The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.

htm

MIP 27,1

Assessing relationship quality in four business-to-business markets

Bahar Ashnai
Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

86
Received July 2008 Revised September 2008 Accepted October 2008

Maria Smirnova and Sergei Kouchtch

St Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia

Qionglei Yu
Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, Peoples Republic of China and Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

Bradley R. Barnes
Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK, and

Peter Naude
Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding of what constitutes relationship quality in four different countries. The paper shows which attributes are important in assessing relationship quality and how they vary in importance among countries. Design/methodology/approach Conjoint analysis was used to derive how managers trade-off different attributes of relationship quality. These attributes were: the levels of trust in the relationship, the understanding of each others needs, the integration of systems between the two companies, the use or abuse of power, and the prot resulting from the interactions. Cluster analysis was used to classify the respondents in order to check if the overall results were indicative of a general consensus among the managers concerned, or alternatively if there were different perspectives on what constituted good quality relationship. Findings Whilst the routes to develop relationships may vary between different countries, the attributes which make up relationships are also likely to be valued differently in various places around the world. Research limitations/implications Conjoint analysis questions are difcult to answer; making it difcult to have large sample sizes. However, further studies should try to consider increasing the sample size. Practical implications The paper shows that there are indeed differences between what it is that managers seek from the relationships that they have to manage: but while noting certain national traits that seem to dominate within particular cultures, there is still variance in the individual datasets, pointing to the fact that managers have to manage their portfolio of relationships in an individual way. Originality/value This is the rst study that compares the importance of relationship quality within and between four counties. Keywords Business-to-business marketing, Cluster analysis, Iran, Russia, China, United Kingdom Paper type Research paper

Marketing Intelligence & Planning Vol. 27 No. 1, 2009 pp. 86-102 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-4503 DOI 10.1108/02634500910928353

Introduction The successful management of business relationships is an issue of debate among practitioners and academics alike. Improving relationship quality is clearly an important issue for rms. But on an international scale it is probably more so, as companies increasingly seek to engage in global trade. Research in the area of relationship quality has largely tended to focus on data from developed economies such as the USA and Europe (Leonidou and Kaleka, 1998), and very little work has been undertaken to address such issues in developing countries. This investigation responds to the call from academics for further research on market relationships to consider different international settings and cultures (Ambler and Styles, 2000). Furthermore, whilst the routes to develop relationships may vary between different countries, the attributes which make up relationships are also likely to be valued differently in various places around the world (Buttery and Wong, 1999). This paper focuses on developing our understanding of what constitutes relationship quality in three large and developing economies, and comparing these with a developed economy, represented by the UK. The research thus has an exploratory nature, trying to identify the key dimensions of relationship quality. It attempts to understand which attributes are important in assessing relationship quality and how they may vary in importance among countries. Specically, we seek to examine how English, Iranian, Russian and Chinese managers trade-off different attributes of relationship quality, and explore the variation within and between the samples. Through replicating an earlier study on relationship quality (Naude and Buttle, 2000) it is possible to shed further light on how relationship attributes may vary in importance between Iran, Russia, and China when compared within themselves and with the UK market. This makes a positive contribution to knowledge and enhances understanding among academics and practitioners alike. As a result, it is perceived that the research ndings will make a contribution to the relationship quality literature, and will provide useful insights for academics, governmental policy makers, and international managers that seek to understand more in the quest to develop or improve the quality of business relationships with business partners in the three markets explored in the research. The countries selected for the analysis represent three fast developing economies Iran, China and Russia, compared with the UK as an example of a developed economy. Being internationally oriented, all of the developing economies are experiencing high-economic growth. Their dynamic environment proposes certain implications for understanding how relationship quality is formed and assessed by the local companies. The UK economy, in turn, provides a relatively stable context to study business relationships, and represents a good basis for further investigation. The paper rst reviews the pertinent literature in order to provide further understanding regarding the dimensions of relationship quality, and particularly those used in the primary research process. Second, the research approach and methodology are described. Third, aggregated and comparative data are presented in a ndings/results section. Finally, the conclusion provides an overview of the research and outlines several managerial implications. Relationship quality Understanding business relationships lies at the heart of understanding business marketing (Hakansson, 1982; Ford et al., 2006). Building and maintaining relationships

