and Nevin (1990) described crossorganizational communications as the glue that holds a channel together: communication allows rms to transmit persuasive information between themselves (Frazier and Summers 1984), foster participative cooperative decisionmaking (Anderson and Weitz 1992), coordinate joint programs (Guiltinan, Rejab, and Rodgers 1980), better know customers and suppliers (Lusch 2011), and gain partner commitment and loyalty (Mohr and Nevin 1990), among other positive aspects. In contemporary SCM research, mutual information sharing among

employees of supply chain partner organizations is regarded as a requirement for successfully implementing a SCM philosophy (Mentzer, DeWitt, Keebler, Min, Nix, Smith, and Zacharia 2001; Min and Mentzer 2004), with frequent information updating among the chain members often cited as a condition for effective SCM outcomes (e.g., Ellram and Cooper 1990; Cooper, Lambert, and Pagh 1997). Accordingly, interorganizational communication is now theorized as a key relational competency that can generate sustainable strategic advantage for supply chain partners (Paulraj, Lado, and Chen 2008); related research suggests that more intense, frequent and diverse communication between supply chain partners employees is associated with buyersupplier relationship survival and prosperity (Kenis and Knoke 2002; Lai, Li, and Wang 2008). While the importance of employeetoemployee communication within the supply chain is thus well established, a number of gaps remain in the literature pertaining to its efcacy across contexts and units of analysis. One such gap represents the focus of the

24

Volume 48, Number 1

Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications

current study. Scholarly research has yet to rigorously address how personal relationships between employees of supply chain member rms that are formed outside the work context impact business related communications between the rms they work for. We acknowledge that it is ultimately employees that communicate within supply chain interactions, and following this logic, we explore how rmtorm communications are impacted by personal relationships among the focal communicating employees. For the remainder of this study, when referring to interorganizational communication, we are referring to the communication that takes place between employees across rms. As employees from rms directly connected within a supply chain develop personal relationships (i.e., friendships), there are numerous theoretical reasons to believe that interorganizational communication dynamics will be impacted, and the failure of supply chain research to account for the role of personal relationships limits our understanding of how interorganizational communication really occurs. Thus, the current research takes a multilevel view of interorganizational relationships and communications: we seek to understand more about how social relationships formed at the interpersonal level inuence work focused communications between managers as they act in their formal role as a supply chain partner. The context of the study is the connections between employees of supply chain rms (retailers, manufacturers, etc.) and the employees of logistics service providers (LSPs). Marasco (2008) specied a need for this type of research, calling explicitly for studies that would lead to a deeper understanding of the behavioral complexities that emerge through the interaction between the buyer(s) and provider(s) of logistics services (p. 141). In order to execute the research, it is rst necessary to operationalize the notion of a personal relationship. Following prior literature, we distinguish between the notions of business relationships between persons and personal relationships that develop between business partner employees, with our focus being on the latter. That is, when referring to personal relationships, we are referring to the individuallevel friendships that develop between persons who do business. Following Grayson (2007), we consider these as different from social connections that exist at the individuallevel but are constrained to businessspecic content. Little research has addressed how personal relationships inuence business outcomes. Accordingly, we ask specically: What role do interpersonal relationships play in the interorganizational communication processes between LSPs and their clients? In the following sections, a review of previous research on interorganizational (e.g., supply chain)

communications processes and personal relationships is presented. Interorganizational relationships have been studied at the rm level within various disciplines such as operations management, marketing, strategic management, and sociology, but relatively little work has addressed interorganizational relationships at the micro level of analysis. Foundations of particular interest to the current research are drawn from the limited marketing channels literature addressing buyerseller relationships in circumstances where a personal relationship is present. We go on to review the theories that might help to contextualize our ndings. Following the theoretical review, a grounded theory building methodology is employed to conduct a qualitative study of the focal phenomena study. A condensed review of the grounded theory building technique is presented, along with a description of the data collection techniques employed, and a description of the steps taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the research. Finally, the results of the content analysis are presented, and the conclusions and implications of the study are drawn and discussed alongside suggestions for future research.

INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH

In the literature addressing interorganizational exchange relationships, interorganizational communications have been described as the (formal or informal) sharing of meaningful and timely information between interacting organizations (Anderson and Narus 1990). A number of benets accrue to rms who establish communication lines with their supply chain partners. Research has shown that establishing communication lines across cooperating/collaborating rms is essential to the maintenance of valueenhancing relationships (Christopher 1992), and leads to enhanced knowledge development (Kotabe, Xavier, and Hiroshi 2003; Wallenburg 2009), greater understanding of complex interorganizational issues (Kogut and Zander 1992; Grant 1996), greater condence, cooperation, trust, and reduced conict (Anderson and Narus 1990; Anderson and Weitz 1992; Claycomb and Frankwick 2004). Additionally, paired rms that are highly communicative with each other can lower transaction costs by increasing behavioral transparency (Zajac and Olsen 1993; Dyer 1997; Paulraj et al. 2008), reduce uncertainty between supply chain members (Knobloch and Solomon 2002), foster interorganizational learning (Powell, Koput, and Smith Doerr 1996), facilitate quicker adaptation to change (Schreiner, Kale, and Corsten 2009), enlarge the potential for greater joint action (Das and Teng 1998), and ultimately increase performance (Prahinski and Benton 2004; Paulraj et al. 2008; Joshi 2009) and

January 2012

25

Journal of Supply Chain Management

satisfaction (Mohr and Spekman 1994; Mohr, Fisher, and Nevin 1996) for the parties to the relationship. In brief summary, frequent and high quality communication that leads to effective knowledge exchange has come to be considered the backbone of effective SCM (Bechtel and Jayaram 1997; Autry and Grifs 2008). In general, researchers have operationalized interorganizational communications as though two entire rms were speaking or communicating with one another, with insufcient consideration given to the fact that it is the employees of the rms, not the rms themselves that are communicating. Most of this literature has appeared in marketing and strategic management publications, and the work seeks to understand exactly how whole rms gain competitive benet based on information sharing with others (i.e., Zajac and Olsen 1993; Schreiner et al. 2009). However, the recognition that business communications between supply chain rm employees takes place on an individual basis has long existed, often using alternate terminologies. For example, interorganizational communications are of critical importance in the sales and purchasing literatures, with multiple articles addressing subjects such as adaptive selling (Franke and Park 2006; Roman and Iacobucci 2010) and buyerseller negotiations (Min and LaTour 1995); these studies have attempted to specify how and in what format businessoriented communications should occur between employees of different rms. Unfortunately, virtually all of the interorganizational communications literature has ignored the inuence of personal, nonbusinessrelated relationships in the businesstobusiness communications context.

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN BUSINESS

We focus here on how business communications between employees of supply chain exchange partners are inuenced by the personal relationships held between persons working at those rms. In conducting such an assessment, it is rst important to acknowledge the various manifestations of relationships that develop between individuals. In the holistic sense, Berscheid and Pelau (1983) posit that persons are connected by a relationship if they have an impact on each other . . . if they are interdependent in the sense that a change in one person causes a change in the other, and vice versa (p. 12). However, as mentioned above, we must discriminate between the similar but distinct notions of business relationships and personal relationships/friendships, as each of these relationship types has its own unique impact on relationshipspecic outcomes. Prior research allows us to frame this distinction in terms of six dening characteristics. First, personal relationships are usually expressive (emotion based,

intrinsic) whereas business relationships are instrumental (focused on substance or task) (Fournier, Dobscha, and Mick 1998; Grayson 2007). Second, personal relationships are based on voluntary interactions, whereas business relationships tend to be involuntary (Fischer 1982; Allan 1989). That is, friends are expected to seek each others company voluntarily. Third, the roles played by individuals within personal relationships are expected to be informal, versus the formal roles often expected in business relationships (Price and Arnould 1999). Fourth, personal relationships are motivated by a communal orientation versus a reciprocal orientation expected in business relationships (Silver 1990). Here, a communal orientation refers to the fact that one partner can give or receive benets within the relationship without creating a feeling of obligation or entitlement by the other party. Fifth, personal relationships are expected to lead to development of increasingly intimate social connections, whereas the armslength connections developed in business relationships may never increase in closeness for economic reasons. Friends share personal knowledge and open up one to another (Fischer 1982). Sixth and nally, personal relationships are personal in nature while business relationships are designed to be impersonal (Silver 1990). In a business relationship one of the parties involved can be replaced by an economic or social equivalent (in the sociological sense) and the focal activity can continue without disruption, while in a friendship none of the parties can be substituted without emotional or cognitive loss. Based partly or wholly on this framework, a number of studies have examined the results of combining personal and business relationships, with many of them suggesting that the interaction effects should be positive (Haytko 2004; Johnson and Selnes 2004; Lian and Laing 2007). For example, one study conducted across a variety of industries provided evidence that both personal and business relationships are critical to building and enhancing interorganizational relationship strength (Mavondo and Rodrigo 2001). Other research suggests anecdotally that failure to use close personal relationships to deliver commercial benets leaves suppliers vulnerable (Gedeon, Fearne, and Poole 2009), and Hutt, Stafford, Walker, and Reingen (2000) observed that a failure to nurture personal relationships often has negative consequences on the rmtorm relationship. Moreover, there is substantial support for the notion that friends are more trustworthy, loyal and committed business partners (Price and Arnould 1999; Johnson and Selnes 2004; Adobor 2006), which can indirectly impact their business relationship in positive ways. Yet despite this positive evidence, other researchers have observed that combining friendships and busi-

