Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior, and...

Characteristics of Partnership Success Partnership Attributes CommunicationBehavior and Conflict Resolution Techniques

Jakki Mohr Robert Spekman

Strategic Management Journal Vol 15 No 2 (Feb 1994) pp 135-152

Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0143-20952819940229153A23C1353ACOPSPA3E20CO3B2-H

Strategic Management Journal is currently published by John Wiley amp Sons

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use available athttpwwwjstororgabouttermshtml JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use provides in part that unless you have obtainedprior permission you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal non-commercial use

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work Publisher contact information may be obtained athttpwwwjstororgjournalsjwileyhtml

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world The Archive is supported by libraries scholarly societies publishersand foundations It is an initiative of JSTOR a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology For more information regarding JSTOR please contact supportjstororg

httpwwwjstororgFri Sep 7 155346 2007

Strategic Management Journal Vol 15 135-152 (1994)

CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS PARTNERSHIP ATTRIBUTES COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

- TECHNIQUES JAKKl MOHR College of Business and Administration University of Colorado Boulder Colorado USA

ROBERT SPEKMAM Darden Graduate School of Business Administration University of Virginia Charlottesville Virginia USA

The formation of partnerships between firms is becoming an increasingly common way for firms to find and maintain competitive advantage While the antecedents of partnership formation and the characteristics of the resulting cooperative working relationship have been explored in the literature an understanding of characteristics associated with partnership success is lacking Such an understanding is important in reconciling the prescriptions to form partnerships with the reality that a majority of such partnerships do not succeed We hypothesize that partnership attributes communication behavior and conflict resolution techniques are related to indicators of partnership success (satisfaction and sales volume in the relationship) The hypotheses are tested with vertical partnerships between manufacturers and dealers Results indicate that the primary characteristics of partnership success are partnership attributes of commitment coordination and trust communication quality and participation and the conflict resolution technique of joint problem solving The findings offer insight into how to better manage these relationships to ensure success

PURPOSE

To begin partnerships are defined as purposive strategic relationships between independent firms who share compatible goals strive for mutual benefit and acknowledge a high level of mutual interdependence They join efforts to achieve goals that each firm acting alone could not attain easily The formation of these alliances and partnerships is motivated primarily to gain competitive advantage in the marketplace (Bleeke

Key words Strategic partnership success communication

CCC 0143-20951941020135-18 01994 by John Wiley amp Sons Ltd

and Ernst 1991 Powell 1990) Partnerships can afford a firm access to new technologies or markets the ability to provide a wider range of productsservices economies of scale in joint research andlor production access to knowledge beyond the firms boundaries sharing of risks and access to complementary skills (Powell 1987 71) However prescriptions for the formation of such partnerships often overlook the drawbacks1 hazards of such relationships For example increasing complexity loss of autonomy and information asymmetry (Provan 1984 William- son 1975) may accompany partnering relationships

Although the number of attempted partnerships

Received 31 July 1991 Final revision received 2 June 1993

has grown almost geometrically in recent years the rates of success are rather low (Harrigan 1988 Kanter 1988 Levine and Byrne 1986) In fact while the formation of partnering relationships is often viewed as a panacea for an individual firms competitive woes the prescrip- tion to form an alliance to gain competitive advantage overlooks the fact that many strategic partnerships do not succeed Unfortunately the academic literature has been slow to embrace this important managerial concern (ie Day and Klein 1987) and little guidance has emerged on how to better ensure partnership success Knowledge of factors that are associated with partnership success could aid in the selection of partners as well as in the on-going management of the partnership

The purpose of this paper then is to address the characteristics of partnerships that are associated with its success First we provide a brief overview of the literature on strategic alliances Then we build a model of partnership success We empirically test our model in the context of vertical partnerships in the computer industry Finally conclusions for managers and researchers are discussed

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on strategic alliances has posited theories addressing the reasons why firms enter into closer business relationships For example transactions costs analysis (Williamson 1975 1985) competitive strategy (ie Porter 1980) resource dependence (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978 Tnompson 1967) political economy (Benson 1975 Stern and Reve 1980) and social exchange theory (eg Anderson and Narus 1984) each make predictions about when partnerships will be formed Implicit in this research is the assumption that when used under the appropriate circumstances and environmental conditions partnerships will be successful Yet as mentioned previously a large percentage of these strategic partnerships do not succeed (eg Harrigan 1985 1988) Given this inconsistency one must question what factors are associated with partnership success

Developing a model of partnership success begs the question of what partnership success means Although success in strategic partnerships

might be viewed as a function of continuation (eg Harrigan 1988) relationship longevity (vs dissolution) may not accurately capture partnership success-some partnerships arc pur- posively dissolved after a period of time (Hamel Doz and Prahalad 1989) Ilm our model we use two indicators of partnership success an objective indicator (sales volume flowing between dyadic partners) and an affective measure (satisfactiom of one party with the other)

The objective indicator grows from the belief that strategic partnerships are formed to achieve a set of goals (eg to enhance a companys competitive position) The attainment of such goals can provide one indicator of relationship success For example in a partnership between firms in a distribution channel (eg Johnston and Lawrence 1988 Narus and Anderson 1987) manufacturers form partnerships with downstream channel members for a variety of reasons including the ability to increase local market penetration Manufacturers worlting in concert with these channel partners are able to provide better service to customers thereby increasing their sales base in a particular geo- graphic region

The affective indicator (satisfaction) is based on the notion that success is determined in part by how well the partnership achieves the performance expectations set by the partners (eg Anderson and Narus 1990) A partnership which generates satisfaction exists when performance expectations have been achieved

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Our framework is based Lapon the following two premises First partnerships tend to exhibit behavioral characteristics that distinguish these more intimate relationships from more traditional (conventional) business relationships (Borys and Jemison 1989) Second while partnerships in general tend to exhibit these behavioral characteristics more successful partnerships will exhibit

