Você está na página 1de 13

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471 483

Exploring the concept of asymmetry: A typology for analysing


customersupplier relationships
Rhona E. Johnsen a,, David Ford b,1
a
The Business School, Institute of Business and Law, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth House, Christchurch Road, Bournemouth BH1 3LG, UK
b
EuroMed, Marseille, France
Received 7 September 2005; received in revised form 16 April 2007; accepted 10 May 2007
Available online 22 June 2007

Abstract

In seeking to understand relationships between smaller suppliers and larger customers, there is a growing interest in examining the
characteristics of asymmetry in relationships. However, there is a paucity of research that looks at the consequences of size asymmetry for smaller
suppliers. Building on IMP (Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group) research, this paper presents a typology for analysing the consequences
of size asymmetry in customersupplier relationships from the smaller supplier's perspective. The paper reports on the findings from a study
involving a total of 48 interviews and eight in-depth case studies of suppliers in the UK textile industry involved in relationships with larger
customers. The findings from the study show that the consequences of size asymmetry may vary widely across different relationship charac-
teristics, with both positive and negative outcomes for suppliers. The implications of these findings are that suppliers may take advantage of the
positive and constructive consequences of size asymmetry to capitalise on developing their current relationships with customers. In addition, by
focusing on the positive consequences of size asymmetry, suppliers may develop the confidence and assurance to develop constructive and more
balanced new customer relationships. The paper concludes by identifying the managerial implications for the development of opportunities and
customer relationship options for suppliers in asymmetric relationships and proposes that it is important for suppliers to have an assessment
instrument to identify the extent of asymmetry or symmetry across their customer relationships.
2008 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Keywords: Asymmetry; Customersupplier relationships; Typology

1. Introduction so that they can set development priorities for their relationships
and find ways of managing problems associated with asym-
Recent research suggests that asymmetry in relationships metry (Ford & Saren, 2001).
may present suppliers with an array of problems. These prob- Customersupplier relationships in the UK textile industry
lems range from managing operational issues in joint ventures, have often been characterised as asymmetric, involving large
to developing trust or commitment in long-term relationships and powerful customers and smaller, less powerful suppliers
(Sllner, 1998; Chen & Chen, 2002; Blomqvist, 2002). Several (Lorenzoni & Baden-Fuller, 1995; Harrison, 2004). Studies of
researchers of business relationships have highlighted that asymmetry in these relationships have often focused on the
prevailing models and classifications do not adequately capture situation of the larger, stronger customer and its positioning
the complex balance of characteristics in customersupplier advantages in relationships. For example, recent research has
relationships (Holmlund, 2004; Halinen, 1994). Understanding shown how Marks and Spencer in the UK has unilaterally
the characteristics of their asymmetric relationships may there- managed its relationships with smaller suppliers (Harrison,
fore enable suppliers to have a clearer picture of their situation, 2004). Smaller suppliers consequently face problems in sus-
taining their asymmetric customer relationships, or developing
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1202 967 217.
new relationships in such circumstances. But, there appears to
E-mail addresses: rjohnsen@bournemouth.ac.uk (R.E. Johnsen), be little existing research in the IMP (Industrial Marketing and
I.D.Ford@bath.ac.uk (D. Ford). Purchasing Group) school on the consequences of asymmetry
1
Tel.: +44 1225 326 726. for small suppliers in their relationships with larger customers.
0019-8501/$ - see front matter 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.05.004
472 R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483

Researchers have often used the relative difference in firm size relationships. The relationship characteristics and their impor-
between a supplier and customer as a proxy for asymmetry and tance in understanding asymmetry will now be discussed.
have shown that these differences may be indicative of potential
problems in relationships. For example, research has highlighted 2. Classifications of relationship characteristics and their
that smaller suppliers may have little option but to follow the importance in understanding asymmetry
stipulated relationship norms of a larger customer if they wish to
retain the relationship (Holmlund & Kock, 1996). Furthermore, it For more than 20 years, the characteristics of dyadic rela-
may be difficult for smaller suppliers and larger customers to tionships have been a focus of interest and debate by IMP
develop a mutual orientation towards their relationship when the scholars (e.g. Ford, Hkansson, & Johanson, 1986; Dwyer,
demands of the supplier and customer's businesses vary signi- Shurr, & Oh, 1987; Hkansson & Gadde, 1992; Anderson,
ficantly (Chen & Chen, 2002). Thus, it is likely that there would Hkansson, & Johanson, 1994; Wilson, 1995). A number of
be differences in the approaches of smaller suppliers and larger different relationship characteristics have been incorporated
customers towards developing the relationship. into frameworks that have attempted to define the nature of
Smaller firms may become specialised into narrow confines customersupplier relationships. Important conceptual founda-
of relationships with larger customers and may become a tions have been laid in the IMP group's work to permit the
hostage to a particular customer. Hence, a smaller supplier examination and analysis of dyadic customersupplier rela-
may have to give up its individual goals for the benefit of tionship characteristics, most notably, Ford et al. (1986). These
maintaining a relationship with a single larger customer. The studies have developed constructs that enable the description
perceived need to invest in relationship-specific goals to retain and classification of the structure of relationships. However, as
an important customer may tend to reduce a supplier's strategic relationships are complex phenomena, describing their char-
flexibility (ibid.). However, smaller suppliers may also be acteristics meaningfully proves difficult without simplifying
compensated for their sacrifices and efforts within relation- reality, focusing on some aspects whilst leaving others in the
ships by gaining opportunities to forge stronger positions and background (Holmlund, 2004). Consequently, researchers have
new indirect relationships through larger customers (Blomqvist, tended to focus on individual characteristics, or smaller sets of
2002). Thus, there appears to be a trade-off between the invest- characteristics, when developing the conceptual foundations of
ments made by suppliers in different aspects of their asymmetric this body of research.
relationships and the potential gains that may be achieved in Table 1 identifies a set of relationship characteristics, their
other areas of their relationships. definitions and examples of relationship asymmetry and sym-
Research on asymmetry in relationships has tended to exam- metry. In previous research these characteristics have individ-
ine the connection between an imbalance in size and other ually been found to be critical in understanding and analysing
single relationship dimensions. For example, Gundlach, Achrol, asymmetry in customersupplier relationships. These defini-
and Mentzer (1995) and Sllner (1998) looked at the link tions offer a useful basis for describing and explaining the
between asymmetry in size and power, commitment or depen- nature of asymmetric relationships. We shall now turn to the
dence, whilst Holmlund and Kock (1996) examined the link conceptual developments that will be the basis for our exami-
between asymmetry in size and knowledge and the initiation of nation of asymmetric relationships in this paper.
change. Few studies have explored asymmetric relationships
across more than one or two conventional relationship charac- 3. Conceptual development: a typology of size asymmetry
teristics. However, an examination of single relationship charac- and its consequences in relationship characteristics
teristics does not adequately capture the full complexity of
developing and managing asymmetric customersupplier rela- A literature review combined with a single set of pilot in-
tionships (Holmlund, 2004). terviews led to the development of a set of characteristics
This paper explores the link between asymmetry in size and deemed important to the study of symmetry in business-to-
other characteristics of customersupplier relationships. Differ- business relationships (Table 1). The characteristics of partic-
ence in size between firms is used as a proxy for asymmetry in ularity, mutuality and interpersonal inconsistency were drawn
this research by examining relationships where there is a dif- from the framework of Ford et al. (1986). In addition, power-
ference in size in terms of number of employees of the entire dependence (Hkansson, 1987; Axelrod, 1984), intensity (Ford
organization between smaller suppliers and their larger custo- & Rosson, 1982) and conflict and co-operation (Hkansson &
mers. We have chosen to explore the multi-dimensional nature Henders, 1992; Ford et al., 1986) were included in the typology
of the characteristics of asymmetric relationships by examining as well-established, empirically-validated relationship charac-
situations of size asymmetry between smaller suppliers and teristics, grounded in IMP research.2
larger customers within a chosen set of relationship character-
2
istics identified from the literature. The chosen characteristics Trust has not been included in the set of relationship characteristics
are not examined in terms of their inter-relationships, but are considered here, not because trust is not considered important to relationships,
explored as a set of characteristics of relevance in studying but because it is not considered a characteristic in the sense in which the other
characteristics are. Trust has not been included in previous relationship cha-
asymmetric relationships. The characteristics, although not ex- racteristic typologies (e.g. Marrett, 1971; Ford et al., 1986; Alajoutsijrvi et al.,
haustive, were derived from the literature and selected on the 1999) as it is considered more of an outcome of a relationship rather than a
basis of their importance in previous studies of asymmetric characteristic per se.
R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483 473