26

Volume 48, Number 1

Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications

ness relationships can create agencyrelated conict for related organizations, when employees are trapped between individual interests of friends and rmlevel interests of their employers (Price and Arnould 1999; Heide and Wathne 2006), and therefore may begin to practice rm level information hoarding in order to augment the friendship (Burt 1992). Thus, the prior research is yet unclear as to the valence of personal relationships in the supply chain with respect to interorganizational communications different studies exhibit supporting evidence for both positive and negative potential outcomes on rm communications. While personal relationships have sometimes been shown to have a positive effect on business outcomes, the conict between some individuallevel friendship role expectations and business role expectations may negatively inuence interorganizational communications, thereby diminishing the benets of rms working together (Grayson 2007). In order to further inform the SCM discipline on this issue, we briey turn to the emergent literature on applied social network theory, particularly social capital, as an explanatory mechanism addressing interorganizational communication dynamics.

INTERORGANIZATIONAL SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY

The rapidly evolving theorization related to interorganizational social capital allows for a potential explanation of why business actors should be interested in developing both business and personal relationships with members of supply chain partner rms, based on theoretically derived advantages associated with the formation of social ties (Payne, Moore, Grifs, and Autry 2011). Modern social capital theory argues that actors (individuals, teams, groups) willing to invest in relationships with other actors will enjoy positive economic and psychic returns through their capability to leverage the relationship to gain access to needed resources (Lin 2001) including the building of communication bridges through which valuable information may pass (Seibert, Kraimer, and Liden 2001; Adler and Kwon 2002; Anderson 2008). Social capital has thus been dened as the benets that actors derive from their social relationships (Coleman 1990; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Oh, Chung, and LaBianca 2006). The notion of embeddedness is central to contemporary social capital theory. Actors embedded within a favorable social network can gain certain benets (Coleman 1988; 1990; Granovetter 1985). In the past literature, two types of embeddedness are suggested as being relevant to interorganizational information exchange: the embeddedness of the actor within the overall structure of a network (structural embedded-

ness), and embeddedness associated with relationships, which implies actors bonding to each other (relational embeddedness) (Uzzi 1997; Moran 2005). We suggest for the purposes of this research that the formation of personal relationships with members of supply chain partner rms will lead to the creation of social capital manifested as relational embeddedness, though we recognize that structural artifacts (i.e., structural holes in the network, or very dense structures that allow for parallel information ows) may inuence the efcacy of these communicationbased relations to some extent (Koka and Prescott 2002; Lawson, Tyler, and Cousins 2008). Personal relationships are considered as the soft type of ties within a network (Borgatti and Li 2009) as social networks often exist among individuals who are boundary spanners within an interorganizational network (Galaskiewicz 2011). The social capital literature postulates that during social exchanges actors do not behave with perfect economic rationality because of their embeddedness in social networks with other actors who can provide greater access to (among other things) information that otherwise would not be available (Granovetter 1973; 1985). This theorization is consistent with the ndings of the previously reviewed studies exploring the role of personal relationships in business (i.e., Haytko 2004; Johnson and Selnes 2004; Lian and Laing 2007). Based on the relational social capital literature, we believe that managers embeddedness in personal relationships will impact the communication processes between them. Specically, social capital in the form of communication ows is thought to be derived from such personal relationships, and can be uniquely differentiated from that expected from regular businessoriented relations. Unfortunately, the interorganizational social capital literature to date fails to fully explain exactly how and which communication ows will be altered, as well as what types of associated benets might be expected, as the result of personal relationships in the supply chain. In order to further understand the role of personal relationships as a social capital generating mechanism, a qualitative eld study was undertaken.

METHODOLOGY
The choice of a research method should ow directly from the nature and content of the phenomenon to be studied. Our research question of interest deals with dynamic human behavior, and addresses a subject that is relatively unstudied in the current literature, such that initial theory building is needed. A grounded theory building approach is recommended for generating depth and understanding when little is known about a topic (Schouten 1991; Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993), as is the case with the role of

January 2012

27

Journal of Supply Chain Management

personal relationships within the supply chain. Grounded theory building is also a recommended methodology for building theory on problematic, dynamic social processes (Flint, Larsson, Gammelgaard, and Mentzer 2005). Furthermore, our use of this technique responds to recent calls for increased use of qualitative methodologies within the logistics discipline when studying phenomena with complex behavioral dimensions (Mello and Flint 2009). The context of the research is the dyadic logistics outsourcing relationship; specically, the relationships that exist between the supply chain rm and a thirdparty service provider that assumes some of the focal rms logistics responsibilities (e.g., Busse 2010; Anderson, Coltman, Devinney, and Keating 2011). Although Mentzer et al. (2001) dened supply chains as consisting of three or more companies, a buyer seller dyad is a component of that larger supply chain that is useful for an introductory level investigation of relational phenomena (cf., Fugate, Sahin, and Mentzer 2006), and therefore our unit of analysis in this study is a dyadic relationship. It is common in the operations management and logistics literatures to capture supply chain relationships by studying dyadic relationships as they reect microcosmic supply chains (Sahin and Robinson 2002; Fugateet al. 2006).

of the managers were located in the southeast United States, a number of them were located on the West Coast (5) which led to phone interviews in those instances. The interviews were openended and discoveryoriented, and typically lasted about one hour. Each interview was initiated with a grand tour technique (McCracken 1988) and was designed to be open ended. Specically, managers were rst asked to describe a personal relationship that they have developed with another manager from a supply chain partner rm, and through laddering questions we explored the role of personal relationships in the communication process between the two parties. An example of the interview guide is provided in the appendix. All interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim by the members of the research team.

Dyadic Data Collection Following the previous logic, it was deemed necessary to collect dyadic data. Our goal was to rigorously build theory in the area of personal relationships within buyerseller structures, and since such relationships have been shown to develop differently based on their industrial context, it was also considered important to include managers from multiple industries to facilitate generalizable theory building. The buyers of logistics services interviewed in this study belonged to the organizations in a variety of industries: a global steamship line, an international manufacturer of pet products, a global manufacturer of paper products, and a global manufacturer of contact lenses. Completing the buyerseller dyads, the sellers of logistics services interviewed in this study belonged to the following organizations: the same global steamship line, two trucking companies, two logistics brokers, and a freight forwarder. Because the steamship line was both a buyer and seller of logistics services, different managers within this company were interviewed when constructing personal relationship dyads for analysis. Following McCrackens (1988) guidelines for conducting indepth interviews, we relied on the perspectives of logistics managers representing these companies to investigate and analyze the phenomenon. The interviews were conducted in the respondents ofces (21) and over the phone (5). While most 28

Data Coding and Analysis Analyses were conducted after each interview to facilitate theoretical sampling using grounded theory procedures (Strauss 1987; Strauss and Corbin 1990). Three different types of coding are suggested in Strauss coding paradigm and used in this study: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The interview transcripts were analyzed on a sentence-bysentence basis and coded for conceptual content by each analyst. Initially, during open coding, the analysts independently broke down the data into discrete incidents, ideas, events, and acts, and assigned a name/code to represent these. Once each analyst independently coded the interview transcripts available at the time, the analysts met to compare codes. To facilitate this task of achieving intercoder reliability, qualitative research computer software (QDA Miner) was used. This software allowed the analysts to independently code transcripts and, when nished, merge the les into one document to compare codes. QDA Miner overlaps the analysts codes and allows for easy comparison of intercoder reliability. Where the codes were different, the analysts reviewed the specic sections to determine the causes of discrepancy and seek consensus. In order to facilitate intercoder reliability each analyst kept detailed theoretical memos (the researchers record of analysis, thoughts, interpretations, questions, and directions for future data collection). When coding discrepancies existed, the analysts read each others theoretical memos for explanations of why certain concepts were coded and interpreted a certain way. This not only assured that the coding process was consistent across analysts, but also veried that the resultant interpretations of the analysts emerged from logical and unbiased thought processes. This iterative process of individually coding transcripts followed by working together to assure coding and interpretation consistency was followed as additional interviews were conducted and transcripts became