We recognize that these two indicators of partnership success while being applicable to many partnerships rnay not be applicable to all partnerships As discussed subsequently in the Methods section these two indicators are context-dependent tailored for the specific empirical context for this study-vertical partnerships between rnanufacturcrs and dealers

these characteristics with more intensity than less successful partnerships

These behavioral characteristics might include attributes of the partnership such as commitment and trust (eg Salmsnd and Spekman 1986) communication behaviors such as information sharing between the partners (eg Mohr and Nevin 1990) and conflict resolution techniques which tend towards joint problem solving rather than domination or ignoring the problems (eg Borys and Jemissn 1989) Figure 1 serves as an organizing framework for both the theoretical discussion and the subsequent testing of hypotheses

Attributes of the partnership

Kaneer (1988) suggests that strategic partnerships result in blurred boundaries between firms in which there emerge close ties that bind the two parties John (1984) describes the long and sticky nature of the relationship between firms that serves to reduce the potential for opportunistic behavior In such relationships there exists a set of process-related constructs that help guide the

Atmbutes of the Partnership - Commitment - Coordinat~on

I - Interdependence - Trust

Cornmun~cat~onBehav~or

- Qual~ty - Information Sharing - Participat~on

I Conflict Resolution Pechn~ques

I - Joint Problem Solving - Persuasion

- Domination

Characteristics of Partnership Success 137

flow of information between partners manage the depth and breadth of interaction and capture the complex and dynamic interchange between partners Extant literature has focused on commitment coordination interdependence and trust as important attributes of partnerships (eg Anderson and Narus 1990 Day and Klein 1987 Dwyer Schurr and Oh 1987 Frazier Spekman and ONeal 1988 Salmond and Spekman 1986) The existence of these attributes implies that both partners acknowledge their mutual dependence and their willingness to work for the survival of the relationship Should one party act opportunistically the relationship will suffer and both will feel the negative consequences

Commitment refers to the willingness of trading partners to exert effort on behalf of the relationship (Porter et al 1974) It suggests a future orientation in which partners attempt to build a relationship that can weather unanticipated problems A high level of commitment provides the context in which both parties can achieve

Success of Partnersh~p

- Satisfaction - Dyadic Sales I

Figure 1 Factors associated with partnership success

138 J Mohr a n d R Spekman

individual and joint goals without raising the specter of opportunistic behavior (eg Cum- mings 1984) Because more committed partners will exert effort and balance short-term problems with long-term goal achievement higher levels of commitment are expected to be associated with partnership success (Angle and Perry 1981)

Coordination

Coordination is related to boundary definition and reflects the set of tasks each party expects the other to perform Narus and Anderson (1987) suggest that successful working partnerships are marked by coordinated actions directed at mutual objectives that are consistent across organizations Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) suggest that stability in an uncertain environment can be achieved via greater coordination Without high levels of coordination Just-in-Time processes fail pro-duction stops and any planned mutual advantage cannot be achieved

Iizterdeperidence

As firms join forces to achieve mutually beneficial goals they acknowledge that each is dependent on the other This perspective flows directly from an exchange paradigm (eg Cook 1977) Interdependence results from a relationship in which both firms perceive mutual benefits from interacting (eg Levine and White 1962) and in which any loss of autonomy will be equitably compensated through the expected gains (Cummings 1984) Both parties recognize that the advantages of interdependence provide benefits greater than either could attain singly

Pruitt (1981) indicates that trust (ie the belief that a partys word is reliable and that a party will fulfill its obligation in an exchange) is highly related to firms desires to collaborate Williamson (1985) states that other things being equal exchange relationships featuring trust will be able to manage greater stress and will display greater adaptability Zand (1972) contends that the lack of trust will be deleterious to information exchange to reciprocity of influence and will diminish the effectiveness of joint problem solving Anderson and Narus (1990) add credence to the above and

suggest that once trust is established firms learn that joint efforts will lead to outcomes that exceed what the firm would achieve had it acted solely in its own best interests

In sum the literature cited above suggests that more successful partnerships are expected to be characterized by higher levels of commitment coordination interdependence and trust than are less successful partnerships This can be stated more formally by the following hypothesis

H I More successfi~l partizerships compared with less successful partnershijjs exhibit higher levels of a commitment b coordination c interdependence d trust

Communication behavior

Because communication processes underlie most aspects of organizational functioning communication behavior is critical to organizational success (Kapp and Barnett 1983 Mohr and Nevin 1990 Snyder and Morris 1984) In order to achieve the benefits of collaboration effective communications between partners are essential (Cummings 1984) Communication captures the utility of the information exchanged and is deemed to be a key indicant of the partnerships vitality Three aspects of communication behavior are discussed here communication quality extent of information sharing between partners and participation in planning and goal setting

Communication quality

Communication quality is a key aspect of information transmission (Jablin et al 1987) Quality includes such aspects as the accuracy timeliness adequacy and credibility of infor-mation exchanged (Daft and Lengel 1986 Huber and Daft 1987 Stohl and Redding 1987) Across the range of potential partnerships communication quality is a key factor of success Timely accurate and relevant information is essential if the goals of the partnership are to be achieved MacNeil(l981) and others acknowledge the importance of honest and open lines of communication to the continued growth of close ties between trading partners

Information sharing

Information sharing refers to the extent to which critical often proprietary information is communicated to ones partner Huber and Daft (1987) report that closer ties result in more frequent and more relevant information exchanges between high performing partners By sharing information and by being knowledgeable about each others business partners are able to act independently in maintaining the relationship over time The systematic availability of information allows people to complete tasks more effectively (Guetzkow 1965) is associated with increased levels of satisfaction (Schuler 1979) and is an important predictor of partnership success (Devlin and Bleackley 1988)

Participation

Participation refers to the extent to which partners engage jointly in planning and goal setting When one partners actions influence the ability of the other to effectively compete the need for participation in specifying roles responsibilities and expectations increases And- erson Lodish and Weitz (1987) and Dwyer and Oh (1988) suggest that input to decisions and goal formulation are important aspects of participation that help partnerships succeed Briscoll (1978) also found that participation in decision-making is associated with satisfaction Joint planning allows mutual expectations to be established and cooperative efforts to be specified

