- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
Prior research advocates a positive, linear association between relationship investments and relationship performance. Our study challenges this conventional wisdom and advances the extant literature by investigating the potential curvilinear effects of suppliers' different relationship marketing programs (i.e., social, financial, and structural) on dyadic perceptions of relationship value. From an analysis of 113 buyer-supplier dyads, we found that social programs enhance relationship value synergy, but their effect on relationship value asymmetry between suppliers and buyers follows a U-shaped curve. On the other hand, we observe a positive and increasing returns-to-scale effect of financial programs on relationship value synergy and its inverted U-shaped association with supplier's relationship value asymmetry. Interestingly, structural programs increase relationship value synergy and have a stronger effect on increasing relationship value for the supplier than for the buyer. In addition, we find that structural programs are more effective in creating value in long-term relationships than in short-term relationships; therefore, as the relationship with a buying firm ages, managers should consider investing more in structural programs to develop their relationship. However, in long-term relationships, managers should avoid investing too much in financial programs because financial programs are less effective in increasing creation of relationship value as a relationship ages.
This study reveals several important theoretical implications. First, it contributes to the literature on business relationships by highlighting the curvilinear effects of supplier's relationship marketing programs. Although most previous studies found positive linear effects of relationship investments on performance (Ganesan, 1994; Palmatier, Dant, et al., 2006), this study finds curvilinear effects of social programs and financial programs on value asymmetry. These ambivalent effects of relationship investments support the argument of Anderson and Jap (2005) that “the very factors that make partnerships with customers or suppliers beneficial can leave those relationships vulnerable to deterioration” (p.75). To develop close relationships, buyers and suppliers are often unable to expand the size of the benefit “pie” unless they make unique investments, such as relationship marketing programs, to support the relationship. Our study confirms that these investments in financial programs indeed help to expand the relationship value “pie”; however, they also become the doorway through which relationships become vulnerable to deterioration (Anderson & Jap, 2005) when they give rise to relationship value for the invested-in party, the buyer, at the expense of relationship value for the investing party, the supplier. Second, this study extends the relationship value literature by considering both RVS and its distribution in the dyad. While previous studies focus only on how relationship marketing programs can create value (Palmatier, Gopalakrishna, and Houston, 2006), this study makes an important implication that bilateral perspectives on relationship value presents a more complete and comparative view of relationship value perceptions than a unilateral perspective (Corsaro & Snehota, 2010). Relationship marketing programs can increase value creation and simultaneously contribute to asymmetry in relationship value distributed to suppliers and buyers. This implication underscores the need for relationship value research to pay more attention to how relationship marketing efforts affect both value creation and its distribution.