Table 1
A typology of size asymmetry and its consequences in relationship characteristics (smaller supplier perspective)
Characteristic Definition Examples Size asymmetry/symmetry: possible
consequences
Mutuality An attitudinal variable, measuring how much Mutuality describes how the parties demonstrate Customer unilaterally influences/
a company is prepared to give up its own their interest in the well-being of one another Customer and Supplier bilaterally influence:
individual goals to increase benefits for a and explains how the parties seek common goals Formality/informality in setting
counterpart and through this its own long-term or interests. For example a supplier may have to relationship goals
well-being (Ford et al., 1986). make decisions about the extent to which it is Use/purpose of written plans
willing to relinquish individual goals in order Extent of intertwining of goals and
to increase the positive outcomes for its customer, interests and experience
and through this increase its own well-being.
Particularity The direction and uniqueness of interaction Particularity concerns the extent of dedicated Customer unilaterally influences/ Customer
in a relationship, when compared to other individual efforts of one party e.g. production and Supplier bilaterally influence:
relationships of the companies, or the processes or designs of suppliers geared towards Standardization/adaptation of approach
extent of standardisation of interaction the needs of one customer. Some firms may to interaction
(Ford et al., 1986). approach their relationships in a standardised Width of supplier's customer portfolio
way, for example, larger retailers in their Building of confidence and emotional
interactions with smaller suppliers may deal ties in interaction
with them as a group.
Conflict Conflict is a measure of differences The higher the involvement in a relationship, the Customer unilaterally influences/Customer
between the parties over the direction of the more likely is the interdependence between the and Supplier bilaterally influence:
relationship or over their respective parties and the more conspicuous the conflict Conflict resolution efforts involving
contributions and benefits (Ford et al., 1986). over sometimes small details, even though the higher/lower-level actors
parties may agree overall on a common approach. Development of approaches for coping
with conflict
Interpersonal Interpersonal inconsistency relates to the Interpersonal inconsistency may create Customer unilaterally influences/Customer
inconsistency personal expectations and individual interests difficulties in interacting with individuals in and Supplier bilaterally influence:
influencing the interaction (Ford et al., 1986). another firm, but it may also be viewed Development of personal expectations
positively bringing together people with and contributions in interaction
varied views, cultures, strategies and
capabilities. This may offer scope for
creativity in relationships, e.g. in situations
where two firms collaborate on the
development of new product ideas or
innovations.
Co-operation Co-operation is a measure of the extent to In co-operative relationships firms may capitalise Customer unilaterally influences/Customer
which companies work together to determine on the benefits that can be achieved by working and Supplier bilaterally influence:
or implement a direction for the relationship together the relationship is characterised by Experience and inclusion of suppliers
(Ford et al., 2003). co-operative rather than contentious interaction in co-operative projects
and co-operation may evolve within a relationship Control of direction of co-operative
over time. projects
Intensity The aggregate level of contact and A complex pattern of interaction emerges within Customer unilaterally influences/customer
resource exchange between firms in a intense relationships. A large number of people and supplier bilaterally influence:
relationship (Ford & Rosson, 1982). from different functions within each firm may Range, level and frequency of contact
influence the patterns of interaction. In intense between customer and supplier
relationships interaction may evolve to include a Extent of supplier involvement in
variety of individuals with a range of experience contact and resource exchange
in cross-functional groups.
Power and Distinct types of power and dependence exist: A supplier may have the power to influence the Customer unilaterally influences/Customer
dependence technical, knowledge, social, logistic, product development activities of its customer, and Supplier bilaterally influence:
administrative (Hkansson, 1987) Historic, based on the characteristics of its offering and Strategic and operational aspects of
economic, technological, political dependence its superior technology. At the same time, relationship
will be more or less evident depending the customer may have power over the strategy Technical aspects of relationship and
on the nature of the organisations' relationship of the supplier based on its greater financial advisory roles
to each other (Axelrod, 1984). strength or the size of its orders. A supplier may Decision-making process
decide to make changes to its operations to reduce Social/networking aspects of supplier's
its dependence on a customer, but it may also relationships
choose to accept dependence as a trade-off Development of information and
for the benefits that accrue from its relationship knowledge
with a strong customer. If firms are mutually Development of values built on history
dependent, they may have problems coping
with other relationships, but may manage quite
effectively in their core relationship.
474 R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483