In sum more successful partnerships are expected to exhibit higher levels of communication quality more information sharing between partners and more participation in planning and goal setting than less successful partnerships Stated more formally we hypothesize that

H2 More successful partnerships compared with less successful partnerships will exhibit higher levels of a communication quality b information sharing c participation in planning

Conflict resolution techniques

Conflict often exists in interorganizational relationships due to the inherent interdependen-


cies between parties Given that a certain amount of conflict is expected an understanding of how such conflict is resolved is important (Borys and Jemison 1989) The impact of conflict resolution on the relationship can be productive or destructive (Assael 1969 Deutsch 1969) Thus the manner in which partners resolve conflict has implications for partnership success

Firms in a strategic partnership are motivated to engage in joint problem solving since they are by definition linked in order to manage an environment that is more uncertain andlor turbulent than each alone can control (Cummings 1984) and integrative outcomes satisfy more fully the needs and concerns of both parties (Thomas 1976) When parties engage in joint problem solving a mutually satisfactory solution may be reached thereby enhancing partnership success Partners often attempt to persuade each other to adopt particular solutions to the conflict situation These persuasive attempts will generally be more constructive than the use of coercion or domination (Deutsch 1969) The use of destructive conflict resolution techniques (eg domination confrontation) are seen as counter-productive and are very likely to strain the fabric of the partnership

In some partnerships the method of conflict resolution is institutionalized and third party arbitration is sought While such mediation can be helpful in producing beneficial outcomes (Anderson and Narus 1990) internal resolution (ie not relying on outside parties) shows a greater promise of long-term success (Assael 1969 580) While outside arbitration may be effective for a particular conflict episode ongoing use of arbitrators may indicate inherent problems in the relationship

Other conflict resolution techniques (eg smoothing over or ignoringlavoiding the issue) are somewhat at odds with the norms and values espoused in more successful strategic partnerships (see Ruekert and Walker 1987) Such techniques do not fit with the more proactive tone of a partnership in which problems of one party become problems affecting both parties As a result smoothing or avoiding fails to go to the root cause of the conflict and tends to undermine the partnerships goal of mutual gain Thus we hypothesize that

H3 More successful partnerships compared with less successful partnerships will exhibit

140 J Mohr and R Spekman

a higher use of constructive resolution techniques including joint problem solving and persuasion b lower use of destructive conflict resolution techniques including domination and harsh words c lower use of conflict resolution techniques including outside arbitration and smoothing avoiding issues

METHOD

Data collection Context and sample

Although strategic partnerships can take many forms including both horizontal and vertical relationships (Borys and Jemison 1989) this study focused on vertical relationships between manufacturers and dealers (eg Anderson and Narus 1990 Heide and John 1990) While not all channel relationships are strategic partnerships manufacturers and dealers often form bonds that transcend a more market-based set of transactions These closer more intimate bonds are what separates these partnerships from a more transaction-based set of exchanges which are limited in scope and purpose Partners have jointly aligned goals to accomplish mutually beneficial ends They are linked in form and substance in ways that go beyond the more conventional flow of products and paper trail found in other manufacturer-retailer relation-ships In fact the trend towards partnerships in channels relationships appears to be quite pronounced (Johnston and Lawrence 1988 Sethuraman Anderson and Narus 1988)

The context selected for this study was the personal computer industry As the market has matured manufacturers have relied less on direct sales and more on dealer networks to help reach the vast market of small business customers (Bertrand 1989 Business Week 1989)2 These manufacturers found that dealers in local markets were able to develop tailored solutions for specific market applications and to undertake the selling job both more effectively and

In recent years mail order channels (eg Dell) have taken a portion of the PC market (Business Week 1991) Nonetheless retail channels still account for the majority of PC sales and even Dell has begun to distribute through retail channels

efficiently In addition such dealer partnerships enabled manufacturers to retain some control over dealer strategies and provided more accurate and valuable street-level market knowledge

Although single-industry studies often lack generalizability they do afford greater control over sources of extraneous variation due to industry characteristics environmental noise and the like (eg McDougall and Robinson 1990 see also Spekman and Gronhaug 1986) We have attempted to enhance the studys internal validity with full recognition that it is achieved with some loss in its external validity (Cook and Campbell 1979)

The unit of analysis in this study was the relationship between a computer dealer and one of its suppliers (ie manufacturers) We focused on the dealers perceptions of the relationship with a referent manufacturer (described below) While dyadic data (collected from both the dealer and the manufacturers) would have been desirable both time and expense considerations necessitated focusing on one side of the dyad

A list of computer dealers was obtained from the Association of Better Computer Dealers the personal computer industry trade association Each dealer was contacted by telephone prior to mailing a questionnaire in order to identify the ownerimanager (the key informant) to solicit cooperation for the study and to assign a referent manufacturer One informant from the dealer firm was deemed to be appropriate (see Ander- son 1985 Campbell 1955) since the owner manager is typically the top decision maker within the dealer firm has key contact with the manufacturer with respect to strategic decisions (as opposed to contact for technical support etc) and is the focal point for these small businesses (average number of employees ranges from 9-34 Computer Reseller News 1988) During the initial phone contact dealers were randomly assigned a referent manufacturer about whom the questionnaire centered This random assignment ensured that dealer respondents did not pick either their most or least favored (ie best or worst) manufacturer as the referent

Five hundred fifty-seven surveys were mailed with follow-up letters 4 weeks later A total of 140 dealers returned surveys (25 response rate) This response rate was lower than expected and likely due to the lengthy nature of the questionnaire and the busy time of the year at


which it was mailed (November-December) Nonetheless the response rate is quite acceptable and is consistent with the rate found in other studies (cf Pearce and Zahra 1991 Weiss and Anderson 1992) Sixteen surveys were eliminated from analysis due to incomplete responses leaving a total of 124 surveys for analysis