Assessing relationship quality 87

MIP 27,1

88

can have signicant long-term implications, and therefore affect the strategic and long-term planning of any rms marketing activities (Gummesson, 1987). In congruence with Smith (1998), it refers to the association of the strength of a relationship and the extent to which it meets the needs or expectations of parties based on a history of successful or unsuccessful events (Trang et al., 2005). Because no common consensus exists regarding which dimensions constitute relationship quality, an important question arises from a managing practitioners perspective as to which attributes are likely to improve the quality of a business relationship (Dorsch et al., 1998; Walter et al., 2003). This question is amplied when adding the international dimension, and considering buyer-seller relationships in different countries. Whilst there has been some debate on this subject, research tends to accept that relationship quality can best be conceptualised as a higher-order construct consisting of distinct, yet related dimensions (Crosby et al., 1990; Leonidou et al., 2006) and these can be considered as an overall assessment of the strength or success of a particular relationship (de Wulf et al., 2001; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Smith, 1998; Mohr and Spekman, 1994). Research investigations have outlined several major constructs of relationship quality. Trust, satisfaction, commitment, coordination, communication, joint problem solving, bonds, goal congruence, investments, prot and power have all been highlighted in various different contextual research (Crosby et al., 1990; Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Storbacka et al., 1994; Wilson and Jantrania, 1995; Naude and Buttle, 2000). In congruence with the work of Naude and Buttle which was developed in an industrial context, their framework was judged to be most suited for this investigation, with their various dimensions described below. Trust Trust has been embraced in business marketing as a fundamental cornerstone of co-operation. It is a necessary requirement and determinant of sound business relationships (Hakansson et al., 2004). Business relationships depend on a variety of important interactions based on inter-personal trust (Hakansson and Ford, 2002). Christy et al. (1996) and Palmer (1996) have both suggested that establishing a marketing relationship will depend upon obtaining an adequate level of trust, and this forms a pre-requisite for business exchange to occur. According to Schurr and Ozanne (1985), it represents the belief that a partys word or promise is reliable, and they will fulll their obligations to an exchange relationship (Schurr and Ozanne, 1985). Wilson and Jantrania (1995) claims that trust is a fundamental relationship model building block, and as a result is included in most relationship models. Mouzas et al. (2007) and Seppanen et al. (2007) in providing recent reviews on the trust literature, suggest that researchers in inter-organizational relationships have consistently argued that mutual trust is an essential factor for building relationship quality. Satisfaction/understanding needs Satisfaction is a positive affective state resulting from the appraisal of all aspects of a working relationship in relation to the alternatives available (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Specically, Wilson and Jantrania (1995) denes satisfaction in terms of performance and the degree to which business dealings meet the expectations of the partner. Relationship quality contributes to a lasting bond by offering assurance that the salesperson will

continue to meet the customers expectations (Crosby et al., 1990). Wilson and Jantrania (1995) introduce satisfaction as a factor affecting relationship success. Needs fulllment, and the understanding of needs, is used here as an attribute of relationship quality and is intrinsically similar to satisfaction (Naude and Buttle, 2000). Coordination/supply chain integration Coordination reects the set of tasks each party expects the other to perform (Mohr and Spekman, 1994). Successful partnerships are marked by coordinated actions directed at mutual objectives that are consistent across organizations (Narus and Anderson, 1987). Supply chain integration is introduced here as an attribute of relationship quality, which is similar to coordination (Naude and Buttle, 2000). The development of co-manufacturing for example calls for a complex set of investments in technologies and people that are built and acquired from numerous sources over time (Ettlie and Ward, 1997). Such a system provides a highly differential value, which is sustainable because it is valued by buyers and sellers alike and is difcult to replicate by competitors. Interactive technologies, including electronic data interchange can result in better co-ordination among relational parties (Day, 2000). Wilson and Vlosky (1998) suggest that the advent of such co-ordination in a relationship may actively contribute to strengthening a relationship. Power Cho and Chu (1994) argue that numerous studies have been conducted on the issue of power in marketing channels. Dabholkar and Neeley (1998) posit that there are two conditions related to this dimension. Balanced power, where the exchange parties are somewhat equal in power, and unbalanced power, where one party holds the upper-hand. Hanmer-Lloyd (1996) claims that power is one of the key factors that predicts how a relationship can evolve. The degree of power that each member has and uses inuences how a relationship develops. Anderson and Narus (1984) dene power as the ability to affect the outcome regarding the other party in the relationship. Often within industrial relationships, the balance of power can vary and is dependent on a particular situation (Takala and Uusitalo, 1996). Despite this, research examining mutual power within buyer-seller relationships is scant (Kutschker, 1985). Relationships are seldom symmetrical (Gronroos, 1994) and one party often exerts inuence (Blois, 1996). Whereas buyer power is often high in industrial markets, suppliers too can also exercise power over some customers (Turnbull and Valla, 1986). Whilst Frazier and Antia (1995) suggest that power is not limited to asymmetric relationships, they also feel it can be useful for promoting collaborative arrangements. Considering the extent to which power is equally shared between the two parties is perceived to be vital in assessing the quality of business relationships. Prot In order to assess relationship quality Naude and Buttle (2000) emphasise screening the extent to which the relationship yields protable outcomes for the companies involved in the relationship. Shoham and Kropp (1998) suggest that performance can be measured objectively in terms of nancial data, and subjectively via the