The typology focuses on the consequences of size asym- All the suppliers were involved in the manufacture of tex-
metry on the other relationship characteristics. Our proposition tiles, albeit in different product areas, ranging from clothing and
is that asymmetry in size is reflected in the unilateral nature of a knitwear to woven furnishing fabrics and industrial textiles. The
customer's approaches to interaction and aspects of its rela- suppliers had similar customer relationship experiences as they
tionship with a supplier. Correspondingly, we propose that the had all worked with large UK customers at some point in their
consequences of symmetry in size on the other relationship history, with some having moved on to experience new rela-
characteristics are reflected in the bilateral nature of a customer tionships, whilst others still maintained those relationships, or
and supplier's approaches to interaction and aspects of their had a mixture of established and new customer relationships.
relationship. Having presented the conceptual foundations of The respondents comprised between four and seven indi-
the research, the research methodology will now be discussed. viduals from each supplier at director or manager level. The
principal criterion for determining the respondents was their
4. Research methodology knowledge and experience of and involvement in, relationships
with larger customers. At the outset of each case, a relationship
Multiple case studies (Yin, 2003) were chosen for this study was established with a director or senior manager within the
to enable an in-depth examination of each case, whilst also supplier who would act as the main point of contact. This person
seeking to identify the unique situations and contingent factors was briefed about the research project through a written project
that distinguish one case from another. A multiple case strategy summary and a telephone meeting. Snowball sampling was
was adopted in an effort to externally validate the findings from used as the technique for identifying and gaining access to the
a single case, to illustrate that any one case is not unique in any most suitable respondents within each supplier. The interviews
way (Eisenhardt, 1989). involved sensitive, confidential or political issues surrounding
A relative difference in firm size between a customer and relationships with larger customers, therefore it was important
supplier was used as a proxy for exploring asymmetry in cus- to maintain confidentiality. Thus, the names of case companies
tomersupplier relationships in this research, in a similar way to and respondents have been made anonymous (see Table 2).
many previous studies on asymmetry (Blomqvist, 2002; Chen & Confidentiality ensured that sensitive issues were openly dis-
Chen, 2002). The empirical data collection involved a total of 48 cussed by the majority of the respondents and that they were
semi-structured interviews, conducted between 2000 and 2003 comfortable to have their interviews taped. It also gave the
with suppliers in relationships with larger customers. These researchers an understanding of explanatory factors that may
comprised one set of six qualitative semi-structured pilot inter- otherwise have been difficult to comprehend.
views with suppliers and a set of eight in-depth case studies of
suppliers in the UK textile industry. Within each case study 4.1. Data collection and analysis
between 4 and 7 interviews with managers or directors of sup-
plier firms were conducted, as outlined in Table 2. The textile Following the pilot study, cross-sectional data were collected
sector was identified as appropriate for the study as it involves in two stages. The first stage involved interviews with directors
many relationships between smaller suppliers and larger cus- of supplier firms to explore the supplier's background and detail
tomers, with the problems experienced in such relationships its relationships with larger customers. The Stage 1 interviews
being of recent academic interest (e.g. Harrison, 2004). Textile were thus structured around the typology, but were flexible
suppliers have frequently focused on building one or a few enough to leave room for discussion and enable respondents to
relationships with larger customers and have been found to give examples and expand on important events or situations.
experience difficulties in managing these relationships and These interviews took approximately one and a half to two hours
expanding their portfolio of relationships (Lorenzoni & Baden- (some extended to closer to three hours). The second stage of the
Fuller, 1995; Johnsen & Johnsen, 1999). Judgment sampling interviews involved interviewing a variety of managers within
was used by the researchers in selecting the eight textile sup- supplier firms to examine the different perspectives and expe-
pliers to be included in the study. This enabled those that were riences of smaller suppliers in developing their relationships
deemed to have most experience of relationships with larger with larger customers. The main contact was interviewed once
customers and who were most willing to be interviewed to be more in Stage 2, to ensure his or her involvement across both
chosen. stages of the study. A range of other managers was interviewed
Table 2 provides an overview of the profiles of the eight to ensure that data was collected from various sources and that
textile suppliers involved in the case studies. The chosen cases different perceptions and experiences were captured.
had a number of common characteristics. Foremost, the sup- All interviews for the study were tape-recorded and tran-
pliers were all involved in relationships with customers that scribed. The analytical strategy adopted in this study was to seek
were larger in size than themselves, based on the relative to relate data to the research questions through the conceptual
number of employees. The suppliers ranged from small (under typology of asymmetry and symmetry in customersupplier
50 employees) to large (more than 250 employees). However, relationships, thus displaying and reducing the data. Further-
despite the suppliers differences in size they were all smaller more, as this study was explanatory and concerned with under-
than their customers in terms of number of employees, thus standing the unique situations and experiences of the suppliers, a
providing the basis for examining relationships between smaller level of explanation building (Yin, 2003) was also required in the
suppliers and larger customers. drawing of conclusions and verification. Conceptually clustered
Table 2
Case study profiles
Case Company Company A Company B Company C Company D Company E Company F Company G Company H
Turnover 1.3 million 20 million 10 million 10 million 130, 000 45 million 8 million 45 million
Employees 30 250 60 300 5 630 104 800
Activities a Manufacture of Manufacture of Manufacture of Manufacture of Manufacture of Manufacture of Manufacture of industrial Manufacture

R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483


felt from recycled clothing fabrics flame retardant knitwear and customised in home cleaning/care textiles, filtration products of knitwear
fibres fabrics leisurewear dustrial textile products and needle felts
fabrics/products
Markets: UK Markets: soccer Markets: leisure, Markets: Markets: Markets: UK Markets: 7580% Markets: UK
flooring, horticulture, and performance health, interiors International retail UK engineering/ retail, developing export mainly EU and retail and
food, engineering, sport, UK retail, 36 country markets, aerospace/medical European presence Asia-Pacific. laundry and own brand
industrial felt, 30 country markets sales subsidiaries sectors finely engineered textiles
sound insulation. USA, Germany, sectors
France

Number of 4 6 5 7 4 7 5 4
interviews
Respondents
Stage 1
interview: Managing Managing Managing Operations Managing Sales Director Sales Director Commercial
Director Director Director Manager Director Director
Stage 2
interviews: Managing Managing Managing Operations Managing Sales Director Technical Manager Commercial
Director Director Director Manager Director Director
Operations Key Account Head of Sales Manager Partner Quality Control Marketing Manager Sales
Manager Manager Upholstery Retail Sales (aerospace projects) Project Leader Executive
Manager UK
Commercial Sales and National Sales Export Sales Partner Operations and Sales Admin. Planning
Manager Marketing Manager Manager (Engineering Projects) Quality Director Executive
Manager (USA)
Commercial Export Manager Customer Sales Office
Manager Service Manager Manager
UK
Account Customer National Account
Manager Support Admin. Manager
Product Designer
a
All supplier and customer names are fictitious in order to retain confidentiality.