An ideal assessment of nonresponse bias compares characteristics of respondents to characteristics of the population from which the sample was drawn in this case the trade association membership However this trade association did not keep detailed records on their membership In fact it lacked meaningful information on even basic data such as dealer size and sales volume Absent this comparison base we assessed nonresponse bias by compar- ing early to late respondents as suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1977) They argue that late respondents are more representative of those in the sample who did not respond than are early respondents This comparison indicated no significant differences between early and late respondents on characteristics such as sales volume and length of relationship with the referent manufacturer Early respondents were however slightly smaller than later respondents in terms of number of employees (t = -236 p lt 002) and total sales volume (t = -168 p lt 010) Based on these results nonresponse bias did not appear to present a problem in testing our framework

Five of the dealers who responded to the survey indicated that they were owned by the manufacturer (ie Heath Zenith Radio Shack) Because vertical integration is an alternative governance form to partnerships (Achrol Scheer and Stern 1990 Harrigan 1985) these five dealers were omitted from data analysis Additionally dealers who did not deal directly with the manufacturer (ie purchased from distributors) were also omitted from the data analysis (n = 17) The remaining sample (n = 102) was comprised of dealers with an average of 24 employees and total monthly sales of $115 million These dealers reported on relationships with the following vendors IBM (n = 21) Apple (n = 21) Compaq (n = 14) Hewlett Packard (n = 7) Epson (n = 6) NEC (n = 5 ) Hyundai (n = 4) with the remaining 24 dealers responding on 16 manufacturers The average length of these trading relationships was 387 years

Measurement

All measures were pretested in a series of personal interviews with computer dealers in which the items were revised iteratively until no further changes were suggested The Appendix lists items used to measure each of the constructs Reliability analysis was conducted and items with low item-to-total correlations were deleted Cronbachs alphas were computed and all scales (with one exception as noted) exceeded Nunnallys (1978) reliability guidelines of 07 or above The one exception Information Sharing had a Chronbach alpha of 068 which was deemed acceptable to further analysis Principal component factor analyses with varimax rotations also were conducted for the variables in each hyp~ thes i s ~Through this process measures retained for the analysis exhibit favorable reliability as well as convergent and discriminant validity (Churchill 1979) Table 1 lists summary scale statistics

Success of the partnership

Because vertical partnerships in the computer industry are formed in order to gain competitive advantage by more effectively and efficiently selling product dealer sales volume of the referent manufacturers product served as one indicator of partnership success In a vertical partnership one would expect that closer ties between the manufacturer and the dealer would result in the dealer selling more of that particular manufacturers product

Two objective measures of sales volume were taken one was a direct measure and one was indirectly computed from two other items The first (direct) measure asked the dealer

What is your approximate volume of sales of this manufacturers product on a monthly basis

The second measure was computed based on the dealers response to two items

What are the total monthly sales of your dealership

Of the total sales of your dealership what percent comes from this manufacturers product

The factor analyses are available from the first author upon request


For this second measure the two items were multiplied together as an indirect measure of the dealers monthly sales volume of the referent manufacturers product

We felt that by assessing dyadic sales volume

Table 1 Summary statistics for measures

Variable Mean Coefficient (SD) Alpha

Dependent variables Dyadic sales

Satisfaction with support from mftr Satisfaction with profit

Independent variables HI Trust

Commitment

Coordination

Interdependence

H2 Communication quality

Participation

Information sharing

H3 Joint problem solving

Persuasion

Smoothing

Arbitration

Severe resolution

Covariate Closeness

Means are scaled from 1-5 with 5 being highest Correlation coefficient rather than coefficient alpha is

reported for a 2-item scale Mean of sales (log) ranges from 392 to 1369 See text in the Measurement Section for elaboration Severe Resolution includes the average of Harsh Words f Manufacturer Domination NA Because Conflict Resolution Techniques were measured using composite indicators which are comprised of single items no reliability analysis is conducted (eg Howell 1987)

in two different ways we would get a more accurate assessment of this variable These sales measures were adjusted for the size of the dealer (in terms of the number of employees) This adjustment was necessary in order to remove dealer size as an alternative explanation for greater sales volume and therefore a more successful partnership The two sales measures were transformed with a logarithmic transfor- mation to account for the increasing size of the categories (eg Govindarajan 1988) and summed to form one measure Dyadic Sales (see Table

An additional indicator of partnership success was also taken Anderson and Narus (1990) suggested that satisfaction with aspects of the working relationship between partners can serve as a proxy for partnership success Satisfaction1 dissatisfaction is a cognitive state and examines the adequacy of the rewards received through the relationship (eg Frazier 1983) Hence an additional indicator of success in this study examined one partners satisfaction with the other across several aspects of the relationship ranging from the general nature of personal dealings to the level of promotional support to profitability (Ruekert and Churchill 1984)

The factor analysis for the satisfaction items resulted in a two-factor solution One factor comprised of the two items tapping satisfaction with profit and margins was termed Satisfaction and Profit The second factor comprised of the remaining satisfaction items was termed Satisfaction with Manufacturer Support Table 1shows the relevant scale statistics and reliability coefficients of these two scales


Commitment coordination and trust were each measured with 3-item scales The Commitment and Trust scales exhibited acceptable reliabilities as shown in Table 1 One of the coordination items had a low item-to-total correlation and was dropped from analysis the remaining two items had an intercorrelation of r = 068 (p lt 0001) Interdependence was measured with a two item scale and examined the ease with which each

Note that the variable Dyadic Sales is a scale and the values that it takes do not (and are not meant to) represent actual sales volume

party could switch to a new trading prartner (Phillips 1981) While the intercorrelation between these two items was relatively low (r = 026 p lt 0001) one would not necessarily expect both dealer and manufacturer depentdence on the other to covary In fact it is possiblle that one party may find it easy to switch while the other does not (see Spekman and Salnnond 1992) In any case as the sum of these two1 items increases so too does interdependence iin the relationship