Assessing relationship quality 89

MIP 27,1

90

extent of satisfaction. According to Katsikeas et al. (2000) the pertinent literature outlines three dimensions of performance, which are dened as: . effectiveness the extent to which organisational goals are achieved; . efciency, the ratio of performance outcomes to the inputs required to achieve them; and . adaptiveness, the organisations ability to respond to environmental changes. The extent to which the relationship yields protable rewards is perceived here to represent an important attribute from which the quality of a given relationship may depend. The selected key attributes of relationship quality underline the objectives of the empirical study, aiming to investigate existing differences in perception of the attributes depending on research context. Implied variation in perception of relationship quality can be linked to both cultural and economic country contexts, leading to changes in relative importance of the relationship quality attributes when comparing selected countries. We also explore whether there are fewer differences in perception of relationship quality attributes within the group of developing markets and more differences between the developed and developing countries or not. Research approach and methodology In this study, we tried to develop a deeper understanding of relationship quality and elaborate how the constituent attributes of relationship quality might vary in importance, and how they may vary between countries. In order to draw meaningful and valid comparisons, the following ve attributes were taken, which were previously found to signicantly contribute to inter-rm relationship quality. These were the levels of trust in the relationship, the understanding of each others needs, the integration of systems between the two companies, the use or abuse of power, and the prot resulting from the interactions. The ndings presented use conjoint analysis, coupled with cluster analysis to identify groups of managers that show similar traits in terms of their perceptions of relationship quality. The English, Iranian, Russian and Chinese clusters are compared, and as a result it is believed that our overall ndings will add to the earlier research presented in the area to provide an incremental contribution that will be valued by members of both the academic and practitioner communities. In the design of the research instrument, full prole descriptions were used, and each of the ve attributes specied at three different levels (essentially better than, the same, or worse than a current relationship). Through the use of factorial design, 15 different combinations of these ve different attributes were identied for inclusion in the questionnaire (Naude and Buttle, 2000). The questionnaires were translated in the local languages and tested by the experts for understanding of description of key relationship quality dimensions used to guide the respondents before lling in the questionnaire. Key informants, responsible for managing buyer or seller relationships, were asked to consider a specic (ideally long-term) supply chain relationship of which they had experience and knowledge. In all the countries judgemental samples were used, built by contacting middle and senior executives of rms from various industries. In some cases this was made by involving senior participants of executive MBA programs (Iran, UK, China) or else by extending research being done with executives of

rms (Russia). In most of the cases there was a single respondent from each company, except the case of an Iranian petrochemical company, where nine respondents were involved in the study. The sampling method is regarded as appropriate considering the exploratory nature of the study aimed to provide additional insights on understanding of relationship quality through selected dimensions in comparison of four national subsamples. The UK sample consisted of a group of 40 middle to senior executives with the average age across the sample of 33 years. The respondents had been with their current companies for the average of six years, while the average length of the relationship under consideration was 14 years. The key industries included industrial services, raw materials and manufacturing companies. After collecting 55 complete questionnaires from Iranian managers, seven responses were excluded which had low-reliability criteria, leaving 48 usable questionnaires. The rms represented various industries such as manufacturing, logistics, oil and gas, as well as services, including IT and telecommunication. The average age across the Iranian respondent managers was 36 years. The managers had been with their current companies for an average of eight years and the average length of the relationship under consideration was eight years. In total, 41 questionnaires were collected from Russian managers, of which four did not have acceptable reliability criteria. After eliminating them, the 37 remaining responses were used for further analysis. These rms represented industries such as light machinery, food production, metal fabrication, construction materials, packaging, and construction. The average age of the respondents was 40 years. The managers had been with their current companies for an average of ve years, and the average length of the business relationship under consideration was around ve-and-a-half-years (with the range from one to 30 years). In total, 50 completed questionnaires were obtained from Chinese managers. After calculating the reliability criteria, 13 questionnaires were eliminated and analysis undertaken on 37 responses. These responses were from managers operating in a range of industries including electronics, electricity generation, IT, chemical industries, banking, textiles, telecommunication, pharmaceutical manufacturing and services. The average age among this sample was 34 years. The managers had been with their current companies for an average of seven-and-a half-years, and the mean length of the relationship under consideration was marginally less than eight years. Findings Among qualication techniques that exist for measuring attribute or construct importance is conjoint analysis. This represents one of the best approaches to understand how such trade-offs are made. The approach is tried and tested and has been frequently used in industrial marketing (Auty, 1995; Nairn et al., 2004). The overall results of the combined data are shown in Table I. It is immediately apparent from this table that there are both similarities, yet also large differences in perceptions between the three datasets. While all three sets of managers agree that prot is the most important attribute, it is overwhelmingly so in the case of the Russian managers. This is so much the case that no other Russian attribute has an average weight above 15 percent, thereby somewhat distorting the analysis.