475
476 R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483

and role ordered matrices (Miles & Huberman, 1984), were used used to compare the empirically-based pattern with the predicted
as coding frameworks to reduce, structure and analyse the data, one set out in the conceptual structure. In finding an appropriate
whereby the responses from interviewees were summarised, technique to analyse the qualitative data, the issues relating to
interpreted and tabulated from the transcripts, according to the how to reduce, structure and detextualise the data were a critical
themes and issues covered in the interviews. This enabled intra- concern. In this study all interviews were tape-recorded and
case comparisons and highlighted similarities and differences transcribed and the researcher took notes while the interviews
between responses. Cross-case comparisons and the identifica- took place, and as soon as possible afterwards, to ensure that the
tion of patterns and synthesis were achieved through the devel- details of important issues were accurately captured. Transcripts
opment of meta-matrices ordered by cases (Miles & Huberman, were produced by professional transcribers. These transcripts
1984). These enabled the researchers to interpret the summative were inspected for accuracy and mistakes, such as wrong names
picture across the eight case studies, identifying similarities and or terms, and these were identified to the transcribers to limit
divergences across the cases and drawing conclusions on the future inaccuracies. The final transcripts were read repeatedly
empirical study. and notes taken to begin the process of reducing and displaying
the data, and pattern matching the data with the conceptual
4.2. Research credibility framework. Furthermore, the data from the interviews were
supplemented by any relevant secondary data obtained.
Yin's (2003) tests to determine the credibility of case study Contextual factors were considered in the process of reduc-
research, comprising construct validity, internal validity, ex- ing the data and were derived primarily from secondary data and
ternal validity and reliability were adopted. Data were collected responses to the early questions in the pilot interviews. These
from multiple sources of evidence. This involved primary data contextual factors included supplier company details and the
collection through interviews and secondary data collection background and history of each firm's larger customer rela-
through company reports, websites and marketing information. tionships. The larger customer relationships that were to be the
Secondary information in the form of company reports, product focus of each supplier's interviews were analysed by relation-
brochures and marketing literature was collected. These in- ship mapping to identify key actors and activities involved. The
formed the researcher with background and introductory infor- use of conceptually clustered and role ordered matrices (Miles
mation on suppliers, their size, activities and involvement with & Huberman, 1984), enabled the researchers to reduce, struc-
larger customers. Company and industry web sites were visited ture and analyse the data according to the themes covered in the
before conducting interviews to establish how the companies interviews. This enabled intra-case and cross-case comparisons
viewed and presented themselves. Although much of the infor- and highlighted similarities and differences between responses.
mation on the websites was quite superficial, this proved an Quotes were drawn from the transcripts and were used to
interesting exercise in how the suppliers initially projected illustrate or represent key issues or themes from the cases. The
themselves to potential customers, and assisted the researcher in quotes were carefully chosen to be representative of the cases
subsequent interpretation of data. This proved particularly useful and accurately depict particular situations or convey the atmo-
and interesting in some instances, where the information from sphere of each case. In addition, the opportunities to gain
secondary sources was able to support details later gathered in comments from other researchers in the field, both informally,
interviews. and through conference presentations, gave the researchers
In addition, construct validity was taken account of by a valuable pointers in maintaining the internal validity of the data,
chain of evidence, gaining feedback on the accuracy of the findings and conclusions.
transcripts and the subsequent truthfulness and completeness of The reliability of any piece of research is dependent upon
the findings from the viewpoints of the principal respondents whether the study would be replicable by a later investigator
from each case study. This was supported by e-mail and tele- following the same procedures and conducting the same case
phone exchanges between the researcher and the case suppliers. study all over again (Yin, 2003). The aim of reliability is
Those that responded commented on their confidence in the therefore to minimise the potential errors and bias in a study,
accuracy of the findings and many stated that they had found the and to create transparency around how sense was made from the
findings interesting or valuable. Finally, external observers in data. The support that the researchers sought in this study
the form of research colleagues assisted in giving feedback on through discussions with research colleagues, and feedback
the interpretation of the findings and were helpful in ensuring from conference presentations has supported the reliability of
construct validity. the findings of the study. In addition, respondent validation
Internal validity concerns involving the internal coherence (Reason & Rowan, 1981) was used by inviting comments on the
between the data, the findings and the conclusions were ad- analysis from respondents. External auditors in the form of a
dressed in a number of ways. The six pilot interviews enabled number of research professors from the academic community
the researchers to explore the concepts to be examined in the also gave comments on the logic and interpretation of the
empirical research at an early stage, and provide the opportunity findings. In drawing on the experience of respondents, fellow
to adjust the research instruments prior to the main body of data researchers from a variety of institutions, research communities
collection, thus helping to refine the case study protocol. and countries, the researchers thus attempted to extend their
The technique of finding the fit between the research questions view of smaller supplierlarger customer relationships and
and the data referred to by Yin (2003) as pattern matching was minimise potential errors and bias.
R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483 477