All items exhibited high loadings on their respective factors with only one item cross-loading (one coordination item on trust) how-ever in order to avoid using single-item meiasures this item was retained The impact o~f this decision on the discriminant validity of trust and coordination must be kept in mind in interpreting the results

Aspects of communication behavior

Communication quality was assessed with a S t em scale participation was measured with a 4-item scale and tapped the extent to which the d(ealer7s input was solicited by the manufacturer for planning purposes Both of these measures exhibited good reliability and clean factor loadings

Information sharing tapped the extent to which partners kept each other informed about important issues on a voluntary basis anid was assessed with an 8-item scale Two items were dropped during initial reliability assessment In the initial factor analysis the two items that assessed the manufacturers sharing of infor-mation with the dealer did not exhibit clean loadings and in fact loaded more stirongly on the other two measures of communi~cation behavior Thus these two items were dropped and four items were retained for the dealers information sharing with the manufacturer (coefficient alpha = 068) The items f a r this measure loaded cleanly on one factor and were retained in the analysis

ConJlict resolution

The measures for conflict resolution includled six modes by which conflict could be resolved These items were designed to cover a spectrum of conflict resolution modes as described previously Howell (1987) refers to this type of mesaurement


as a check list or composite scale in which each item taps a different dimension of the construct Hence traditional reliability analysis is not appropriate Four of these items (joint problem solving persuasive attempts by either party smoothing over the problem and arbitration) were treated as unitary items The remaining two items (harsh words and manufacturer domination) exhibited a relatively high intercorrelation (r = 056 the highest intercorrelation of the conflict resolution modes the next highest at r = 045) and in the interest of parsimony were summed and labeled Severe Conflict Resolution Again each variable loaded cleanly on its own factor

Covariate

In testing the hypotheses it was important to rule out alternative explanations for the findings or other causal factors of partnership success It was particularly important to establish that the independent variables (detailed above) were actually predictors of the success of the partnership and not merely characteristics of partnerships in general In order to control for this possibility an additional measure was taken for the degree of closeness in the relationship Such an analysis allows for partialing out the effects of partnerships in general (ie that they are closer relationships and thus exhibit more of the characteristics posited here to be predictors of partnership success) before testing the hypotheses for predictors of partnership success

Varadarajan and Rajaratnam (1986) portray closeness as the proximity of the relationship as it pertains to joint programs and the ties that bind the working relationship between parties Closeness as operationalized here reflects notions of joint action and shared norms and is consistent with work by Heide and John (1990) and MacNeil (1981) The four items comprising this scale loaded on one factor and had a coefficient alpha of 083

Multicollinearity

Correlation matrices were computed for the variables tested in each of the hypotheses Multicollinearity becomes a concern with hamph intercorrelations among the independent vari-ables (Cohen and Cohen 1983 Mason and


Perreault 1991) For H1 only one pair-wise correlation was problematic that between trust and coordination ( r = 056) The remaining correlations ranged from r = 004-037 For both H2 and H3 the pair-wise correlations among the independent variables ranged from r = 001-039 While these correlations indicate that multicollinearity is not a severe problem the analysis for M1 was also conducted on 85 percent and 90 percent of the ample^

RESULTS

The hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis For each hyp~ thes i s ~ models were run separately for each of the dependent variables satisfaction with manufacturer support satisfaction with profit and dyadic sales While conducting analyses in this fashion may result in an inflated Type 1 error rate this approach is consistent with other research (eg Kohli 1989b) As an additional precaution we also compared the findings with a multivariate multiple regression approach (eg Sinha 1990) The multivariate statistics are also reported with each hypothesis The multivariate findings are significant for all three hypotheses with univari- ate tests confirming those found with standard regression techniques

The handling of the covariate in the regression equations followed guidelines suggested by Cohen and Cohen (1983) As indicated the covariate was added to the model before adding the independent variables in order to partial out its effects prior to hypothesis testing (see also the Change in F statistic reported in Tables 2-4) The regression assumptions were tested for outliers and for normality of the residuals and revealed no problems

These analyses are premised upon the notion that if multicollinearity is present beta coefficients are unstable To the extent that the estimated coefficients are similar (ie remain stable) in sign and magnitude on subsets of the data one can infer that multicollinearity is not affecting the results (cf Kohli 1989a) Hence the hypotheses were tested three times--once on 100 percent of the sample again on 85 percent of the sample and a third time on 90 percent of the sample The beta coefficients remained stable In each of the analyses indicating that multicollinearity was likely not influencing the results W e also ran the analyses in one overall regression equation Results were similar to those presented here

Hypothesis 1

Recall H1 posited that higher levels of commitment coordination trust and interdependence are associated with more successful partnerships compared to less successful partnerships The results for H I are shown in Table 2 The multivariate test was significant (Wilks Lambda = 768 p lt 0001) As Table 2 shows commitment and coordination are positively associated with satisfaction with manufacturer support Trust is significantly associated with satisfaction with profit Predictors of dyadic sales include both commitment and coordination Interdependence is not significantly related to any of the dependent variables

Hypothesis 2

Recall H2 stated that higher levels of communication quality participation and information sharing are associated with more successful partnerships compared to less successful partnerships The multivariate test for H2 was significant (Wilks Lambda = 949 p lt 0001) Table 3 shows that as communication quality and participation are higher satisfaction with manufacturer support is higher (participation at p lt 010) Interestingly as information sharing is higher satisfaction with profit is lower Participation is the only significant predictor of dyadic sales Thus H2 receives partial support

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 stated that the use of constructive conflict resolution techniques is positively associated with more successful partnerships compared to less successful partnerships and that the use of destructive conflict resolution techniques is negatively associated with successful partnerships The multivariate test for H3 was significant (Wilks Lambda = 403 p lt 0001) Table 4 shows that joint problem solving is significantly related to satisfaction with manufacturer support Both severe resolution tactics (harsh words and domination) and smoothing over problems are negatively associated with satisfaction with profit while arbitration is positively associated with satisfaction with profit O lt 010) The regression equation for dyadic sales as the dependent variable is not significant Thus H3 also receives partial support