Assessing relationship quality 91

MIP 27,1

92

The data were then subjected to a further cluster analysis within each sample, the output of which is not shown for reasons of space, but the results of which are summarised in Table II. In this table the cluster analysis results are shown for each countrys sample. Cluster analysis was used to classify the respondents in order to check if the overall results were indicative of a general consensus among the managers concerned, or alternatively if there were different perspectives on what constituted good quality relationship. The highest variety of clusters can be found in the samples of Iranian and Chinese managers which have created a larger number of clusters, quite different in their perceptions about the importance of the relationship quality attributes. They show that although some general insights can be obtained from the majority of managers, there are likely to be some situations in which preferences vary signicantly from that majority. We can identify the clusters with dominance of each of relationship quality attributes in each country sample. The two leading attributes, as can also be seen from Figure 1, are prot and trust, followed by needs and power. The least differentiating factor is the integration attribute. These differences can also be found by a more

Attribute Table I. Comparison between overall conjoint analysis results Importance (percent) Iran Russia China UK

Trust 20.4 13.0 26.7 29.6

Needs 13.2 14.4 14.3 20.1

Integration 12.3 10.5 12.3 12.8

Power 19.0 10.8 12.1 12.0

Prot 35.1 51.6 34.7 25.5

Cluster no. Iran 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4

No. of members 26 11 5 3 2 1 10 5 6 16 17 4 7 5 2 2 23 11 4 1

Trust 15.2 40.4 10.0 9.4 18.9 18.8 23.4 6.7 5.3 11.5 20.9 13.6 33.3 60.1 8.2 13.3 38.0 17.3 22.8 13.3

Needs 11.7 14.4 8.0 7.4 48.6 15.9 14.1 18.1 17.3 11.7 8.5 7.7 23.8 11.2 11.1 54.3 25.3 12.3 15.8 14.1

Integration 10.1 11.5 10.7 35.5 9.2 20.0 11.3 15.8 4.6 10.4 9.0 9.8 14.3 11.5 47.1 6.2 10.0 10.5 36.0 11.9

Power 18.8 8.3 46.5 21.1 13.2 25.9 11.5 20.8 8.9 8.0 9.6 39.5 10.4 4.6 12.7 2.7 8.9 13.9 15.8 44.4

Prot 44.3 25.4 24.7 26.5 10.2 19.5 39.7 38.7 64.0 58.4 52.1 29.4 18.3 12.7 20.8 23.4 17.9 46.0 9.7 16.3

Russia

China

Table II. Conjoint analysis per cluster Iranian, Russian, Chinese, and English managers

UK

60 Iran Russia China UK

50

Assessing relationship quality 93

40

30

20

10

0 Trust Needs Integration Power Profit

Figure 1. The importance of the attributes for Iranian, Russian, Chinese and English managers

detailed analysis of the clusters. It is important to notice that the relative importance of attributes is taken into consideration, while the absolute value of importance measures is not possible. Being one of the key relationship attributes, trust was implied to represent one of the key differentiating factors for our national samples. In fact trust-oriented clusters are dened in all the samples, these are cluster 2 (Iran), cluster 4 (China), cluster 1 (UK) and cluster 1 (Russia). The role of trust for companies in Russian sample is though much lower than in other national samples; this can be seen by comparison of relative importance of this attribute. Understanding of needs and factors driving satisfaction of the partner in business-to-business relationships are the basis for the needs-oriented clusters are cluster 5 (Iran), cluster 6 (China). The Russian and English samples have revealed much lower importance of the needs attribute that is reected by its relative importance. The clusters oriented at coordination/supply chain integration can be found in Iranian (cluster 4), Chinese (cluster 5) and UK samples (cluster 3). Being the least contributing to differences between countries, this attribute still signies some variety within country samples. The power being thought to explain substantially the symmetry or asymmetry in business relationships in fact has not contributed signicantly to this differentiation (Figure 1), while the power-oriented clusters are presented in almost all the national samples (cluster 3, Iran; cluster 2, China; cluster 4, UK). At the same time, the Russian sample, where the role of power could be expected to be high, has not presented a cluster with relative dominance of this factor. The true differentiating factor has proved to be prot, the only relationship quality attribute that according to the description of the attribute is representing the most tangible component of analysis. The prot-oriented clusters can be found in absolutely all national samples, and this attribute is dominating over the other four relationship