5. Discussion of findings from the empirical study volved coping with a limited portfolio of customers, or a single
relationship with a larger customer.
In this section the findings from the case studies are used to The findings indicated that a larger customer could often
illustrate the consequences of size asymmetry for suppliers in unilaterally influence the width of its supplier's portfolio and
their relationships with larger customers and relate these to the the extent of standardisation or adaptation and the exclusivity
characteristics of the typology. Table 3 illustrates the findings required of a smaller supplier. However, suppliers were some-
and these are discussed below. Emphasis is placed on examples times able to limit the consequences of size asymmetry by using
of how size asymmetry is manifested in the other relationship exclusivity in their relationships to their advantage and by
characteristics, and how suppliers coped with asymmetry. pushing for greater contributions from customers in terms of
managerial time, support for technological or managerial devel-
5.1. Mutuality opments. The following quote illustrates this situation:
We run the ship. We will determine developments being
Mutuality was a feature of some, but not all, of the rela-
done and we will recommend to them that this is the way
tionships in this study. Some of the suppliers believed that giving
they should do their developments in the future. And they
up individual goals was necessary to become more closely
say Well if that's what you say, how much will it cost us?
involved with larger customers. However, others felt coerced by
their larger customers into sacrificing short-term gains for This constructive approach to exclusivity enabled suppliers
longer-term benefits e.g. adapting their longer-term goals to to cope with size asymmetry and build a stronger platform for
those of the customer, but still being cut from the customer's future developments with current or new customers, despite size
supplier portfolio. An important finding related to the role of asymmetry in their relationships.
informality in developing balanced goals and interests between An important finding related to the role of emotions3 in
suppliers and their larger customers. Informality, as an ante- relationships between suppliers and their larger customers. In
cedent to the relationships investigated in this study, was im- some of the relationships investigated there was an emotional,
portant in creating the atmosphere in which shared goals and rather than simply a business-focused bond (e.g. in the rela-
common experiences could be built between the suppliers and tionships of one company with larger customers in the carpet
their larger customers. The findings demonstrated that a larger manufacturing and horticulture sectors). In these relationships,
customer could unilaterally influence the extent of formality in smaller suppliers coped better with size asymmetry by having
setting relationship goals with a smaller supplier. However, the confidence to push for the relationship to become less
informality enabled suppliers to better manage size asymmetry standardised, exclusive and formal. This meant that smaller
in relationships with larger customers by giving them the con- suppliers were able to have more say about the extent to which
fidence to negotiate over goals set by larger customers. confidence and emotional ties were built in the relationship with
The extent of written plans in the relationship also influenced their larger customers. However, for other suppliers there was
the consequences of size asymmetry for suppliers. Suppliers little emotion involved in their relationships, as suggested by the
often tended to rely on written plans to give them support in following quote:
working towards a larger customer's set objectives. However,
The days of the relationship, the old pals if you like, the old
written plans often backfired, letting the customer hold the
boys network, that's disappearing. We cant rest on our
supplier to account on a particular issue, as demonstrated by the
laurels, that's for sure. Because there's no emotions there,
following quote:
and if we dont have the emotions I dont think they would
There's just an imbalance, a significant imbalance in the think twice of going elsewhere.
relationship. In the short-term, customers are completely self-
So, in relationships where there was little emotion involved,
interested. You cant plan. It's completely unpredictable. And
suppliers found it harder to cope with size asymmetry and
in the long-term, your plans can mean you can make very
customers tended to unilaterally influence the extent of stan-
significant errors that actually just dismantle the business.
dardisation and exclusivity in the relationship.
In some cases the findings indicated that larger customers
could unilaterally influence the use of written plans by a sup- 5.3. Conflict
plier and determine their purpose. However, in other cases the
absence of written plans enabled suppliers to be more flexible in Although there seemed to be frequent instances of conflict in
response to their larger customers objectives and to cope better many of the relationships investigated, conflict resolution pro-
with size asymmetry. cesses were important in enabling suppliers to better manage

3
5.2. Particularity Here we adopt Lynch and de Chernatony's (2004) definition of emotional
criteria in relationships as encompassing prestige, security/confidence, friend-
The findings raised important issues for suppliers concerning ship and social needs. Although the role of emotions in interaction appears to
have received little attention in IMP literature, recent work in other areas of
increasing standardisation in their relationships and demands marketing literature has raised the issue that organisational buyers may be
for exclusivity from their larger customers to maintain the influenced by both rational and emotional concerns, highlighting a possibly
customers goodwill. So, managing size asymmetry often in- under-investigated issue in research on customersupplier relationships.
478
R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483
Table 3
Findings on consequences of size asymmetry in relationship characteristics
Relationship Company A Company B Company C Company D Company E Company F Company G Company H
characteristic
Mutuality Informal approach to Formality and Senior staff and Cross-functional, Development of Dovetailing of Difficult to Formality and written
rels. Supports balance written planning innovative graduates cross-hierarchy mgmt. expertise interests with achieve synergy procedures create
of interests with limits supplier's work with customers teams and enabling parallel customers thro' with customers unpredictability in
customers in input to plans/ to build common goals education interests and joint informality and without giving up responses from
long-term rels. purpose of rels. and communication facilitates planning developments senior personnel own shorter-term customers. Supplier
in rels. for rels. knowledge with customers. involvement. goals. resigned to
exchange with giving up own goals.
larger customers.
Particularity Emotional bonds with Increasing focus Customers' control Customers' Constructive Customers' Customer threats Pressure from one
larger customers give on one large over interaction increasing approach to emphasis on to change customer for complete
security/confidence. customer rel. and supplier insecurity standardisation of exclusivity use rationalisation of suppliers if unable exclusivity.
gives support for about emotional rels. and larger customer for supply reflected in to meet
new projects. connections to destruction of support and achieving increasing exclusivity
customers. emotional bonds. own goals. standardisation demands.
of rels.
Conflict Conflict resolution Processes/ High-level actors and Clash of priorities Symbiotic outlook Achieve Conceding Larger customer forces
between supplier techniques for partnership projects between customers between customers/ agreement on approach of supplier responsibility
customer minimises dealing with limit conflicts and and supplier fuels supplier ensures direction of supplier to for solving problems/
impact of conflict and conflict governed ensure even distribution conflict. conflict limited and relationship conflicts with conflicts.
enables shared vision by customer and of contributions/benefits. easily overcome. through conflict customers and
for rels. coped with by Conflict minimised resolution process their resolution.
supplier. by communication, at senior level.
discussion and frequent
contact.
Interpersonal Use compromise and Misunderstandings Customers and supplier Divergence of Ambiguity in Constructive Misunderstanding Supplier expects
inconsistency communication with and unequal concur on focus/ strategic priorities communication from use of in conflicts of limited input and
customer to overcome contributions priorities. between customer/ customers, creates misunderstandings purpose between problems in rels.
any feelings of customers limit supplier creates potential for to create platform customer lack of customer
unequal contributions. supplier's misunderstandings. misunderstanding but for discussion and supplier and transparency and
involvement in rel. Expectation that overcome by development. ambiguity in accessibility.
there will be discussion with relationship roles.
problems at higher-level actors.
every step.
Co-operation Co-operation benefits Supplier has little Supplier influences Evolution of co- Co-operation Contributions to One-sided co- Disinterest of
for supplier in commitment to or timing and details of operation limited opportunities not and instigation of operation from customers in
experience and control influence over co- co-operation. by one-sided evolved outside of co-operation in supplier in co-operation with
of outcomes with operation control of projects technological arena- hands of customer. customer supplier.
customers. viewed negatively by customers. viewed as too costly instigated
as another form of by supplier. projects.
control by
customers.
Intensity Supplier involves Established pattern Supplier initiates and Large number of Supplier on call toSupplier has Higher frequency Limited involvement
high-level staff in of interaction contact often limited personnel from solve problems and difficulty gaining and range of of high level staff.
contacts/exchanges influenced by to lower levels of supplier involved visit customers. Ill-access to senior, contact from One-sided training of
with customers but longstanding management in in relationships defined role of influential staff in supplier. Contact customer staff by
this is not often involvement, but customers. enables increased customers. Contact
supplier in relation to with imm06157 supplier.
clout with