Table 2 Beta coefficients from regression analyses for HI

Dependent Satis with mftr Satis with profit Dyadic sales variables support (log)

Covariate Closeness

Independent variables Commitment 022 - 028 Coordination 042 - 032 Trust 032 -

Interdependence - -

Change in F A 1195 252 523A

R2 adjusted for df 053 019 016

A p lt 010 p lt 005 p lt 001 p lt 0001 -nonsignificant The change in F-statistic shows the significance of the variance explained by the independent

variables ufter accounting for (partialing out) the variance explained by the covariate

Table 3 Beta coefficients from regression analysis for H2

Dependent Satis with mftr Satis with profit Dyadic sales variables support (1)

Covariate Closeness

Independent variables Commun quality 048 - -

Information sharing - -020 -

Participation 014 - 045A

Change in F 1379 308 797

R2adjusted for df 051 019 019

A p lt 010 p lt 005 p lt 001 p lt 0001 - nonsignificant The change in F-statistic shows the significance of the variance explained by the independent

variables after accounting for (partialing out) the variance explained by the covariate

DISCUSSION (both negatively related to satisfaction with profit) Our research suggests that as these

The following variables were found to be variables are present in greater amounts the significant in predicting the success of the success of the partnership is likely to be greater partnership (either satisfaction or sales) coordi- Interdependence and persuasive tactics as a nation commitment trust communication qual- method to resolve conflict were found not to be ity information sharing participation joint predictors of partnership success problem solving and avoiding the use of smooth- The strong consistent findings for coordination ing over problems or severe resolution tactics as a predictor of partnership success are similar to



Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness

Independent variables Joint problem solving Persuade Severe resolution Smooth Arbitration

Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df

Satis with mftr Satis with profit Dyadic sales support (1)

A lt 010 p lt 005 p lt 001 p lt 0001 -nonsignificant A The change in f-statistic shows the significance of the variance explained by the independent


other findings on closer business relationships Frazier et al (1988) suggested in their study of Just-in-Time relationships that high levels of coordination are associated with mutually ful- filled expectations

The findings for trust and commitment are also consistent with emerging research on partnering relationships Anderson and Narus (1990) and Anderson and Weitz (1992) suggest that such feelings are important in mollifying a partners fear of opportunistic behavior In particular the relationship between Trust and Satisfaction with Profits is interesting Profits derived from a particular vendor might contribute to a dealers feeling of vulnerability Powerful and popular manufacturers tend not to give the best margins Yet believing that the vendor will act fairly and in the best interest of the relationship might serve to calm the dealers fear of opportunistic behavior and might lead to greater perceived satisfaction with this aspect of the partnership

This study adds credence to the notion that communication problems are associated with a lack of success in strategic alliances (Mohr 1989 Sullivan and Peterson 1982) Without comrnunication quality and participation the success of the partnership is placed in doubt

The importance of communication becomes critical in signaling future intentions and might be interpreted as an overt manifestation of more subtle phenomena such as trust and commitment These findings are consistent with Anderson et al (1987) who found that mutual participation was associated with resource allocation among channel members

The negative association between Information Sharing and Satisfaction with Profits is both counter-intuitive and inconsistent with this discussion It is possible however that greater information sharing may give the dealer the impression that heishe is entitled to a greater share of the fruits of the partnership as evidenced by higher margins from the manufacturer Greater information transfer might be interpreted as closeness between manufacturer and dealer in which margins are viewed albeit incorrectly as joint property

This study indicates that the manner in which conflict is resolved has an impact on relationship success Joint problem solving whereby griev- ances are aired and the underlying issues are brought to the surface fosters a win-win solution between partners Arbitration has also been beneficial to the success of the relationship in extreme conflict situations Anderson and

Narus (1990) indicate that distributor councils and distributor ombudsmen are two mechanisms by which conflicts can be diffused and settled constructively At the same time arbitration is viewed by some (Assael 1969) as an effective but a less preferred conflict resolution mechanism when compared with internal solutions

Harsh Words and Smoothing Over Problems as conflict resolution modes do little to uncover the underlying problems associated with conflict and tend to exacerbate the fundamental differences that exist between trading partners Both serve to solve short-term difficulties but do not begin to address the longer-term issues that might affect the relationship Neither of these conflict resolution mechanisms work towards joint resolution of problems nor do they focus on information sharing and communication as important components of problem solving

The nonsignificant findings in this study bear discussion Interdependence was not related to any of the measures of partnership success The nonsignificance of this relationship may be due in part to the measure used by interdependence Interdependence may be more than each partys dependence on the other and may include issues of magnitude as well as symmetry (Gundlach and Cadotte 1989) The measures for Communication Behavior appeared to do a better job of predicting the more qualitative aspects of partnership success only participation was significantly related to the quantitative outcome of sales Communication Behaviors may eventually impact quantitative outcomes such as sales volume in a two-step process in which higher levels of satisfaction are associated with more effort on behalf of the partnership eventually these efforts are associated with increased performance (Mohr and Nevin 1990) The fact that none of the conflict resolution modes was significantly related to Dyadic Sales is surprising-and only one of the modes Joint Problem Solving-was related to Satisfaction with Support These nonsignificant findings may be explained by the use of single-item measures or by the two-step process mentioned for Communication Behaviors previously

The findings from this research as in all research must be tempered by the limitations of the study Clearly the findings are contingent upon the context and the type of partnerships


studied-partnerships between computer manufacturers and their dealers The generalizability of these results across a broad range of strategic partnerships is cautioned In addition data were collected from only one side of the dyad-the manufacturers perceptions of the partnership remain unknown Data were col-lected from only a single informant from the dealers organization While use of a single informant met Campbells (1955) criteria it is clear that these respondents were providing their perceptions of organizational-level phenomena