Volume 48, Number 1

Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications

available. The coding process was not considered complete until the analysts reached consensus on each code. The process resulted in 100 percent intercoder reliability between analysts and also provided a check on either authors individual biases. Following the described process 172 open codes were generated. As we continued with data analysis, when we came across another object, event, act, or happening that we identied as sharing some common characteristics with an object or a happening, we placed it under the same code. Concomitantly, comparative analysis was employed; this is an essential feature of the grounded theory methodology (Strauss and Corbin 1990). In this process, each incident was compared with other incidents at the property (general or specic characteristic of a category which allows a category to be dened and given meaning) or dimensional (range along which properties of a category vary; used to provide parameters for the purpose of comparison between categories) level for similarities and differences and placed into a category. Following this dynamic reiterative process we grouped concepts into categories (e.g., message conveyance, message integrity) for content analysis. Once categories emerged through open coding, intense content analysis was done around each category, one at a time. This is known as axial coding. The purpose of axial coding is to begin the process of reassembling data that were fractured during open coding. During this stage categories were related to each other to form more precise and complete explanations about phenomena focusing on how categories crosscut and link. Data were linked at the property and dimensional levels in order to form dense, welldeveloped and related categories. In axial coding, as in open coding, we continued to make constant and theoretical comparisons and make use of the analytic tools described previously. It is important to specify that while axial coding differs in purpose from open coding, these are not necessarily sequential analytical steps. Therefore, the analysts iterated between open and axial coding. As the nal type of coding performed, selective coding is the process of integrating and rening revealed categories. This was performed in order to delimit coding to only those variables that relate to the core variables of interest that have emerged from the study. In summary, during open coding the analysts were concerned with generating categories and their properties and sought to determine how these concepts vary dimensionally. In the axial coding phase, categories were systematically developed and linked, and nally, during the selective coding stage the process of integrating core categories took place.

sampling. In theoretical sampling the data collection process is determined by the emergent theory. Theoretical sampling played a key role in this study, whereby the researchers jointly collect, code, and analyze the interview data, and then progressively decide which participants to interview next in order to develop the theory as it emerges (Strauss and Corbin 1990; Mello and Flint 2009). Researchers conducting theoretical sampling cease to collect data when a preponderance of redundant information suggests that the full complexity of the concepts has been captured (Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial 2002). This identication is essential as it serves to facilitate construct comprehensiveness and theory development (Maxwell 1996). In this study, we sampled only managers who had developed personal relationships within the context of buying and selling logistics services. Participants were senior managers directly involved in the process of buying or selling logistics services. In order to gain a dyadic perspective on the relationships, at end of each interview we asked the respondent if we could contact the other party involved in the relationship, i.e., a modied snowball technique meant to elicit a dyadic relationship. Thus, in selecting who to interview the following process was used: rst we would use theoretical sampling to identify a buyer, and based on the buyers recommendation we would interview the seller involved in that specic personal relationship; second we would use theoretical sampling to identify a seller and based on the sellers recommendation we would interview the buyer involved in that specic personal relationship. The nal sample consisted of 26 participants from nine different companies (12 buyers and 14 sellers). The 26 interviews were paired and yielded a total of 16 usable dyads (six actors were involved in multiple dyads within the study). At the end of the 26 interviews we had attained theoretical saturation, that is, each incremental interview yielded no additional information. Based on this fact, and in consideration of standards set forth in previous research, 26 interviews were deemed sufcient for the current purposes (it is common to interview eight or fewer informants to reach saturation, per McCracken 1988). Table 1 depicts the study participants and their personal relational ties.

Notes on Theoretical Sampling In the grounded theory process, it is important to use a data collection procedure known as theoretical

Analysis of Research Trustworthiness As suggested by Flint et al. (2002), trustworthiness of the research in interpretive studies should be assessed by applying two overlapping sets of criteria. Earlier social sciences research focused primarily in marketing recommends that credibility, transferability, dependability, conrmability, and integrity should be the rst area of focus (e.g., Lincoln and Guba 1985; Hirschman 1986; Wallendorf and Belk 1989). These criteria were evaluated holistically and thoroughly. To 29

January 2012

Journal of Supply Chain Management

TABLE 1 Study Sample Firms Buying Logistics Services Firm B1 Participant Phillip Charles Brad Ron Sean Glenda Paul Blake Tony Brian B Kenji Karina Title Logistics Manager Intermodal Manager Export Manager Equipment Manager Port Ops. Manager Logistics Manager Port Ops. Manager Inventory Ops. Manager Operations Manager Global Accounts Manager Import Manager Export Supervisor Firm S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Firms Selling Logistics Services Participant Selena Barbara Rob John Richard Bobbie Alison Travis Wayne Dwight Jeff Brian T. Craig Kamila Title Customer Service Manager Customer Service Manager VP Operations Operations Manager Customer Service Manager Account Manager Logistics Broker Operations Manager Transportation Manager Sales Manager President Sales Manager Import Supervisor Sales Manager

B2

B3 B4

B1

Notes: Firm B1 is both a buyer and seller of logistics services. Personal relationships examined in the study are as follows: [PhillipBarbara], [PhillipJohn], [Charles Selena], [BradRob], [RonJohn], [SeanRichard], [GlendaBobbie], [PaulBobbie], [BlakeTravis], [Tony Alison], [Brian BWayne], [Brian BBrian T], [KenjiDwight], [KenjiJeff], [KarinaCraig], [KarinaKamila].
be specic, we (a) provided a summary of initial interpretations to participants for feedback (credibility), (b) used theoretical sampling (transferability), (c) strictly followed guidelines for data collection and interpretation (dependability), and (d) used an auditor to conrm interpretations before journal submission (conrmability), and assured participants of anonymity (integrity). Second, the criteria of generality, understanding, control, and t emerged from the grounded theory literature itself (Strauss and Corbin 1990). These criteria were assessed as follows: interviews were lengthy to allow for different aspects of the phenomenon to emerge (generality); executive summaries were provided to participants and asked if it reected their stories (understanding); participants did have some control over certain variables (control); and lastly, the criteria of t was addressed through the methods mentioned earlier to control for credibility, dependability, and conrmability (see Table 2 for a summary). stories revealed that personal relationships facilitate the communication process, with respondents describing the communication as open, good, easier, and better, to name just a few of the in vivo attributes mentioned pertaining to personal relationship development within the interorganizational communications process. The four emergent themes are message conveyance, message integrity, environmental interaction and communication performance. Furthermore, managers also reported superior business performance as a result of the enhanced communication process yielded by personal relationships. The social capital theory base supports our interpretation of personal relationships as communication facilitators. The closure view of social capital in particular shows how communication ows (known sometimes as exchange of information) can be facilitated through density of personal relationships. According to Walter, Lechner, and Kellermann (2007, p. 700), densely embedded networks with strong and cohesive social ties . . . facilitate exchange of information, creation of obligations and expectations, and imposition of sanctions on those who fail to meet their obligations; in addition, closure fosters mutual trust among actors in a network. Existing literature also supports our interpretation that enhanced communication can lead to superior business performance (Prahinski and Benton 2004; Paulraj et al. 2008; Joshi 2009).

Results Based on the theoretical sampling and content analysis, personal relationships were found to facilitate communication, with four major themes/categories emerging that encapsulate the impact of personal relationships on the communication process between buyers and sellers of logistics services. Respondents 30

Volume 48, Number 1

Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications

TABLE 2 Data Trustworthiness and Methods of Assurance Trustworthiness Criteria Credibility: Extent to which the results seem to be acceptable representations of the data Transferability: Extent to which ndings in a context have applicability in other contexts Dependability: Extent to which the study ndings would be the same if the study were repeated with similar subjects and context Conrmability: Extent to which the ndings are attributable to the subjects and context rather than the researchers bias and motives Integrity: Extent to which the ndings are inuenced by participant misinformation Fit: Extent to which the ndings t with substantive area under investigation Understanding: Extent to which the participants believe the results are representations of their world Generality: Extent to which the ndings discover multiple aspects of the phenomena Control: Extent to which organizations can inuence aspects of the theory
Based on indepth content analysis and comparison of researcher coding, the four emergent themes were determined to be multidimensional constructs. A number of properties were identied for each theme to help describe the communication benets associated with the development of personal relationships between buyers and sellers of logistics services. The revealed themes, along with their accompanying properties are described below.