R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483


reciprocated. customers rarely visit. service. Higher levelrestricted by customers
customers. contacts in customer customers mechanistic.
firms not developed. rigid controls and
processes.
Power and Supplier's technological/ Customers have Supplier has Historic dependence Symmetry in Equality of Equality and Totality of customers
dependence knowledge power strategic power, technological/ of supplier through technological/ technological/ historic dependency power over supplier
enabled via tech. control over supply knowledge power longstanding knowledge power and knowledge power leads to shared in all areas
capability of supplier network and dictation in rels. via tech/ expectations of historical dependence with customers, understanding. But restricts behaviour
and high-level personnel of terms of design innovation. customer/supplier Asymmetry in but historical customers exert and ambitions for rels.
involvement in rels. engagement of role and position in strategic dependence. dependence strategic power
Historic interdependence suppliers. rels. supplier means exposure to in power games
in long-term rels. taken for granted. opportunistic with threat of
smoothes supplier's behaviour changing supplier.
path with customers. of customers.

479
480 R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483

size asymmetry in their relationships. The findings indicated projects with larger customers in which it wished to be involved
that a customer was often able to unilaterally influence how (such as lean manufacturing developments).
conflict was resolved with its suppliers. However, some sup- However, some suppliers, by virtue of more experience of
pliers could better cope with size asymmetry by involving their co-operation with larger customers and others in the network,
own higher-level actors, such as company directors, who would had more influence over the timing and specific details of co-
play a greater part in influencing conflict resolution. This meant operative projects and could bilaterally control the direction that
that suppliers were better able to influence whether a particular co-operative projects would take with larger customers. Thus,
conflict situation was dealt with as major or minor in their having a reputation for being an experienced co-operator
relationships with larger customers, as shown in the following helped suppliers to overcome problems associated with co-
quote from a Sales Director: operation with larger customers.
Wed never hidden what we were doing, and wed men-
5.6. Intensity
tioned that we were duplicating products in other factories
in Europe and the Far East, but they hadnt put two and two
A common problem in managing size asymmetry for sup-
together. When they found out there was a bit of a conflict
pliers was the lack of contact from larger customers. A larger
there. But when we involved our directors and explained the
customer could unilaterally determine the range, level and
rationale it took a little bit of time, but it smoothed over.
frequency of contact with its supplier, the extent of the sup-
plier's involvement in any contacts, and the level of resource
5.4. Interpersonal inconsistency exchange between the parties. Therefore, an aggregate picture
of intensity could present an inaccurate reflection of the nature
The suppliers' personal expectations of the relationship were of the contact taking place between larger customers and
an important factor in influencing how they coped with inter- smaller suppliers. The extent and frequency of contact from
personal inconsistency with larger customers. The findings both suppliers and customers, and the range of contact across
suggested that larger customers could unilaterally influence the different levels of management were important factors in man-
development of personal expectations and contributions, poten- aging size asymmetry for suppliers, as illustrated by the fol-
tially limiting their suppliers input and involvement. However, lowing quote:
some suppliers were able to cope better with customers by
The UK Sales Manager, the Operations Manager, the
constructively using experiences of inconsistency to address
Customer Service Manager, Embroidery, Design, the Sales
problems in their relationships and create a foundation for
Agents: whether it's making appointments or courtesy calls
sharing input and involvement with their larger customers. The
or whatever, then we would make the contact and that gives
following quote gives an example:
us clout.
He felt he was contributing more to the relationship than I
Suppliers were therefore able to cope better with size asym-
did and I felt I was contributing more than he did. This
metry when they had large numbers of different personnel from
issue was overcome via heated discussion, which cleared the
all levels of their firm involved in instigating frequent contact
air and highlighted the fact that we had slightly different
with customers.
views of the world and it's now been resolved.
This type of constructive use of experiences of inconsistency 5.7. Power and dependence
made it easier for suppliers to express their position or smooth
out any potential misunderstandings with larger customers. The findings indicated that power could be applied by larger
customers in both strategic and operational areas of the sup-
5.5. Co-operation pliers' business. This meant that suppliers often effectively gave
strategic and operational control into the hands of the customer.
Differences in the strategic and operational concerns of Technical power was the most common way for suppliers to
larger customers and smaller suppliers meant that customers did overcome full control by customers in situations of size asym-
not often engage their suppliers in co-operative projects. Co- metry. This meant that suppliers focused on demonstrating
operation was often restricted to areas such as customer staff technical prowess to larger customers, enabling them to gain
inductions by suppliers, or to the production and technology significant influence in this area of their relationships.
arena where suppliers were deemed to have certain competen- Historic dependence4 was an important area with both
cies. This meant that suppliers could feel that co-operation was negative and positive consequences for suppliers in managing
limited in its use for supporting their development. Suppliers size asymmetry. It was positively demonstrated in the implicit
therefore sometimes feigned disinterest in co-operation to cus-
tomers and left the instigation of co-operation to the larger party. 4
So, larger customers could unilaterally influence the extent Axelrod (1984) was one of the first proponents of historic dependence.
Axelrod's concept has been expanded upon by Cousins (2002, p, 79) who states
to which suppliers gained experience of co-operation and that in a situation of historic dependence the parties have always dealt with each
whether they were invited to be included in co-operative pro- other, they know and feel that they can interpret each other's moves they feel
jects. For example, one company had found itself excluded from comfortable with the partner even though they may not be the best.
R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483 481