MIP 27,1

94

quality dimensions, reecting more intangible features of business relationships. The highest importance of prot-orientation can be seen in cluster 1 (Iran), clusters 3 and 4 (Russia), cluster 1 (China) and cluster 2 (UK). At the same time, it is important to mention that Russia is the only one country in the sample where prot attribute dominates all the clusters, leading to serious decrease in relative importance of other intangible attributes of relationship quality. Finally, the within-country differences are graphically shown in Figure 1. In this gure the importance percentage of each attribute is shown for managers in Iran, Russia, China and UK. We can compare the importance of each attribute among different countries. The biggest variation is seen for prot; Russian managers have considered this attribute signicantly more important than managers of the other countries. Iran and China are almost the same regarding this attribute. After prot, trust has been perceived more differently. English managers have given the highest percentage of importance to this attribute. Russian managers have shown the least interest to this construct. Regarding understanding of each others needs, only English managers are different from the rest of the sample; they have considered this construct as an important attribute after trust and prot. But, the three developing countries managers have not given a relative importance to this construct. Finally, integration has received the most similar importance among the four countries. It has been considered as the least important attribute by all four samples. As shown by the graphic interpretation of results, there is the strongest difference between Russia and all the other national samples, rejecting our initial assumption about the similarity of developing markets against the developed market, represented by the UK in this study. The consequent prot-dominating orientation substantially exceeds that one of two compared markets Iran and China. The most common perception of relationship quality attributes can be found in case of coordination/supply chain integration attribute. According to the graphical results, the other national samples can be characterized by relative dominance of power (Iran), satisfaction/understanding needs (UK), trust (UK and China), and nally prot (Russia). Discussion and contribution Our results point to the diversity of what constitutes relationship quality, thereby introducing a discussion on what the drivers of these differences might be. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that prot is the most important attribute in adjudging the quality of a relationship across the three countries, accounting for 88 out of the 122 respondents in the three countries. However, this simplistic fact disguises the underlying complexity. From an inter-country perspective, the results do show some interesting diversity: the Russian managers are (very nearly) exclusively in clusters 1 and 2, and dominate the prot-above-all-else cluster 1. The Iranian sample dominates cluster 2, with the perspective that while prot is the most important dimension, managers still have to be cognisant of the importance of the other dimensions. Finally, the Chinese managers are the most diverse in their opinion, being almost equally represented in clusters 1, 2, and 5. This last group is interesting, putting trust as the dominant attribute. The English managers propose the most balanced approach across the national samples, while trying to balance the attributes and their perception. Nevertheless, even in the UK sample we nd clusters dominated by prot, trust, satisfaction/needs understanding or integration;

even power has been considered as the most signicant attribute by one English manager. We nd it useful to observe how divergent these results are from the original paper of Naude and Buttle (2000). In that research, carried out with respondents from the UK, it was found that the largest cluster was that which sought trust between the parties (similar to cluster 5 above, in which the Chinese managers represent the majority). The smallest cluster in that research proved to be the cluster that saw prot as the dominant attribute. The research therefore points to the fact that there are indeed differences between what it is that managers seek from the relationships that they have to manage: but while we can point to certain national traits that on the basis of our sample seem to dominate within particular cultures, there is still variance in the individual datasets pointing to the fact that managers still have to manage their portfolio of relationships in an individual way. Considering the relative role of tangible and intangible attributes in relationship quality perception, we may propose a two by two matrix, comparing national samples by tangible (primary measured by prot in our study) and intangible (summate measure for trust, needs, integration and power) attributes. Figure 2 shows the results of this analysis, revealing the strong differences between the national samples.
Intangible (indirect) attributes (IA)* IAmax 75.00 UK

Assessing relationship quality 95

70.00 China 65.00 Iran IA 60.00

55.00

50.00

Russia

IAmin 45.00 25.00 TAmin 30.00 35.00 40.00 TA 45.00 50.00 55.00 TAmax Tangible (direct) attributes (TA)** Notes: *Summate measure of intangible attributes, including trust, needs, integration and power; **tangible attributes measured as profit

Figure 2. The relationship quality perception map: comparison of four countries in relation to tangible/intangible attributes

