• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.110-122
• /
• 2010

The emergence of the field of organizational buying behavior in the mid-1960’s with the publication of Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing (1967) set the stage for a new paradigm of thinking about how business was conducted in markets other than those serving ultimate consumers. Whether it is "industrial marketing" or "business-to-business marketing" (B-to-B), organizational buying behavior remains the core differentiating characteristic of this domain of marketing. This paper explores the impact of several dynamic factors that have influenced how organizations relate to one another in a rapidly increasing interdependence, which in turn can impact organizational buying behavior. The paper also raises the question of whether or not the major conceptual models of organizational buying behavior in an interdependent world are still relevant to guide research and managerial thinking, in this dynamic business environment. The paper is structured to explore three questions related to organizational interdependencies: 1. What are the factors and trends driving the emergence of organizational interdependencies? 2. Will the major conceptual models of organizational buying behavior that have developed over the past half century be applicable in a world of interdependent organizations? 3. What are the implications of organizational interdependencies on the research and practice of organizational buying behavior? Consideration of the factors and trends driving organizational interdependencies revealed five critical drivers in the relationships among organizations that can impact their purchasing behavior: Accelerating Globalization, Flattening Networks of Organizations, Disrupting Value Chains, Intensifying Government Involvement, and Continuously Fragmenting Customer Needs. These five interlinked drivers of interdependency and their underlying technological advances can alter the relationships within and among organizations that buy products and services to remain competitive in their markets. Viewed in the context of a customer driven marketing strategy, these forces affect three levels of strategy development: (1) evolving customer needs, (2) the resulting product/service/solution offerings to meet these needs, and (3) the organization competencies and processes required to develop and implement the offerings to meet needs. The five drivers of interdependency among organizations do not necessarily operate independently in their impact on how organizations buy. They can interact with each other and become even more potent in their impact on organizational buying behavior. For example, accelerating globalization may influence the emergence of additional networks that further disrupt traditional value chain relationships, thereby changing how organizations purchase products and services. Increased government involvement in business operations in one country may increase costs of doing business and therefore drive firms to seek low cost sources in emerging markets in other countries. This can reduce employment opportunitiesn one country and increase them in another, further accelerating the pace of globalization. The second major question in the paper is what impact these drivers of interdependencies have had on the core conceptual models of organizational buying behavior. Consider the three enduring conceptual models developed in the Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing and Organizational Buying Behavior books: the organizational buying process, the buying center, and the buying situation. A review of these core models of organizational buying behavior, as originally conceptualized, shows they are still valid and not likely to change with the increasingly intense drivers of interdependency among organizations. What will change however is the way in which buyers and sellers interact under conditions of interdependency. For example, increased interdependencies can lead to increased opportunities for collaboration as well as conflict between buying and selling organizations, thereby changing aspects of the buying process. In addition, the importance of communication processes between and among organizations will increase as the role of trust becomes an important criterion for a successful buying relationship. The third question in the paper explored consequences and implications of these interdependencies on organizational buying behavior for practice and research. The following are considered in the paper: the need to increase understanding of network influences on organizational buying behavior, the need to increase understanding of the role of trust and value among organizational participants, the need to improve understanding of how to manage organizational buying in networked environments, the need to increase understanding of customer needs in the value network, and the need to increase understanding of the impact of emerging new business models on organizational buying behavior. In many ways, these needs deriving from increased organizational interdependencies are an extension of the conceptual tradition in organizational buying behavior. In 1977, Nicosia and Wind suggested a focus on inter-organizational over intra-organizational perspectives, a trend that has received considerable momentum since the 1990's. Likewise for managers to survive in an increasingly interdependent world, they will need to better understand the complexities of how organizations relate to one another. The transition from an inter-organizational to an interdependent perspective has begun, and must continue so as to develop an improved understanding of these important relationships. A shift to such an interdependent network perspective may require many academicians and practitioners to fundamentally challenge and change the mental models underlying their business and organizational buying behavior models. The focus can no longer be only on the dyadic relations of the buying organization and the selling organization but should involve all the related members of the network, including the network of customers, developers, and other suppliers and intermediaries. Consider for example the numerous partner networks initiated by SAP which involves over 9000 companies and over a million participants. This evolving, complex, and uncertain reality of interdependencies and dynamic networks requires reconsideration of how purchase decisions are made; as a result they should be the focus of the next phase of research and theory building among academics and the focus of practical models and experiments undertaken by practitioners. The hope is that such research will take place, not in the isolation of the ivory tower, nor in the confines of the business world, but rather, by increased collaboration of academics and practitioners. In conclusion, the consideration of increased interdependence among organizations revealed the continued relevance of the fundamental models of organizational buying behavior. However to increase the value of these models in an interdependent world, academics and practitioners should improve their understanding of (1) network influences, (2) how to better manage these influences, (3) the role of trust and value among organizational participants, (4) the evolution of customer needs in the value network, and (5) the impact of emerging new business models on organizational buying behavior. To accomplish this, greater collaboration between industry and academia is needed to advance our understanding of organizational buying behavior in an interdependent world.