understanding built up over many years between supplier and Hkansson and Snehota (1998) which suggests that particularity
customer, influencing the smoothing of the suppliers path with in relationships may preclude the involvement of other parties,
larger customers. This is illustrated in the following quote: and the commitment of resources to these relationships may
make it unfeasible to pursue others. Thus, particularity may
Long-term customer relationships bring understanding,
appear an attractive proposition for firms, but in reality it may
they bring a history, they bring a depth. So that the normal
not be the best relationship fit for most firms.
kind of disagreements that you get in business, you can iron
Conflict could be a destructive rather than constructive force,
over them it's good for innovation, because the better you
and be instrumental in undermining the confidence of smaller
know people, the more time you spend in the pub together,
suppliers in their larger customer relationships. Thus, it appears
the more you develop new ideas together.
that smaller supplierlarger customer relationships may be
However, historic dependence could also have negative particularly susceptible to the dysfunctional effects of conflict,
consequences for suppliers in the way in which they could be especially in situations where there are few higher-level actors
taken for granted by larger customers. Historic dependence was from the supplier firm involved in customer relationships.
therefore a double-edged sword, sometimes helping suppliers to Conflict may be interpreted in terms of the perceptions of
cope better, but just as often aggravating the consequences of history and expectations of the firms in the relationship (Vaa-
size asymmetry. land & Hkansson, 2003). Thus, the involvement of higher-
level actors from smaller suppliers in conflict resolution with
6. Conclusions larger customers appears important in creating a measure of
social equality between customer and supplier and in overcom-
Our theoretical discussions and the findings from the em- ing the impact of any negative perceptions and expectations
pirical study have contributed to evolving discussions on asym- associated with the history of the relationships.
metry in relationships from an IMP perspective. The findings The findings are consistent with previous work on inter-
from this research indicate that asymmetry in relationships is personal inconsistency that have suggested that messages, such
multi-faceted and that the consequences of asymmetry may vary as wishes or intentions, passed to the other party in a dyadic
widely across different relationship characteristics, with both relationship may lack clarity and create ambiguity (Ford et al.,
positive and negative consequences for suppliers. Our contri- 1986). Interestingly, the findings differed from those of Ala-
bution is the addition of insights into the nature of the dynamics joutsijrvi, Mller, and Rosenbrijer (1999) who suggested that
of symmetry and asymmetry in customersupplier relationships. high-levels of interpersonal inconsistency may be evident in
This paper has identified some of the consequences of size situations where a variety of firms, units, and departments are
asymmetry for suppliers in relationships with larger customers involved, each with their own agendas and roles. In the rela-
and has built on the work of previous IMP researchers (Ford tionships in this study there tended to be limited variety in the
et al., 1986; Blomqvist, 2002). In this paper we have examined people, units and departments involved in the interactions, often
asymmetry in customersupplier relationships, with particular as a result of limited personnel in smaller supplier firms, and
emphasis on identifying how suppliers can cope with and better restricted access for suppliers to personnel within larger cus-
manage the consequences of size asymmetry. The study there- tomer firms. Indeed, contrary to previous findings, inconsis-
fore raises important issues for furthering conceptual develop- tency appeared to be less evident in cases where there was large
ments and empirical investigations to add to our understanding and varied dedication of human resources to larger customer
of asymmetry in relationships within the IMP tradition. In relationships. This meant that a range of personnel from dif-
conclusion, the main reflections on the literature gained from ferent levels of the supplier would be better able to deal with, or
the exploration of asymmetry across the relationship character- limit, misunderstandings or problems with larger customers as
istics of the suppliers and their larger customers are presented. they arose.
The findings concerning mutuality indicated that many Experience of co-operation and an understanding of the
smaller suppliers had similar goals to their larger customers, and procedures and formalities of developing co-operative projects
that both parties would be prepared to adapt for the sake of the were important in facilitating more co-operation for smaller
long-term development of the relationship (Ford, Gadde, & suppliers. This finding differs from the work of Axelrod (1984)
Hkansson, 2003). The findings also support the work by H- and Bengtsson and Kock (2000), who have suggested that the
kansson and Snehota (1995), who suggested that the norms of extent to which formalisation of co-operation occurs tends to be
behaviour in a relationship are often characterised by bonds viewed as less critical in relationships than the evolution of co-
between companies which become stronger over time as they operation within a relationship over time. So, formalisation
familiarise themselves with each other. within specific co-operative projects (rather than all aspects of
Smaller suppliers frequently offered particularity as a means the relationship) involving suppliers and customers may be
of attempting to secure their relationships with important larger critical in supporting further co-operation for smaller suppliers
customers, when faced with situations where their customer in relationships with larger customers.
portfolios were limited and rationalisation was taking place in In smaller supplierlarger customer relationships there are
their networks. Thus, they effectively excluded themselves from often few opportunities for extending the scope of contact and
other relationships at times when customer development could resource exchange. However, longstanding involvement be-
be most critical. Our findings can be related to the work of tween a smaller supplier and larger customer may facilitate the
482 R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483

development of established and commonly understood patterns Our study indicated that suppliers often did not view them-
of contact, contributing to reducing ambiguity and misunder- selves as part of the network, considering the network to be a
standings. In addition, more balanced patterns of contact appear negative, purely external element of which they were not part.
achievable when a large number of customer-facing staff in a The network was thus considered of concern to larger cus-
supplier firm are dedicated to maintaining contact with larger tomers, but not to suppliers. Given the current global challenges
customers (Geser, 1992). facing suppliers, managing asymmetry in relationships and the
One of the most striking themes across the case studies was wider network will be a critical managerial concern in the
the technological power of suppliers, enabled by their specialist future. Therefore, future research must contribute to enabling
technical knowledge and application of technology in new suppliers to develop an awareness and understanding of the
products and projects. Some of the suppliers had considerable relationships and network of which they are part, and to develop
technological knowledge and power, and their ability to apply strategies for their positioning within it.
this in new product or project developments with larger custo-
mers enabled them to gain more influence in relationships (Ford 8. Limitations
et al., 2003). In addition, historic dependence was an influential
element which could either smooth the path of suppliers with The study was limited in scope to the exploration of asym-
their larger customers or expose them to opportunistic behav- metry in relationships from the supplier's perspective, and as
iour by less scrupulous customers (Axelrod, 1984; Cousins, such there are a number of limitations associated with the
2002). research. Although it was believed that the set of relationship
Larger customers had considerable influence in both the characteristics was a reflection of those involved in relation-
relationships with their smaller suppliers and the wider network. ships between suppliers and larger customers they were not
Their influence over smaller suppliers appeared particularly deemed to be universal or all-encompassing. The focus on
important in limiting and controlling the smaller suppliers' suppliers and their perspectives of relationships could arguably
ability to develop strategic independence. This contributed to constitute a limitation by being biased and restricted to one side.
lack of confidence and insecurities in suppliers. A smaller Thus, the research design did not permit both sides of the
supplier's strategic independence therefore appeared important suppliercustomer relationship to be examined and the cross-
in enabling it to avoid pressures associated with dealing with sectional data collected did not permit an examination of the full
only one large powerful customer and in achieving more control dynamics of the interplay between the characteristics of the
in its relationships. customersupplier relationships and gave a static picture of the
relationships at the point in time when data were collected. So,
7. Managerial implications an examination of both sides of the customersupplier relation-
ship may have raised new issues, experiences and interpreta-
Overall, the study revealed that suppliers had a tendency to tions on asymmetry in relationships that have not been able to
consider management as the concern or remit of the larger be identified in this study.
customer alone and spent little effort on evaluating their It is important to note that without more research the findings
position in relationships. It is therefore important that suppliers could not be extrapolated or generalised into other situations
develop a critical self-awareness; being aware of their advan- than those investigated in this study. One option for future
tages and liabilities in relationships with larger customers. In research would be to investigate asymmetry in relationships in
situations where suppliers have experience of only one large different contexts, by examining them in various industries and
customer relationship, there is a need for them to gain wider in international settings, as there has been limited focus on this
experience with customers and to find ways of contributing to issue within IMP research, with the notable exception of Blom-
the process of managing their relationships in conjunction with qvist's (2002) study on small Finnish technology firms.
customers. This involves suppliers thinking about the potential There are potential problems associated with viewing only
requirements of a set, or portfolio of customer relationships, one side of the relationship, by adopting the supplier's pers-
taking active steps to develop management education and pective. It is therefore important to realise that the findings may
methods within their organisations and developing differenti- be limited in scope, as the picture of asymmetry in relationships,
ated approaches to relationship management to suit different either from the customer's perspective alone, or from both sides
settings and circumstances. of the relationship could present a different scenario from that
Another important consideration for suppliers is the influ- found in this study.
ence of the wider network upon their position. The findings of
this study indicated that suppliers often had difficulty in 9. Avenues of further research
extending their horizons beyond their immediate, direct rela-
tionships with larger customers and were often reluctant to There is scope for future research to examine both the
envisage the effects of the network upon their customer rela- supplier and customer perspectives of asymmetric relation-
tionships. It therefore seems critical for suppliers to extend their ships. Avenues of future research that could be explored in
horizons beyond their immediate circle of relationships and to relation to further validation of the results of this study through
have a clear vision of the changes taking place in the network, subsequent empirical data collection and the investigation of
and the likely impacts of these changes upon them. the other side of the coin of asymmetric relationships. For
R.E. Johnsen, D. Ford / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 471483 483