Method of Assurance in This Study Provided a summary of initial interpretations to participants for feedback Theoretical sampling Guidelines for data collection and interpretation were strictly followed (McCracken 1988; Strauss and Corbin 1990) Use of auditor to conrm interpretations prior to journal submission Participants were assured of anonymity and each interview lasted one hour or more, giving respondents time to open up Addressed through credibility, conrmability, and dependency measures Provided executive summaries to participants and asked if these were reective of their stories Interviews were lengthy to allow time for multiple aspects of supply chain relationships to emerge Participants did have control over some of the focal variables

Theme 1: Message Conveyance Personal relationships were found to yield a series of message conveyance benets, as displayed in Table 3. By message conveyance we refer to the process of transmitting information by a sender to a receiver. A number of properties for the message conveyance theme emerged to describe the specic communication benets attributed to personal relationships. Specically, managers reported that personal relationships impacted the ease of communication (92% of participants), the frequency of communication (70%), the accuracy of interpretation (62%), the ease of contact (58%), the channel of communication (46%), and the level of communication (27%). Property 1: Ease of Communication. The rst property of message conveyance is ease of communication. Ease of communication is conceptualized as a measure of

how comfortable the managers are to openly exchange information. Respondents stories revealed that managers were a lot more comfortable communicating with someone they had a personal relationship with as opposed to someone they did not share a personal relationship with. For example, as some of the respondents noted, You can be more open when you talk to that person and you feel like youre friends. She opens herself up to me (Karina), and The personal relationship with that person allows for easier communication (Dwight). Managers also consistently reported superior business performance as a result of the enhanced communication process. As a result of having open/easier communication, managers also reported being more likely to exchange business ideas and attributed the generation of many business ideas to casual conversations. Consider what Travis had to say: Travis: I have business relationships right now that dont even scratch the surface of a personal relationship . . . Im thinking of one individual in a different company that Im dealing with . . . this fellow has a concrete wall around him, always strictly business, never personal, and its really uncomfortable. Theres not a casual conversation taking place where ideas can be openly shared back

January 2012

31

Journal of Supply Chain Management

TABLE 3 Message Conveyance Theme Properties Number/Percentage of Participants Discussing the Property Participants: 24 Percentage: 92 percent Additional Sample Quotes

Ease of communication

Frequency

Participants: 18 Percentage: 70 percent Participants: 12 Percentage: 46 percent

Channel

Ease of contact

Participants: 15 Percentage: 58 percent Participants: 7 Percentage: 27 percent Participants: 16 Percentage: 62 percent

Level

Accuracy of interpretation

The personal relationship makes it more open to where you talk every day and know each others situation . . . youre at ease and I think that makes it more open. (Phillip) When you have a personal relationship with somebody you invariably communicate more. (Wayne) With friendship comes trust and communication is much easier you can call my cell phone number. I gave them my cell phone number where they could get ahold of me. (Dwight) Of course Im more likely to take a phone call from someone I have a better personal relationship with! (Kenji) It allows you [personal relationship] to pick up the phone and call someone that you normally didnt have access to. (John) When you develop that personal relationship, you learn their personalities and therefore you understand when something is wrong you can tell sorrow, you can tell when something got screwed up or missed. (Ron)

and forth, so for that reason theres a ton of lost opportunities. To be quite honest with you, I dont want to jeopardize any business relationship but . . . there might be times when I have a great idea and I just dont share it with him because I know hes not going to listen to it, I know hes not going to put in the time to even have a conversation about it. Its so uncomfortable to even talk to these people sometimes that . . . you sort of want to jump on and off the phone, you just want to deal with what has to be dealt with. All of those non required communication opportunities have been responsible for a lot of new ideas and brainstorming sessions. Travis suggested in his interview that not only do personal relationships positively impact the communication process between managers, but also that the absence of personal relationships can negatively impact the communication process. He further emphasized how a lack of personal relationships can make it uncomfortable for managers to communicate and as a result managers only communicate when required in order to conduct business. Communicating only when required can limit the generation of

innovative business ideas as well as the identication of synergy opportunities. Property 2: Frequency. A second property of the process of message conveyance is frequency. Communication frequency has been dened as the amount and/or the duration of contact between actors (Mohr and Nevin 1990). At a rm level, it has been recognized that in a collaborative relationship, the buyer and supplier engage in frequent communication (Li and Choi 2009). This study revealed similar ndings at the individual level. During the interviews, managers reported communicating more frequently with suppliers that they had developed a personal relationship with and linked the frequency of communication to the potential outcome of the business relationship. To illustrate, during her interview Selena conrmed that because of the relationship she was likely to communicate more frequently with the customer: Ill communicate a little bit more frequently with somebody that I have a personal relationship with. This perspective was supported by other stories as well. Phillip (buyer) believed and expected that a better personal relationship with his supplier would result in more frequent communication and consequently better service:

32

Volume 48, Number 1

Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications

Phillip: Do I think it helps out that I talk to some people more often? Yes, Id like to think that maybe because we have a better relationship and I talk to the guy every day, that its going to get me maybe just a little bit better scenario. I feel that situations are probably addressed a little bit better, with a little more responsiveness because he has a better relationship with me. Phillips suggestion that more frequent communication results in increased performance is well supported by existing literature. Frequent exchange of information can foster greater condence, build cooperation and trust, reduce conict and generate relational rents (Anderson and Narus 1990; Anderson and Weitz 1992; Mohret al. 1996) to name just a few of the benets associated with frequent communication. These benets can be explained by the psychological theory of communication (Krone, Jablin, and Putnam 1987), which suggests that the sender can decrease the receivers distortion and inaccuracy by increasing the message repetition (Guetzkow 1965). Property 3: Channel. Channel emerged as a third property of the process of message conveyance, as participants consistently credited the personal relationships for generating additional means of contacting each other. We refer to channel of communication as the method of communication used (facetoface, email, phone, fax, social media, etc.). During his interview, Charles described how the personal relationship he had with Jeff added a new channel of communication to the business relationship and therefore an additional tool to conduct business. To emphasize his point, he contrasted the additional means of communication brought in by the personal relationship to the lack of additional means of communication when a personal relationship was not present: Charles: Jeff is on vacation this week; he gave me his wifes cell phone number and said that if I have any problem that I cant get handled in the ofce to call her. The reason he wanted me to call her was because he turned off his cell phone since truckers call him all the time. If we didnt have the personal relationship that we have he probably wouldnt give me his wifes cell phone number. The other suppliers wouldnt give me their cell phone numbers if they went on vacation . . . they wouldnt care. As a result of the personal relationships, respondents also revealed how they started communicating using online social media tools, a communication method that they would not use unless a personal relationship was in place. Managers also emphasized the growing importance of this type of communica-

tion in the world of business. Brians story is a good illustration: Brian: We live in an age of social media, which is a very powerful tool. We have Facebook, we have Twitter, and being able to connect with customers and others outside of our place gives everyone a very voyeuristic look into our lives. As a result you are able to build stronger relationships because people can go online and see hey Brian loves soccer, and I love soccer too! You can also see the different ways that we as people tend to have similarities and that becomes a very powerful thing in my opinion. Being able to say, hey I know this person went to see their family this past weekend, hey how was it, I saw the pictures online becomes a very powerful medium in relationship building and it gives you a better sense of familiarity. It enables you to know your customers and who youre dealing with a lot better. Brians story is not only a good example of the specic ways in which personal relationships add more channels to the communication process but also a good illustration of the impact of evolving technology on how managers with personal relationships exchange information. Furthermore, considering that the type of communication channel employed has been previously found to lead to interpersonal trust formation (Huang, Gattiker, and Schwarz 2008), adding more communication channels to the relationship can potentially increase the level of trust. Property 4: Ease of Contact. Ease of contact was identied as a fourth key property of the process of message conveyance. In order to communicate individuals have to initiate contact and throughout the interviews managers reported having an easier time contacting managers that they had a personal relationship with. Consider Barbaras story: Barbara: Accessibility, accessibility! Like I said with my friend in Savannah, hes going to take my call, whereas he doesnt take many calls. If I call hes going to take that call and were going to be able to get it done whatever needs to be done. I know hell come out of the box and make it happen! Other respondents such as Jeff reported screening calls from suppliers who were asking for more business and being more likely to call back managers with whom he had a personal relationship. He contrasts a personal relationship to a strictly business relationship in order to emphasize the role that personal relationships can play in the communication process. In his

January 2012

33

Journal of Supply Chain Management

story he tells how managers who are caught up in their business and do not acknowledge the importance of developing personal relationships can have a hard time establishing good lines of communication: Jeff: A symptom of a good relationship is communication, but remember that without trust you cant have communication because nobody wants to talk to someone they dont trust. I never call back some of those suppliers because I know they only want one thing: more business! But Id call back someone who was looking out for my best interest and cares, someone I have a better personal relationship with. A lot of people dont see that because theyre so caught up in their business and therefore fail to develop personal relationships! Now, you dont have to put up a bulls eye, this is what Im going to do today to build personal relationships. It just happens that I develop personal relationships with some people. Jeffs interview also revealed the affective side of the relationship. Because of the personal relationships he believed his counterpart was looking out for his best interest and therefore he trusted him. As a result of that Jeff made himself more accessible to that specic manager. Property 5: Level. In their stories managers revealed how the personal relationships allowed them to contact managers that they would normally not be able to contact because of a signicant difference in job title/rank within their respective organizations. Phillip reported how developing a personal relationship with the VP of sales allowed him to call him directly when he had a problem, and how normally he would not be able to call somebody at that level directly: Phillip: There are different tiers we are general operations managers. Theres a director level, VP, president. I think its a benet for me to have a personal relationship with somebody like that because if I have an issue I can just call him up and say, hey, were obviously having a problem, I need you to address this immediately. However, if I didnt know him, or if I didnt sh with him I could not do this. Sean had a similar story and described how his personal relationship with the Coast Guard port captain allowed him to avoid having to go through the chain of command and contact someone directly. He further described how he believed his competitors do not have the same opportunity for communication because of a lack of personal relationships, and therefore the personal relationship gave him a competitive advantage:

Sean: Another thing I try to do is a have a personal relationship with the director of customs and the Coast Guard port captain so I can approach them directly with issues instead of having to go through their chain of command. If theres an issue that doesnt involve me per se, my colleagues know that they can call me because I have a direct line to the head of customs and the coast guard who I see on a regular basis. I dont think many steamship lines get that opportunity. In summary, as a result of personal relationships facilitating the ability to communicate with managers on different levels, respondents further associated increased business performance with those relationships development. Property 6: Interpretation Accuracy. Personal relationships also facilitate the message conveyance process by improving the accuracy of interpretation. By accuracy of interpretation we refer to the degree to which the receiver of the message interprets the meaning of the message as intended by the sender. For example, in her interview Barbara described how through personal relationships managers get to know each other better, and therefore are less likely to misinterpret communication: You get to know their personality, their humor, their wit and youre less likely to take something in a negative way. You can say, Barb is just that way, its her dry sense of humor. Dwight offered a good example of a situation where the customer did not know his personality and was offended by something he said. Later in the interview he described how over time he was able to establish a personal relationship with that specic customer, which helped eliminate miscommunication: Dwight: He cancelled an order and I said whatever. Well, thats something you dont say to a customer. It was taken out of context, and maybe I could have chosen a better word, but at the time everything was hectic. He was very defensive about it and thought I insulted him. I was really sorry for having said that, for him taking it the wrong way. I think it was our differences, demographic perhaps. He was in a different area than I was, he was south of me in Atlanta, a much bigger city than where Im from. I apologized for the incident, for my words, and I think he understood that it was a sincere apology, from the heart. It denitely developed into a personal relationship because there were times when we would just call each other out of the blue, just to talk about general topics. I still speak with this gentleman, maybe once or twice a year. Im familiar with his wife, I met him in person, I still have this relationship.

34

Volume 48, Number 1

Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications

Dwights story is also a good example of how personal relationships can help mitigate the impact of demographic differences on the communication process and therefore reduce miscommunication. Table 3 summarizes the ndings from this initial theme, and presents additional quotes supporting our interpretations.

pen, its more a collaborative effort. So yes, as a result of having a personal relationship they come to me a lot sooner with issues and I like for them to be able to pick up the phone and call me. When asked to think about his worse relationship with a supplier, Charles story revealed the alternative perspective on honesty, which is deceit: Well, I dont have anyone I dislike personally. I do have a supplier that seems to (deceive us). You talk to one person (at that company) about an issue youre having, then you talk to somebody else and you get two different stories . . . so you kind of shy away from those suppliers. Property 2: Sensitivity. Sensitivity is the second property of message integrity. Sensitivity is a measure of the condentiality of the information exchanged. Throughout the interviews managers described how within the connes of the personal relationships they were exchanging business information that they would normally not share with people they didnt have a personal relationship with, information deemed to be condential. The personal relationships allowed for exchange of condential information that beneted both parties. Consider Glendas story: Glenda: Im going tell you something I dont tell all my other customers [here, Glenda is paraphrasing her supplier], that were having cutbacks here and its going to affect this and our cost will go up. Theyd let me know things that they wouldnt dare tell anyone else. I was the rst one to know a lot of things, inside sales and things like that. It was from building that rapport with each other. It does create trust. Richard had a similar story. While contrasting a business relationship where a personal relationship was absent, with a business relationship where a personal relationship was present, he revealed how within the connes of the personal relationship his customer trusted him with condential information, which increased their joint business performance:

Theme 2: Message Integrity Respondents also reported several message integrity benets as a second communicationsrelated outcome of personal relationships. The word integrity stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete), and similarly, we conceptualize message integrity as a measure of the messages completeness. Two properties for the message integrity theme emerged to describe specic communication benets attributed to personal relationships. Specically, managers stories revealed that personal relationships impact the honesty of the communication process (74 percent of participants) and the related level of sensitivity of the information exchanged (42 percent). Table 4 summarizes this section and presents additional quotes supporting our interpretations. Property 1: Honesty. Honesty was the rst identied property of message integrity. Managers stories revealed that the personal relationships allowed for honest communication by eliminating the fear of repercussions. Dwights story is a good example: He describes how he felt like due to the friendship he could be honest and tell his customer the true reason behind his rms service failures: Hes being honest, hes telling me that his drivers are lazy! Theyre all taking vacations, I dont know what it is [laughs]. Friendship puts them at ease, it allows you to be honest. Sean had a similar story and he described how suppliers were more likely to be more honest with him if a personal relationship was present:
Sean: Theyre more honest with me because they know Im not going to overreact when failures hap-

TABLE 4 Message Integrity Theme Properties Number/Percentage of Participants Discussing the Property Participants: 19 Percentage: 74 percent Participants: 11 Percentage: 42 percent Additional Sample Quotes

Honesty

Sensitivity

As a result you can be more honest. It allows you to present yourself as you are and acknowledge mistakes. (Barbara) With friendship comes trust. I can tell him businessrelated things I wouldnt tell my other customers. (Selena)

January 2012

35

Journal of Supply Chain Management

Richard: . . . Sean on the other hand, we trust each other. He might be able to tell me something about his business thats not even for public consumption yet so that I can start digesting that information behind the scenes and already be thinking and planning. He can share it with me in advance and trust that its safe with me, and we can work on our plan so that when its time to go were ready, were not just starting to plan at that point. A summary of properties and related quotations for the message integrity theme is shown in Table 4. Theme 3: Environmental Interaction. Based on the content analysis, environmental interaction is conceptualized as the environment in which actors interact to exchange information. The managers stories revealed that personal relationships impact the level of tension (58 percent of participants) and the level of censorship (46 percent) of the environment in which actors communicated, as depicted in Table 5. Property 1: Censorship. Censorship was identied as the rst property of environmental interaction. Consistent with existing denitions, we conceptualize censorship as the suppression of communication that might be considered sensitive or inconvenient to the recipient of the communication message. Thus, censorship should be considered as a dimension that is negatively related to the communication facilitating process. That is, respondents revealed how the personal relationships allowed for uncensored communication. In their daily interactions both rm and LSP managers spoke of the need to be politically correct; however, they felt like within the connes of a personal relationship they could communicate without having to sugarcoat details. Consider the following stories: Tony and I have a great relationship, where its cut and dried. Hes like, You shoot me straight and Ill shoot you straight. Theres a few customers that I have to sugarcoat but those close personal relationships allow for less censored communication (Selena). Blake has a similar story and described how personal relationships allow for completely uncensored communication. Johns story reveals an

extreme example of how the personal relationship can facilitate uncensored communication: John: Ive got some of my best friends in the world that are my customers. Sometimes when we have a business conversation we have to close the door and I have to shove rags under the door because of the words and language that we use. But at the end of the conversation were like, Hey, do you wanna go shing this evening? Weve solved the worlds problems, weve got the issues addressed and we move on! Johns story further reveals how uncensored communication can allow managers to better address business issues via personal relationships. Property 2: Tension. Another role of personal relationships that emerged as a subtheme of environmental interaction throughout the respondents stories was that of reducing tension during business exchanges. Again consistent with social capital theory, personal relationships performed the role of a social lubricant within the communications process, which in turned allowed managers to better conduct business. Managers described how personal relationships allowed them to separate the person from the business decision and therefore helped avoid conict when communicating, especially when unpleasant information was exchanged: Sean: Because you know these people you can ask them nonbusinessrelated questions rst and then you can gently go into business, versus going straight into business; youre more abrupt and you risk being offensive. So I think it serves that purpose. In particular, in Charleston, typically in a meeting you get all the small talk out of the way and then its a more relaxed atmosphere. Then you can bring up more topics and youre not afraid to take a rm stance on your position because you know its business: I know your children, I know what your children do, but when it comes down to business, its what my company wants.