In any study it is important to control for alternative explanations of the findings Two alternative explanations for these results could be that the size of the dealer the closeness of the relationships or the length of the relationship accounted for the findings In this study the size of the dealer was explicitly controlled for in testing the hypotheses related to sales (by adjusting the sales measure) (Size was unrelated to the satisfaction measures hence it was unnecessary to add as a control variable for those hypotheses) Closeness of the relationship was explicitly added as a covariate in all analysis so the results cannot be explained by the degree of closeness of the partnership Length of relationship duration was uncorre-lated with the two satisfaction measures (and therefore was unnecessary as a control variable) and significantly correlated with the Dyadic Sales measure However when adding length of the relationship as a control variable the results remain unchanged

Finally there might exist a common method variance problem since data on both the dependent and independent variables were collected from the same respondent However two possibilities mitigate against such an explanation for the results First the questionnaire was fairly lengthy addressing aspects of manu- facturerldealer relationships beyond those used in this study It is unlikely that respondents would have been able to guess the purpose of the study and forced their answers to be consistent Second the dependent variables asked not only for perceptual data but also objective (sales) data Objective data are less likely to be subject to halo effects than are affectivelperceptual data (ie satisfaction measures)


CONCLUSIONS

The rationale for and the decision to form strategic partnerships appears to be fairly well- documented both in the marketing and strategy literatures as well as in the trade press However very little guidance exists regarding the processes required to develop and nurture the partnership beyond the initial decision to forge such a relationship Given both the costs and risks associated with mismanaging a potentially valuable partnership insight into the factors affecting partnership success is quite useful This research sheds light on these issues and offers an improved understanding of the form and substance of the interaction between partners

This study suggests that trust the willingness to coordinate activities and the ability to convey a sense of commitment to the relationship are key Critical also to partnership success are the communications strategies used by the trading parties The quality of information transmitted and the joint participation by partners in planning and goal setting send very important signals to the trading parties Recent pronouncements by both P amp G and Wal-Mart for example who have dedicated resources for the sole purpose of effectively managing the interface between these two firms support our findings Although the level of magnitude is quite different the fundamental processes and mechanisms mirror our results and add support

Joint participation enables both parties to better understand the strategic choices facing each other Such openness is not natural for management and it must develop its communications skills and learn to accommodate1modify its traditional concern for decision autonomy This skill is nontrivial to the success of the partnership Management must also move towards processes and behavioral mechanisms that support working with another firm to achieve mutually beneficial goals Consistent with this view is the importance of joint problem solving as a conflict resolution mechanism The partners ability to take the others perspective and attempt to reconcile differences improves problem solving

While we demonstrate that certain characteristics and processes are associated with partnership success there is a certain irony that arises in managing these partnerships That is it is

likely that managers feel they are trading one set of risks and uncertainty for another In a number of instances partners are unprepared to answer questions related to the management of this new relationship and research has not systematically addressed the array of skills needed to help ensure that the partners mutual goals are achieved

The managerial implications to be drawn from this research relate to the manner in which partners attempt to manage the future scope and tone of their relationship Trust commitment communication quality joint planning and joint problem resolution all serve to better align partners expectations goals and objectives These factors all contribute to partnership success The challenge however lies in developing a management philosophy or corporate culture in which independent and autonomous trading parties can relinquish some sovereignty and control while also engaging in planning and organizing which takes into account the needs of the other party Such a wilful abdication of control (and autonomy) does not come easily but appears to be a necessary managerial requirement for the future For example Corning a company admired for its partnering acumen espouses corporate values that add credence to our results

While it would seem that similarities across organizational cultures would improve the prob- ability of partnership success (see Harrigan 1988) such compatibility cannot be ensured In many cases differences in culture operating procedures and practices become apparent only during the course of the partnership Effort must be dedicated to the formation and implementation of management strategies that promote and encourage the continued growth and maintenance of the partnership

In light of the scant and fragmented nature of the literature which address those factors that differentiate succcssful from unsuccessful partnerships this research has attempted to clarify this problem Managerially such research offers insight into how to proactively manage partnerships in order to reap the benefits of success and to avoid the damaging costs inherent in their failure Theoretically a specification of the linkages between characteristics of the partnership and its success can provide a useful framework for future research The empirical test reported

here provides a first at tempt t o better understand partnership success and the factors that contribute t o success

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

T h e authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Jan Heide Michael Lawless Jack Nevin and Linda Price and three anonymous SM9 reviewers o n this paper

REFERENCES

Achrol R L Scheer and L Stern (1990) Designing successful transorganizational marketing alliances Marketing Science Institute Cambridge MA Report 90-118

Anderson E (1985) The salesperson as outside agent or employee A transaction cost analysis Marketing Science 4 pp 234-254

Anderson E and B Weitz (1986) Make or buy decisions Vertical integration and marketing pro- ductivity Sloan Management Review 27 pp 3-20

Anderson E and B Weitz (February 1992) The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels Journal of Marketing Research 29 pp 18-34

Anderson E L Lodish and B Weitz (February 1987) Resource allocation behavior in conventional channels Journal of Marketing Research 24 pp 85-97

Anderson J and J Narus (Fall 1984) A model of the distributors perspective of distributor-manufacturer working relatio~lships Jozirnal of Marketing 48 pp 62-74

Anderson J and J Narus (January 1990) A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships Journal of Marketing 54 pp 42-58

Angle H and J Perry (March 1981) An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness Administrative Science Quarterly 26 pp 1-14

Armstrong J S and T Overton (July 1977) Estimat- ing nonresponse bias in mail surveys Journal of Marketing Research 51 pp 71-86

Assael H (December 1969) Constructive role of interorganizational conflict Administrative Science Quarterly 14 pp 573-582

Benson J K (June 1975) The interorganizational network as a political economy Administrative Science Quarterly 20 pp 229-249