example, a structured questionnaire could be developed and Ford, D., & Saren, M. (2001). Managing and marketing technology. London:
used with suppliers and their customers to externally validate Thomson Learning.
Geser, H. (1992). Towards an interaction theory of organisational actors.
the results of this study. Organisation Studies, 13(3), 429451.
We suggest that this study has provided the basis for future Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995, January). The structure
research on two types of models to assist suppliers in more of commitment in exchange. Journal of Marketing, 59, 7892.
effectively managing asymmetry in relationships with custo- Hkansson, H. (1987). Industrial technological development: a network approach.
London: Croom Helm.
mers. Firstly, the development of a relationship assessment
Hkansson, H., & Gadde, L. -E. (1992). Supplier relations, professional pur-
instrument to examine asymmetry and symmetry in suppliers chasing. London: Routledge.
relationships, and secondly, the development of a portfolio Hkansson, H., & Henders, B. (1992). International co-operative relationships in
model to assess the value of suppliers current relationships with technological development. In M. Forsgren & J. Johanson (Eds.), Managing
customers and allocate resources across their portfolio of rela- networks in international business, reading. Gordon and Breach.
tionships. These would be potentially powerful tools to assist Hkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business
networks. London: Thomson.
suppliers in managing different types of customer relationships Hkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1998). The burden of relationships or who's next?
and in enabling them to choose relationship paths based on the In P. Naud & P. W. Turnbull (Eds.), Network dynamics in international
levels of asymmetry and strategic importance of each customer marketing. Oxford: Elsevier.
relationship. Halinen, A. (1994) Exchange relationships in professional services. A study of
relationship development in the advertising sector, PhD Thesis, Turku
School of Economics and Business Administration, Finland.
References Harrison, D. (2004). Is a long-term business relationship an implied contract?
Two views of relationship disentanglement. Journal of Management Studies,
Alajoutsijrvi, K., Mller, K., & Rosenbrijer, C. -J. (1999). Relevance of focal 41(1), 107125.
nets in understanding the dynamics of business relationships. Journal of Holmlund, M. (2004). Analyzing business relationships and distinguishing
Business-to-Business Marketing, 6(3), 335. different interaction levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4),
Anderson, J. C., Hkansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1994, October). Dyadic business 279287.
relationships within a business network context. Journal of Marketing, 58, Holmlund, M., & Kock, S. (1996). Buyer dominated relationships in a supply
115. chain A case study of four small-sized suppliers. International Small
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Business Journal, 33(1), 2641.
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition in business networks: To Johnsen, R. E., & Johnsen, T. E. (1999). International market development
cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, through networks: The case of the Ayrshire Knitwear sector. International
29(5), 411426. Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5(6), 297312.
Blomqvist, K., (2002) Partnering in the dynamic environment: The role of trust Lorenzoni, G., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). Creating a strategic centre to manage
in asymmetric technology partnership formation, Lappeenranta University a web of partners. California Management Review, 37(3), 146163.
of Technology, Finland, published PhD thesis. Marrett, C. B. (1971). On the specification of interorganisational dimensions.
Chen, H., & Chen, T. -J. (2002). Asymmetric strategic alliances: A network Sociology and Social Research, 56, 8399.
view. Journal of Business Research, 55(12), 10071013. Lynch, J., & de Chernatony, L. (2004). The power of emotion: brand com-
Cousins, P. D. (2002). A conceptual model for managing long-term inter- munication in business-to-business markets. Journal of Brand Management,
organisational relationships. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply 11(5), 403419.
Management, 8, 7182. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook
Dwyer, R. F., Shurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987, April). Developing buyerseller of new methods. Newbury Parl: Sage.
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 1127. Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (Eds.). (1981). Human inquiry: a sourcebook of new
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy paradigm research. Chichester: John Wiley.
of Management Review, 14(4), 532550. Sllner, A. (1998). Opportunistic behaviour in asymmetrical relationships. In
Ford, D., Hkansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1986). How do companies interact? H. -G. Gemnden, T. Ritter, & A. Walter (Eds.), Relationships and net-
Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 1(1), 2641. works in international markets. Oxford: Elsevier.
Ford, D., & Rosson, P. J. (1982). The relationships between export manufacturers Vaaland, T., & Hkansson, H. (2003). Exploring interorganizational conflict in
and their overseas distributors. In D. Ford, P. Rosson, M. Czinkota, & complex projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(2), 127138.
G. Tesar (Eds.), Export management. New York: Praeger. Wilson, D. T. (1995). An integrated model of buyerseller relationships.
Ford, D., Gadde, L. -E., Hkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2003). Managing Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 335345.
business relationships. Chichester: John Wiley. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage.

Você também pode gostar