TABLE 5 Environmental Interaction Theme Properties Number/Percentage of Participants Discussing the Property Participants: 12 Percentage: 46 percent Participants: 15 Percentage: 58 percent Additional Sample Quotes

Censorship Tension

I dont have to be politically correct anymore, or at least not as much. (Rob) As a broker I have low margins. The relationship facilitates for negotiations to take place in a less tense environment. (Alison)

36

Volume 48, Number 1

Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications

Kenji had a similar story that emphasized the importance of personal relationships in mediating tension in the buyerseller communication process: Having good personal relationships with customers where I can just talk to them about anything, like personal stuff, helps ease tension. It makes it better when I have to tell them that we have an extra charge this month, or theres a rate increase. Blake called the process by which personal relationships help mitigate conict keeping grounded: Blake: The personal relationship helps us keep grounded. What I mean by that is there may be a re burning that day that we need to work quickly to put out but we can also take a step back and look at the big picture and recognize what a fantastic job our teams are collectively doing together. So maybe one mishap today, but 1) we know we can do it, and 2) if that doesnt come together as well as it could we know where that relates in the big picture for our business and life in general. Overall, the respondents stories revealed that personal relationships were found to play a key in reducing tension during business interactions and therefore creating an environment conducive to open communication, and furthermore, enhanced business performance. We summarize the properties and provide additional examples of environmental interaction in Table 5.

tion, they were also found to increase the efciency of communication and therefore eliminate unnecessary communication. Consider Travis story: Travis: I think the personal relationship eliminates unnecessary communication. For instance, if Im going to present something to Blake I know I dont have to make any changes because I know Blake and I know how he wants it. I have a feeling for when hes going to need it. I can get it right the rst time, so were not having unnecessary communication about the same thing over and over. Travis perspective was later conrmed by Blake in his interview. Blake emphasized that as a result of the personal relationship that theyve developed: Travis can read between the lines, analyze and digest our expectations so well . . . The excerpts from Blakes and Travis interviews are also a good example of the benets of conducting dyadic research. Revealing the perspectives of all the parties involved in a relationship allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of the relationships studied and also develop a better interpretation of the data collected. Property 2: Effectiveness. Respondents also associated personal relationships with more effective communication. Managers described how through the personal relationships their counterparts learned what type of information they needed to successfully perform their job and made it available to them. Phillips story is a good description of this process. He described how through the personal relationship his counterpart learned he was fairly new in the industry and therefore he was offering him information that he knew Phillip really needed to be successful: Phillip: Ive only been working in this operations department for two years now. I know that theres a lot out there that I dont know. So, someone who I have a personal relationship with understands where Im coming from. They understand

Theme 4: Communication Performance As a fourth and nal theme, personal relationships were found to increase the performance of the communication process by increasing its effectiveness (69 percent of participants) and efciency (58 percent). Table 6 depicts the ndings from this section and introduces additional quotes supporting our interpretations. Property 1: Efciency. While personal relationships were found to increase the frequency of communica-

TABLE 6 Communication Performance Theme Properties Number/Percentage of Participants Discussing the Property Participants: 15 Percentage: 58 percent Participants: 18 Percentage: 69 percent Additional Sample Quotes

Efciency

Effectiveness

The relationship eliminates unnecessary communication, especially when dealing with routine tasks. (Glenda) He knows by the tone of my voice if its urgent or not. As a result our communication is more effective. (Paul)

January 2012

37

Journal of Supply Chain Management

Im new so theyre always offering information I need. They offer information like Hey, if you dont realize this its probably going to take a little bit longer to make this delivery because not only is it 400 miles away but as we get there we have to go through some scales that might cause problems, we understand you dont know that but we let you know now upfront. They look out for my best interest, and theirs as well. Blake provided us with a similar story in his discussion on the impact of personal relationships on the communication process. He emphasized how communication effectiveness was increased as a result of managers developing a deeper understanding of each others personalities and communication styles: When you have that personal relationship and know the person very well, they understand your tone in email . . . they know whats urgent and whats not. Blakes and Phillips stories serve as good representations as respondents consistently attributed an increase in communication effectiveness to the development of personal relationships. Table 6 further illustrates the efciency and effectiveness benets related to personal relationships in supply chain communications.

et al. 2002). As illustrated in Figure 1, the content analysis of the transcripts indicates that personal relationships can lead to enhanced communication processes between supply chain members. As noted, personal relationships were found to enhance communication processes along four distinct constructs: message integrity, message conveyance, environmental interaction and communication performance. Furthermore, respondents directly linked enhanced communication processes to superior business performance and suggested that the absence of personal relationships can negatively impact buyerseller communication and therefore business performance. Thus, we hypothesize a research model as pictorialized in Figure 1.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

While the importance of interorganizational communication has long been recognized in the supply chain literature, most studies simply describe the function communication plays in the management of supply chain relationships, without rst considering the factors that foster communication between buyers and suppliers. Additionally, no known prior study has addressed the role of personal relationships in the communication processes between buyers and sellers of logistics services. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to understand more about how social relationships formed at the interpersonal level inuence workfocused communications between managers as they act in the role of supply chain partners. Upon pursuing this goal, we nd that personal relationships are more than just a simple social enabler for the successful completion of the interorganizational business

PROPOSED MODEL
All the interviews in this study consisted of narratives about events that occurred at various points in participants lives and career lifecycles. This temporal variety of personal stories enables us to develop an initial causal model depicting the role of personal relationships in the communication process (Flint

FIGURE 1
Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications
Enhanced Communicaons Processes
Message Conveyance
*Frequency *Channel *Level *Ease of Communica ons *Ease of Contact *Accuracy of Interpreta on

Personal Relaonships

Message Integrity
*Honesty *Sensi vity

Business Performance

Environmental Interacon
*Censorship *Tension

Communicaon Performance
*Eciency *Eec veness

38

Volume 48, Number 1

Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications

interactions. Rather, personal relationships were found to facilitate the communication between buyers and sellers of logistics services in four distinctive ways. Furthermore, the respondents stories also allowed for the inference that the enhanced communication process achieved as a result of developing personal relationships leads to superior business performance for the relational members. These ndings are consistent with existing literature on buyersupplier relationships that recognizes the fundamental role of communication in establishing and maintaining successful supply chain relationships (Mohr and Nevin 1990; Morris, Brunyee, and Page 1998) and achieving enhanced business performance (Prahinski and Benton 2004; Paulraj et al. 2008; Joshi 2009), but provide much greater specication than the previous studies with respect to the role of individual level relationships. As it relates to the purpose of this paper, perhaps the key contribution of this research is the identication of the specic avenues through which personal relationships facilitate the communication process. Four distinct themes emerged to describe the communication aspects impacted by personal relationships. The specic properties of each theme were also revealed in order to further describe the communication benets associated with the presence of personal relationships. Specically, it was found that personal relationships (1) enhance the message integrity by increasing the honesty of the message transmitted and facilitating the exchange of sensitive information, (2) enhance the message conveyance process by increasing the ease of communication, the ease of contact, the accuracy of interpretation, and the frequency of communication, and by adding new channels and levels of communication, (3) enhance the environmental interaction by reducing tension when communicating and allowing for uncensored communication, and (4) enhance communication performance by increasing communication efciency and increasing communication effectiveness. Based on this developed typology of benets, we suggest that the results of this study have direct managerial implications as well. The ndings should indicate to managers the importance of developing personal relationships with logistics managers across companies. Personal relationships were found to impact how managers communicated and, as a consequence, the managers business performance. Respondents consistently linked personal relationships to enhanced communication that in turn is linked to increased business performance. This suggests that managers who develop personal relationships with their counterparts are likely to experience enhanced communication and superior business performance as compared with managers who fail to develop personal

relationships with their counterparts. As potential avenues, throughout the interviews respondents suggested several approaches to developing personal relationships, such as nding common hobbies, organizing a social outing (e.g., lunch, sports event), or simply putting in the time and effort to get to know the other manager better. It is important to emphasize that we are not suggesting unless a manager develops personal relationships with his counterpart s/he will not have a good communication process or that s/he will not achieve the desired level of business performance. Instead, what we propose is that personal relationships have the potential to enhance the communication process, which in turn can positively impact the business performance of the relational parties. The qualitative results suggest that managers looking for ways to improve the communication process with their counterparts could consider the development of personal relationships as a feasible avenue. Furthermore, we recognize that it could also be the case that the manager(s) might have done everything possible from a strict business perspective to improve the communication process with a business counterpart, but may have inadvertently or purposefully ignored the personal side of such relationships. This research should signal to those managers the need to reevaluate those relationships and determine whether an appropriate personal relationship has been developed with that manager. If not, perhaps managers should consider developing such a relationship as a way to improve the communication process. There are a number of potential avenues for future research that are worthy of consideration. First, future research can empirically validate the model put forth in this study as well as the generalizability of the constructs that emerged via the grounded theory process. This is an important sequential step in building theory on the foundation laid in this study. Second, future studies could and should explore the potential conicts supply chain members might experience as a result of developing personal relationships. Third, future research could explore how each party experiences the personal relationships and the pressures they are faced with (e.g., our respondents stories indicated that buyers are typically discouraged from developing personal relationships, whereas sellers are encouraged by their upper management to develop personal relationships). Finally, it would also be interesting for future research to explore the role of social media in how members of a supply chain interact on a personal level. A large number of managers indicated how evolving technology (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) impacts how they communicate with each other during both business and nonbusinessrelated interactions.