MIP 27,1

96

The countries can be compared by being located between the minimum and maximum value for both tangible and intangible attributes, above or beneath the mean value (IAm and TAm). Surprisingly, three out of four countries are located in one eld of the matrix, signifying higher relative importance of intangible attributes and lower importance of prot as measure of tangible attributes, while Russia is the only one country being signicantly different in perception of relationship quality attributes. Expected similarity between the developing markets thus has not been proved, although we have found a very strong similarity between China and Iran, tting into group with high intangible and lower tangible attributes perception, and Russia, located at the maximum of tangible and relative minimum of intangible measures. The UK sample is representing the opposite to the Russian sample, being located at the maximum of intangible and minimum of tangible measures. This graphical demonstration of the differences revealed a basis for proposing a need for further studies on relationship value perception in various research contexts. On one hand, there is a reach variety among the clusters within the countries, but the overall comparison shows that there is mostly a trade-off between the tangible and intangible relationship quality drivers. In the case of UK sample, this choice is denitely made towards the intangible value drivers (Table I). Even cluster 2 in the UK sample, with prot attribute dominance, has a relatively high values in other attributes. The Russian sample shows another example of extreme dominance of prot-attribute and highly low perception of intangible quality drivers. Interestingly, two other developing markets in our sample Iran and China represent the highest variety in terms of attributes perception, and thus result in a similar position above the mean of intangible attributes measures and slightly below the tangible (prot-oriented) measure. This more central position is due to a higher diversity of relationship quality attributes perceptions within the national samples, leading though to a higher similarity between the countries. The simplicity of the approach, initially used by Naude and Buttle (2000) once again reveals the explanatory power in understanding relationship quality, while the comparative nature of the study has facilitated comparison of the national samples both across all the ve relationship quality attributes and integrated measures of tangible/intangible attributes. Discussing our results, it may be implied that a variety of contextual factors contribute to perception of relationship quality attributes. Market dynamism, cultural determinants of relationship features (as trust in China), and economic development are forcing companies to be more oriented to some attributes as is obviously the case of Russian managers in our study. It is a question then of how to approach the measurement and comparison of tangible and intangible attributes in order to obtain a more objective picture of relationship quality perceptions. It might be implied that eliminating the prot attribute from the questionnaire, would alter the location of the national samples on the relationship quality perception map would. But the prot-attribute in this case serves as a litmus test for identication and a clear presentation of substantial differences behind the national perceptions of relationship quality. The role of prot perception though can be discussed from both the cultural and institutional background of respondents. The strength of differences between the national samples in terms of assessing prot as a relationship attribute leads to research inquiry on understanding the drivers of these differences.

On the one hand, managing relationships in emerging economies tends to compensate for weak institutional support. Those rms with advantage in building and coordinating interaction along the value chain can obtain signicant advantages. On the other hand, relationships in developing markets can also be more opportunistic when aimed at quick adaptation to changing environments and switching to partners with higher protability of interaction. Such opportunistic approach is hard to implement successfully in developed and more stable economies. The differences between short- and long-term oriented market players are substantial in assessing the outcomes of interaction focused either on current outcomes (short-term oriented rms) or combination of current and future outcomes (long-term oriented rms). Another dimension contributing to understanding of the phenomenon of time orientation comes from cross-cultural differences among countries. The UK is an example of a country with short-term orientation, whereas China is very long-term oriented (Mooij, 2005). While studies do not present results on long-term orientation for Iran and Russia, it may be implied that Iran should have a tendency to long-term orientation, while Russian companies are extremely short-term oriented (Smirnova and Kouchtch, 2007). The revealed cultural and institutional factors propose an explanation for balanced results on perception of importance of relationship quality attributes analyzed in this study. The cultural dimension is partly supporting the results on Chinese and Iranian subsample, while the higher role of prot can still be explained through institutional factors of emerging economies. Finally, the extreme results of the Russian subsample provide evidence for both cultural and institutional assumptions. Research implications Understanding relationship quality cannot be fullled without understanding the research context, as shown by the results of the current study. The measurement of the relative importance of relationship quality attributes proposed a variety of research questions, concerning the drivers of relationship quality and selection of key research context factors which could contribute to how the perception of certain attributes is formed under their inuence. The cultural and institutional perspectives contributing to understanding on the differences revealed among national subsamples require though further research to support the ndings of this study. While being strongly inuenced by cultural and institutional features of certain country, our results show that the economic dimension has a signicant role in dening the prole of the country in terms of relationship quality understanding. At the same time, signicant variations within the national samples propose further research on national level, including qualitative studies towards investigation on the drivers and key factors in relationship quality perception. Practical implications It is not only when entering foreign markets that managers have to be fully aware of the drivers of relationship quality in different economies. The growth of companies in business-to-business markets is driven by a deep understanding of the motivation of business partners in a dual or a wider network of relationships that can be described by a number of attributes. As revealed by the empirical results of our study, the relative importance of these attributes can vary signicantly both within a country and

Assessing relationship quality 97

MIP 27,1

98

between countries, proposing various implications for business relationship development. The results of the cluster analysis reveal that there are rms in all the samples with both the balance between relationship quality drivers, and the misbalance towards short-term orientation towards prot. Based on the cultural and institutional context factors discussed above, we propose that future research investigates closely those factors inuencing the behaviour of partner rm, and assesses the potential drivers of short vs long-term orientations and priorities in dening relationship outcomes. The comparisons made in the paper can also be applied by analysing relationships within a relationship portfolio of a specic rm, contributing to understanding of the groups of partners and their relationship quality perceptions.

References Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (2000), The future of relational research in international marketing: constructs and conduits, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 492-503. Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1984), A model of the distributors perspective of distributor-manufacturer working relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, pp. 62-74. Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), A model of distributor rm and manufacturer rm working partnerships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 42-58. Auty, S. (1995), Using conjoint analysis in industrial marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 24, pp. 191-206. Blois, K.J. (1996), Relationship marketing in organizational markets: when is it appropriate?, Journal of Marketing Management., Vol. 12, pp. 161-73. Buttery, E.A. and Wong, Y.H. (1999), The development of a Guanxi framework, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 147-53. Cho, D.S. and Chu, W. (1994), Determinants of bargaining power in OEM negotiations, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 23, pp. 343-55. Christy, R., Oliver, G. and Penn, J. (1996), Relationship marketing in consumer markets, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 12 Nos 1/3, pp. 175-87. Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal inuence perspective, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 68-81. Dabholkar, P.A. and Neeley, S.M. (1998), Managing interdependency: a taxonomy for business-to-business relationships, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 439-61. Day, G.S. (2000), Managing market relationships, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, pp. 24-30. de Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), Investments in consumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 33-50. Dorsch, M.J., Swanson, S.R. and Kelley, S.W. (1998), The role of relationship quality in the stratication of vendors as perceived customers, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 128-42.

Ettlie, J. and Ward, P.T. (1997), US manufacturing in the early 1990s: the chase and challenge, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 53-9. Ford, D., Gadde, L-E., Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (2006), The Business Marketing Course, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Frazier, G.L. and Antia, K.D. (1995), Exchange relationships and interrm power in channels of distribution, Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, pp. 321-6. Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87. Gronroos, C. (1994), From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in marketing, Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 4-20. Gummesson, E. (1987), The new marketing; developing long-term interactive relationships, Long Range Planning, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 10-20. Hakansson, H. (Ed.) (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods: An Interaction Approach (by IMP Project Group), Wiley, New York, NY. Hakansson, H. and Ford, D. (2002), How should companies interact in business networks?, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 133-45. Hakansson, H., Harrison, D. and Waluszewski, A. (2004), Rethinking Marketing, Developing a New Understanding of Markets, Wiley, Chichester. Hanmer-Lloyd, S.A. (1996), Relationship appraisal: a route to improved reseller channel performance, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 25, pp. 173-85. Katsikeas, C.S., Leonidou, C.L. and Morgan, A.N. (2000), Firm-level export performance assessment: review, evaluation, and development, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 493-511. Kutschker, M. (1985), The multi-organizational interaction approach to industrial marketing, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 13, pp. 383-403. Leonidou, L.C. and Kaleka, A.A. (1998), Behavioural aspects of international buyer-seller relationships: their association with export involvement, International Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 373-97. Leonidou, L.C., Barnes, B.R. and Talias, M.A. (2006), Exporter-importer relationship quality: the inhibiting role of uncertainty, distance, and conict, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, pp. 576-88. Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conict resolution techniques, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-52. Mooij, M. (2005), Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 268. Mouzas, S., Henneberg, S. and Naude, P. (2007), Trust and reliance in business relationships, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 9/10, pp. 1016-32. Nairn, A., Ede, L. and Naude, P. (2004), The role of statistics in industrial marketing management: a strategic, operational and tactical tool kit, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 573-82. Narus, J.A. and Anderson, J.C. (1987), Distributor contributions to partnerships with manufacturers, Business Horizons, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 34-42. Naude, P. and Buttle, F. (2000), Assessing relationship quality, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 351-61.

Assessing relationship quality 99

MIP 27,1

100

Palmer, A.F. (1996), Relationship marketing: a universal paradigm or management fad, The Learning Organization, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 18-25. Schurr, P.H. and Ozanne, J.L. (1985), Inuences on exchange processes: buyers preconceptions of a sellers trustworthiness and bargaining toughness, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 939-53. Seppanen, R., Blomqvist, K. and Sundqvist, S. (2007), Measuring inter-organizational trust: a critical review of the empirical research in 1990-2003, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36, pp. 249-65. Shoham, A. and Kropp, F. (1998), Explaining international performance: marketing mix, planning and their interaction, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 114-23. Smith, B. (1998), Buyer-seller relationships: bonds, relationship management, and sex-type, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 76-92. Smirnova, M. and Kouchtch, S. (2007), Purchasing strategy and strategic thinking: opportunities and challenges, Proceedings. The Annual EMAC Conference, Rejkyavik. Storbacka, K., Strandvik, T. and Gronroos, C. (1994), Managing customer relationships for prot: the dynamics of relationship quality, International Journal of Services, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 21-38. Takala, T. and Uusitalo, O. (1996), An alternative view of relationship marketing: a framework for ethical analysis, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 45-60. Trang, N.T.M., Barrett, N.J. and Tho, N.D. (2005), Cultural sensitivity, information exchange, and relationship quality: the case of Vietnamese exporters and their Asian vs European importers, Proceedings of the IMP Conference. Turnbull, P.W. and Valla, J.P. (1986), The interaction approach to marketing strategy: an introduction, in Turnbull, P.W. and Valla, J.P. (Eds), Strategies for International Industrial Marketing, Croom Helm, London. Walter, A., Muller, T.A., Helfert, G. and Ritter, T. (2003), Functions of industrial supplier relationships and their impact on relationship quality, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 159-69. Wilson, D.T. and Jantrania, S. (1995), Understanding the value of a relationship, Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 55-66. Wilson, D.T. and Vlosky, R.P. (1998), Inter-organizational information system technology and buyer-seller relationships, The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 215-34.