• Journal of Distribution Research
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.55-80
• /
• 2012

I. Introduction Developing the relationships between companies is very important issue to ensure a competitive advantage in today's business environment (Bleeke & Ernst 1991; Mohr & Spekman 1994; Powell 1990). Partnerships between companies are based on having same goals, pursuing mutual understanding, and having a professional level of interdependence. By having such a partnerships and cooperative efforts between companies, they will achieve efficiency and effectiveness of their business (Mohr and Spekman, 1994). However, it is difficult to expect these ideal results only in the B2B corporate transaction. According to agency theory which is the well-accepted theory in various fields of business strategy, organization, and marketing, the two independent companies have fundamentally different corporate purposes. Also there is a higher chance of developing opportunism and conflict due to natures of human(organization), such as self-interest, bounded rationality, risk aversion, and environment factor as imbalance of information (Eisenhardt 1989). That is, especially partnerships between principal(or buyer) and agent(or supplier) of companies within supply chain, the business contract itself will not provide competitive advantage. But managing partnership between companies is the key to success. Therefore, managing partnership between manufacturer and supplier, and finding causes of conflict are essential to improve B2B performance. In conclusion, based on prior researches and Agency theory, this study will clarify how business hazards cause conflicts on supply chain and then identify how developed conflicts have been managed by two control mechanisms. II. Research model III. Method In order to validate our research model, this study gathered questionnaires from small and medium sized enterprises(SMEs). In Korea, SMEs mean the firms whose employee is under 300 and capital is under 8 billion won(about 7.2 million dollar). We asked the manufacturer's perception about the relationship with the biggest supplier, and our key informants are denied to a person responsible for buying(ex)CEO, executives, managers of purchasing department, and so on). In detail, we contact by telephone to our initial sample(about 1,200 firms) and introduce our research motivation and send our questionnaires by e-mail, mail, and direct survey. Finally we received 361 data and eliminate 32 inappropriate questionnaires. We use 329 manufactures' data on analysis. The purpose of this study is to identify the anticipant role of business hazard (environmental dynamism, asset specificity) and investigate the moderating effect of control mechanism(formal control, social control) on conflict-performance relationship. To find out moderating effect of control methods, we need to compare the regression weight between low versus. high group(about level of exercised control methods). Therefore we choose the structural equation modeling method that is proper to do multi-group analysis. The data analysis is performed by AMOS 17.0 software, and model fits are good statically (CMIN/DF=1.982, p<.000, CFI=.936, IFI=.937, RMSEA=.056). IV. Result V. Discussion Results show that the higher environmental dynamism and asset specificity(on particular supplier) buyer(manufacturer) has, the more B2B conflict exists. And this conflict affect relationship quality and financial outcomes negatively. In addition, social control and formal control could weaken the negative effect of conflict on relationship quality significantly. However, unlikely to assure conflict resolution effect of control mechanisms on relationship quality, financial outcomes are changed by neither social control nor formal control. We could explain this results with the characteristics of our sample, SMEs(Small and Medium sized Enterprises). Financial outcomes of these SMEs(manufacturer or principal) are affected by their customer(usually major company) more easily than their supplier(or agent). And, in recent few years, most of companies have suffered from financial problems because of global economic recession. It means that it is hard to evaluate the contribution of supplier(agent). Therefore we also support the suggestion of Gladstein(1984), Poppo & Zenger(2002) that relational performance variable can capture the focal outcomes of relationship(exchange) better than financial performance variable. This study has some implications that it tests the sources of conflict and investigates the effect of resolution methods of B2B conflict empirically. And, especially, it finds out the significant moderating effect of formal control which past B2B management studies have ignored in Korea.