January 2012

39

Journal of Supply Chain Management

Considering the importance of communication in the management of supply chain relationships, additional research is needed to better understand how the communication process between supply chain members can be improved. Ultimately, within any supply chain it is individuals that communicate, not rms. Therefore, we conclude by emphasizing the need for more microindividual level studies that analyze supply chain communication processes considering the manager as the focus of analysis.

REFERENCES
Adler, P.S. and S. Kwon. Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept, Academy of Management Review, (27:1), 2002, pp. 1740. Adobor, H. The Role of Personal Relationships in Interrm Alliances: Benets, Dysfunctions, and Some Suggestions, Business Horizons, (49:6), 2006, pp. 473486. Allan, G.A. Friendship: Developing a Sociological Perspective, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London, 1989. Anderson, M.H. Social Networks and the Cognitive Motivation to Realize Network Opportunities: A Study of Managers Information Gathering Behaviors, Journal of Organizational Behavior, (29:1), 2008, pp. 5178. Anderson, E. and B. Weitz. The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution Channels, Journal of Marketing Research, (29:1), 1992, pp. 1834. Anderson, E.J., T. Coltman, T. Devinney and B. Keating. What Drives the Choice of a Third-Party Logistics Provider?, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (47:2), 2011, pp. 97115. Anderson, J.C. and J.A. Narus. A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturing Firm Working Partnerships, Journal of Marketing, (54:1), 1990, pp. 4258. Autry, C.W. and S.E. Grifs. Supply Chain Capital: The Impact of Structural and Relational Linkages on Firm Execution and Innovation, Journal of Business Logistics, (29:1), 2008, pp. 157173. Bechtel, C. and J. Jayaram. Supply Chain Management: A Strategic Perspective, International Journal of Logistics Management, (8:1), 1997, pp. 15 34. Berscheid, E.G. and L.A. Pelau. The Emerging Science of Relationships, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY, 1983. Borgatti, S. and X. Li. On Social Network Analysis in a Supply Chain Context, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (45:2), 2009, pp. 522. Burt, R.S. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992. Busse, C. A Procedure for Secondary Data Analysis: Innovation by Logistics Service Providers, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (46:4), 2010, pp. 44 48.

Celsi, R.L., L.R. Rose and T.W. Leigh. An Exploration of High Leisure Consumption Through Skydiving, Journal of Consumer Research, (20:1), 1993, pp. 123. Claycomb, C. and G.L. Frankwick. A Contingency Perspective of Communication, Conict Resolution and Buyer Search Effort in BuyerSupplier Relationships, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (40:1), 2004, pp. 1834. Coleman, J.S. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, American Journal of Sociology, (94:1), 1988, pp. 95120. Coleman, J.S. Foundations of Social Theory, Ed. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990. Cooper, M.C., D.M. Lambert and J.D. Pagh. Supply Chain Management: More than a New Name for Logistics, International Journal of Logistics Management, (8:1), 1997, pp. 114. Christopher, M. Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Pitman, London, 1992. Das, T.K. and B.S. Teng. Between Trust and Control: Developing Condence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances, Academy of Management Review, (23:3), 1998, pp. 491512. Dyer, J.H. Effective Interorganizational Collaboration: How Transactors Minimize Transaction Costs and Maximize Transaction Value, Strategic Management Journal, (18:7), 1997, pp. 535556. Ellram, L.M. and M.C. Cooper. Supply Chain Management, Partnerships, and the ShipperThird Party Relationship, International Journal of Logistics Management, (1:2), 1990, pp. 110. Fischer, C.S. What Do We Mean by Friend? An Introductive Study, Social Networks, (3:4), 1982, pp. 287306. Flint, D.J., E. Larsson, B. Gammelgaard and J.T. Mentzer. Logistics Innovation: A Customer ValueOriented Social Process, Journal of Business Logistics, (26:1), 2005, pp. 113147. Flint, D.J., R. Woodruff and S.F. Gardial. Exploring the Phenomenon of Customers Desired Value Change in a BusinesstoBusiness Context, Journal of Marketing, (66:4), 2002, pp. 102117. Forrester, J.W. Industrial Dynamics: A Major Breakthrough for Decision Makers, Harvard Business Review, (38:4), 1958, pp. 3766. Fournier, S., S. Dobscha and D.G. Mick. Preventing the Premature Death of Relationship Marketing, Harvard Business Review, (76:1), 1998, pp. 4251. Franke, G.R. and J. Park. Salesperson Adaptive Selling Behavior and Customer Orientation: A MetaAnalysis, Journal of Marketing Research, (43:4), 2006, pp. 693702. Frazier, G.L. and J. Summers. Interorganizational Inuence Strategies and Their Applications within Distribution Channels, Journal of Marketing, (48:3), 1984, pp. 4355. Fugate, B., F. Sahin and J.T. Mentzer. Supply Chain Management Coordination Mechanisms, Journal of Business Logistics, (27:2), 2006, pp. 129161.

40

Volume 48, Number 1

Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications

Galaskiewicz, J. Studying Supply Chains From a Social Network Perspective, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (47:1), 2011, pp. 48. Gedeon, I.M., A. Fearne and N. Poole. The Role of InterPersonal Relationships in the Dissolution of Business Relationships, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, (24:3), 2009, pp. 218226. Granovetter, M. The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology, (78:6), 1973, pp. 1360 1380. Granovetter, M. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, (91:3), 1985, pp. 481510. Grant, R.M. Prospering in DynamicallyCompetitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration, Organization Science, (7:4), 1996, pp. 375387. Grayson, K. Friendship Versus Business in Marketing Relationships, Journal of Marketing, (71:4), 2007, pp. 121139. Guetzkow, H. Communication in Organizations. In J.G. March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1965. Guiltinan, J.P., I.B. Rejab and W.C. Rodgers. Factors Inuencing Coordination in a Franchise Channel, Journal of Retailing, (56:3), 1980, pp. 4159. Haytko, D.L. FirmtoFirm and Personal Relationships: Perspectives From Advertising Agency Account Managers, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (32:3), 2004, pp. 312328. Heide, J.B. and K.H. Wathne. Friends, Businesspeople, and Relationship Roles: A Conceptual Framework and a Research Agenda, Journal of Marketing, (70:3), 2006, pp. 90103. Hirschman, E.C. Humanistic Inquiry in Marketing Research: Philosophy, Method, and Criteria, Journal of Marketing Research, (23:3), 1986, pp. 237 249. Huang, X., T. Gattiker and J. Schwarz. Interpersonal Trust Formation During The Supplier Selection Process: The Role of the Communication Channel, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (44:3), 2008, pp. 5375. Hutt, M.D., E. Stafford, B. Walker and P. Reingen. Dening the Social Network of a Strategic Alliance, Sloan Management Review, (41:2), 2000, pp. 5162. Johnson, M.D. and F. Selnes. Customer Portfolio Management: Toward a Dynamic Theory of Exchange Relationships, Journal of Marketing, (68:1), 2004, pp. 117. Joshi, A.W. Continuous Supplier Performance Improvement: Effects of Collaborative Communication and Control, Journal of Marketing, (73:1), 2009, pp. 133150. Kenis, P. and D. Knoke. How Organizational Field Networks Shape Interorganizational TieFormation Rates, Academy of Management Review, (27:2), 2002, pp. 275293. Koka, B.R. and J.E. Prescott. Strategic Alliances as Social Capital: A Multidimensional View, Strate-

gic Management Journal, (23:9), 2002, pp. 795 816. Knobloch, L.K. and D.H. Solomon. Information Seeking Beyond Initial Interaction, Human Communication Research, (28:2), 2002, pp. 243 258. Kogut, B. and U. Zander. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology, Organization Science, (3:3), 1992, pp. 383397. Kotabe, M., M. Xavier and D. Hiroshi. Gaining From Vertical Partnerships: Knowledge Transfer, Relationship Duration and Supplier Performance Improvement in the U.S. and Japanese Automotive Industries, Strategic Management Journal, (24:4), 2003, pp. 293317. Krone, K.J., F.M. Jablin and L.L. Putnam. Communication Theory and Organizational Communication: Multiple Perspectives. In F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts and L.W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1987. Lai, F., D. Li and Q. Wang. The Information Technology Capability of ThirdParty Logistics Providers: A ResourceBased View and Empirical Evidence From China, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (44:3), 2008, pp. 2238. Lawson, B., B.B. Tyler and P.D. Cousins. Antecedents and Consequences of Social Capital on Buyer Performance Improvement, Journal of Operations Management, (26:3), 2008, pp. 446460. Li, M. and T.Y. Choi. Triads in Services Outsourcing: Bridge, Bridge Decay and Bridge Transfer, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (45:3), 2009, pp. 27 39. Lian, P.C.S. and A.W. Laing. Relationships in the Purchasing of BusinesstoBusiness Professional Services: The Role of Personal Relationships, Industrial Marketing Management, (36:6), 2007, pp. 709718. Lin, N. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2001. Lincoln, Y. and E.G. Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1985. Lusch, R.F. Reframing Supply Chain Management: A ServiceDominant Logic Perspective, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (47:1), 2011, pp. 14 18. Marasco, A. ThirdParty Logistics: A Literature Review, International Journal of Production Economics, (113:1), 2008, pp. 127147. Mavondo, F.T. and E.M. Rodrigo. The Effect of Relationship Dimensions on Personal and Interorganizational Commitment in Organizations Conducting Business Between Australia and China, Journal of Business Research, (52:2), 2001, pp. 111121. Maxwell, J. Qualitative Research Design: An Iterative Approach, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996.