Further reading Carruthers, N. (1996), Principal-agent relationships, in Buttle, F. (Ed.), Relationship Marketing: Theory and Practice, Paul Chapman, London, pp. 29-39. Foster, K.R. and Kharazi, A. (2008), Contrarian and momentum returns on Irans Tehran stock exchange, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 16-30. Gomez-Aria, J.T. (1996), A relationship marketing approach to Guanxi, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 1/2, pp. 145-53. Grifth, D.A. (2002), The role of communication competencies in international business relationship development, Journal of World Business, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 256-65.

Hallen, L. and Johanson, M. (2004), Integration of relationships and business network development on the Russian transition economy, International Marketing Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 158-71. Lee, D.J., Pae, J.H. and Wong, Y.H. (2001), A model of close business relationships in China (Guanxi), European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 1/2, pp. 51-62. Lee, D.Y. (2001), Power, conict, and satisfaction in IJV supplier-Chinese distributor channels, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, pp. 149-60. Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D.F. (2003), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, Prentice-Hall, Harlow. Marossi, A. (2006), Iran is knocking at the world trade organization door: Irans economy and the world economy-challenges and opportunities, Journal of World Trade, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 167-85. Michailova, S. and Husted, K. (2003), Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russia rms, California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 59-77. Morgan, E.J., Naude, P. and Baxter, A. (2002), Assessing the adoption of business-to-business e-commerce: a judgemental modelling approach, paper presented at Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Conference. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, A.D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38. Pearce, J.A. and Robinson, R.B. (2000), Cultivating Guanxi as a foreign investor strategy, Business Horizons, January/February, pp. 31-8. Poole, W. (2006), Chinese growth: a source of US export opportunities, Review Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, Vol. 88 No. 6, pp. 471-83. Porter, M.E., Schwab, K., Lopez-Claros, A. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (2006), The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007, paper presented at World Economic Forum. Stoltenberg, C.D. (2003), Doing business in China: culture and practice, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 245-51. Su, C. and Littleeld, J.E. (2001), Entering Guanxi: a business ethical dilemma in mainland China?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 199-210. Wilson, D.T. and Mummalaneni, V. (1986), Bonding and commitment in supplier relationships: a preliminary conceptualisation, Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 44-58. World Bank (2006), World Development Indicators, World Bank, Washington, DC, July 1. Yau, O.H.M., Lee, J.S.Y., Chow, R.P.M., Sin, L.Y.M. and Tse, A.C.B. (2000), Relationship marketing the Chinese way, Business Horizons, January/February, pp. 16-24. About the authors Bahar Ashnai is a Research Assistant and PhD student at Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. Her research interests are industrial marketing, business relationships, and quantitative methods in marketing. Maria Smirnova is a Senior Lecturer at Graduate School of Management, Saint Petersburg State University, Her research interests include industrial marketing, relationship and interaction in business markets, international marketing and quantitative methods. Maria Smirnova is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: smirnova@gsom.pu.ru Sergei Kouchtch is an Associate Professor at Graduate School of Management, Saint Petersburg State University. His research interests are industrial marketing, coordination of business relationships and interaction in business markets.

Assessing relationship quality 101

MIP 27,1

102

Qionglei Yu currently is a research student and Lecturer at Kent Business School, University of Kent, England. Her research interests embrace business relationships, international business, internal marketing in China. Bradley R. Barnes is a Professor of International Management at Kent Business School, University of Kent, England. His research interests include area of industrial relationships, international buyer-seller relationships, business relationships in China, and studying the Chinese notion of guanxi. Peter Naude is a Professor of Marketing at Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. His area of interest is industrial marketing and is closely associated with the research themes of the IMP Group. He and his colleagues hosted the 23rd Annual IMP Conference at MBS in 2007.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.