January 2012

41

Journal of Supply Chain Management

McCracken, G. The Long Interview, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1988. Mello, J. and D.J. Flint. A Rened View of Grounded Theory and Its Application to Logistics Research, Journal of Business Logistics, (30:1), 2009, pp. 107 125. Mentzer, J.T., W. DeWitt, J. Keebler, S. Min, N.W. Nix, C.D. Smith and Z.G. Zacharia. Dening Supply Chain Management, Journal of Business Logistics, (22:2), 2001, pp. 125. Min, H. and M.S. LaTour. Negotiation Outcomes: the Impact of Initial Offer, Time, Gender, and Team Size, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 1995, pp. 1924. Min, S. and J.T. Mentzer. Developing and Measuring Supply Chain Management Concepts, Journal of Business Logistics, (25:1), 2004, pp. 6399. Mohr, J. and J. Nevin. Communication Strategies in Marketing Channels: A Theoretical Perspective, Journal of Marketing, (54:4), 1990, pp. 3651. Mohr, J. and R. Spekman. Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior, and Conict Resolution Techniques, Strategic Management Journal, (15:2), 1994, pp. 135152. Mohr, J.J., R.J. Fisher and J.R. Nevin. Collaborative Communication in Interorganizational Relationships: Moderating Effects of Integration and Control, Journal of Marketing, (60:3), 1996, pp. 103 116. Moran, P. Structural vs. Relational Embeddednesss: Social Capital and Managerial Performance, Strategic Management Journal, (26:12), 2005, pp. 103 115. Morris, M.H., J. Brunyee and M. Page. Relationship Marketing in Practice. Myths and Realities, Industrial Marketing Management, (27:4), 1998, pp. 359371. Nahapiet, J. and S. Ghoshal. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage, Academy of Management Review, (23:3), 1998, pp. 242266. Oh, H., G. Chung and M. LaBianca. A Multilevel Model of Group Social Capital, Academy of Management Review, (31:1), 2006, pp. 569582. Paulraj, A., A. Lado and I.J. Chen. InterOrganizational Communication as a Relational Competency: Antecedents and Performance Outcomes in Collaborative BuyerSupplier Relationships, Journal of Operations Management, (26:1), 2008, pp. 4564. Payne, G.T., C.B. Moore, S.E. Grifs and C.W. Autry. Multilevel Challenges and Opportunities in Social Capital Research, Journal of Management, (37:2), 2011, pp. 491520. Powell, W.W., K. Koput and L. SmithDoerr. Inter Organizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology, Administrative Science Quarterly, (15:1), 1996, pp. 88102.

Prahinski, C. and W.C. Benton. Supplier Evaluations: Communication Strategies to Improve Supplier Performance, Journal of Operations Management, (22:1), 2004, pp. 3963. Price, L.L. and E.J. Arnould. Commercial Friendships: Service ProviderClient Relationships in Context, Journal of Marketing, (63:4), 1999, pp. 3856. Roman, S. and D. Iacobucci. Antecedents and Consequences of Adaptive Selling Condence and Behavior: A Dyadic Analysis of Salespeople and their Customers, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (38:3), 2010, pp. 363382. Sahin, F. and P.E. Robinson. Flow Coordination and Information Sharing in Supply Chains: Review, Implications, and Directions for Future Research, Decision Sciences, (33:4), 2002, pp. 505536. Schouten, John W. Selves in Transition: Symbolic Consumption in Personal Rites of Passage and Identity Reconstruction, Journal of Consumer Research, (17:1), 1991, pp. 412425. Schreiner, M., P. Kale and D. Corsten. What Really Is Alliance Management Capability and How Does It Impact Alliance Outcomes and Success?, Strategic Management Journal, (30:13), 2009, pp. 13951419. Seibert, S.E., M.L. Kraimer and R.C. Liden. A Social Capital Theory of Career Success, Academy of Management Journal, (44:2), 2001, pp. 219237. Silver, A. Friendship in Commercial Society: EighteenthCentury Social Theory and Modern Sociology, American Journal of Sociology, (95:6), 1990, pp. 14741504. Strauss, A.L. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1987. Strauss, A.L. and J. Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1990. Uzzi, B. Social Structure and Competition in Interrm Network: The Paradox of Embeddedness, Administrative Social Science Quarterly, (42:1), 1997, pp. 3567. Wallenburg, C.M. Innovation in Logistics Outsourcing Relationships: Proactive Improvements by Logistics Service Providers as a Driver of Customer Loyalty, Journal of Supply Chain Management, (45:2), 2009, pp. 7593. Wallendorf, M. and R.W. Belk. Assessing Trustworthiness in Naturalistic Consumer Research. In Elizabeth C. Hirschman (Ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, 1989. Walter, J., C. Lechner and F.W. Kellermann. Knowledge Transfer Between Alliance Partners: Private Versus Collective Benets of Social Capital, Journal of Business Research, (60:6), 2007, pp. 698710. Zajac, E.J. and C.P. Olsen. From Transaction Cost to Transactional Value Analysis: Implications for the Study of Interorganizational Strategies, Journal of Management Studies, (20:1), 1993, pp. 131145.

42

Volume 48, Number 1

Personal Relationships and Supply Chain Communications

David M. Gilgor (MBA, Kennesaw State University) is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Tennessee. In addition to his MBA, he has a BS degree in logistics. Mr. Gilgor worked for companies such as General Electric, Ryder Integrated Logistics and Hapag-Lloyd prior to beginning his doctoral work. His research focuses primarily on supply chain agility and supply chain networks. Chad W. Autry (Ph.D., The University of Oklahoma) is associate professor of logistics, and Director of the Supply Chain Forum North America, at the

University of Tennessee. His primary research interests are supply chain relationships and networks. Currently, Dr. Autry is working on projects related to the relational embeddedness of supply chain members within interorganizational networks. He has published more than 40 articles in scholarly and managerial journals, including one in a prior issue of the Journal of Supply Chain Management. Dr. Autry is a member of CSCMP, WERC, ISM and POMS, and has held leadership positions in each organization at the local or national level.

APPENDIX
Interview Protocol

Opening Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me. I would like to take a few minutes to explain our research project to you. I am from the University of Tennessee and am trying to understand how logistics managers work and interact with managers from other companies who provide their logistics services. I would like to interview you because I feel I can learn a lot from your perspectives. I would like for our interview today to be very open, informed, and conversational. There are no right or wrong answers; you are the expert and I am here to learn from you. Our interview is condential. In order to keep the conversation owing I would like your permission to record our conversation. Is that OK? Interview questions  Could you please tell me about your position here at (rm name) and what your responsibilities include? (Probe as needed to fully understand the persons background, role, and orientation).  Can you think of one or more specic logistics service providers (rm) uses? Please place your interactions with them clearly in your mind rst.  Now, what is it like to work with them?  Can you think of any situations in particular where you developed a personal relationship with any of their managers with whom you interact? s (IF YES) Please tell me about one of those relationships. s How did it begin to develop? s What does that relationship mean to you? s What, if any, impact does the personal relationship have on your business relationship?  Think of your best relationship with a manager from a logistics service provider.  Now describe what makes that relationship good for you.  Can you tell me (more) about that relationship? Floating prompts  Can you tell me more about that?  Can you explain that in more detail?  Thats interesting please go on.  Can you give me an example?  What do you mean by that?  What happened next?  How did you deal with that (situation)? Wrapup Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me. You have been very helpful. You will receive a copy of your report when we are done collecting and analyzing the data. Where would you like the report sent? If you have any questions, or think of anything else, please dont hesitate to contact me.

January 2012

43