Bertrand K (May 1989) The channel challenge Business Marketing pp 42-50

Bleeke J and D Ernst (November-December 1991) The way to win in cross-border alliances Harvard Business Review pp 127-135

Borys B and D Jemison (April 1989) Hybrid


arrangements as strategic alliances Theoretical issues in organizational combinations Academy of Management Review 14 pp 234-249

Business Week (July 17 1989) The power surge at computer dealers pp 134-135

Business Week (July 1 1989) PC slump What PC slump pp 66-67

Campbell D (1955) The informant in quantitative research American Journal of Sociology 60 pp 339-342

Churchill G A Jr (February 1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs Jozirnal of Marketing Research 16 pp 64-73

Cohen J and P Cohen (1983) Applied Multiple RegressionICorrelation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale NJ

Computer Reseller News (1988) Research Publications from Media Kit CMP Publications Manhasset NY

Cook K (Winter 1977) Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations The Sociological Quarterly 18 pp 62-82

Cook T C and D T Campbell (1979) Quasi-Experimentation Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings Rand McNally Chicago IL

Cummings T (1984) Transorganizational development Research in Organizational Behavior 6 pp 367-422

Daft R and R Lengel (1986) Organizational information requirements media richness and structural design Management Science 32 ( 9 pp 554-571

Day G and S Klein (1987) Cooperative behavior in vertical markets The influence of transaction costs and competitive strategies In M Houston (ed) Review of Marketing pp 39-66

Deutsch M (1969) Conflicts Productive and destructive Journal of Social Issues 25 (I) pp 7-41

Devlin G and M Bleackley (1988) Strategic alliances-Guidelines for success Long Range Planning 21 (5) pp 18-23

Driscoll J (1978) Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction Academy of Marzagement Journal 21 pp 44-56

Dwyer F R and S Oh (April 1988) A transactions cost perspective on vertical contractual structure and interchannel competitive strategies Journal of Marketing 52 pp 21-34

Dwyer F R P Schurr and S Oh (April 1987) Developing buyer-seller relationships Journal of Marketing 51 pp 11-27

Frazier G (Fall L983) Interorganizational exchange behavior in marketing channels A broadened perspective Journal of Marketing 47 pp 68-78

Frazier G R Spekman and C ONeal (October 1988) Just-in-time exchange relationships in industrial markets Jozlrizal of Marketing 52 pp 52-67

Govindarajan V (1988) A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level Integrating administrative mechanisms with strat-egy Academy of Management Journal 311 (4) pp 828-853

150 J Mohr and R Spekrnan

Guetzkow H (1965) Communications in organizations In J March (ed) Handbook of Organiza- tions Rand McNally and Company Chicago IL pp 534573

Gundlach G and E Cadotte (1989) Manufacturer and distributor interdependence as a predictor of interorganizational interaction and outcomes Working Paper University of Notre Dame

Wamel G Y Doz and C K Prahalad (January-February 1989) Collaborate with your competitors-and win Harvard Business Review pp 133-139

Harrigan K R (1985) Vertical integration and corporate strategy Academy of Management Jour- nal 28 (2) pp 397425

Harrigan K R (1988) Strategic alliances and partner asymmetries Management International Review 28 (Special Issue) pp 53-72

Heide J and G John (February 1990) Alliances in industrial purchasing The determinants of joint action in buyer-supplier relationships Journal of Marketing Research 27 pp 2436

Howell R (February 1987) Covariance structure modeling and measurement issues A note on interrelations among a channel entitys power sources Journal of Marketing Research 24 pp 119-126

Huber G and R Daft (1987) The information environment of organizations In F Jablin et al (ed) Handbook of Organizational Conztnunication Sage Publications Newbury Park CA pp 130-164

Jablin F L Putnam K Roberts and L Porter (1987) Handbook of Organizational Communication Sage Publications Newbury Park CA

John G (August 1984) An empirical investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a marketing channel Journal of Marketitzg Research 21 pp 278-289

Johnston R and P Lawrence (July-August 1988) Beyond vertical integration-the rise of the value- adding partnership Harvard Business Review pp 94101

Kanter R M (1988) The new alliances How strategic partnerships are reshaping American business In H Sawyer (ed) Business in a Contetpo- rary World University Press of America New York pp 59-82

Kapp J and G Barnett (1983) Predicting organizational effectiveness from communication activities A multiple indicator model Hutnan Communi-cation Research 9 pp 239-254

Kohli A (July 1989a) Determinants of influence in organizational buying A contingency approach Journal of Marketing 53 pp 50-65

Kohli A (October 198) Effects of supervisory behavior The role of individual differences among salespeople Journal of Marketing 53 pp 40-50

Levine J and J Byrne (July 21 1986) Odd couples Business Week pp 100-106

Levine S and P White (1962) Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relations Adnzirzistrative Science Quar-

terly 5 pp 583-601 MacNeil I (1981) Economic analysis of contractual

relations Its shortfalls and the need for a rich classificatory apparatus Northwestern University Law Review 75 pp 1018-1063

Mason C and W Perreault (August 1991) Collinear- ity power and interpretation of multiple regression analysis Jourrzal of Marketing Research 28 pp 268-280

McDougall P and R Robinson Jr (October 1990) New venture strategies An empirical identification of eight archetypes of competitive strategies for entry Strategic Matzagement Journal 11 pp 447-467

Mohr J (1989) Communicating with industrial customers Marketing Science Institute Report No 89-112 Cambridge MA

Mohr J and J R Nevin (October 1990) Communi- cation strategies in marketing channels A theoretical perspective Journal of Marketing 54 pp 36-51

Narus J and J Anderson (September-October 1977) Distributor contributions to partnerships with manufacturers Business Horizons 30 pp 3442

Nunnally J C (1978) Psychometric Theory (2nd ed) McGraw-Hill New York

Pearce J A I1 and S A Zahra (February 1991) The relative power of CEOs and boards of directors Associations with corporate perform-ance Strategic Managemertt Jorcrnal 112 pp 135-154

Pfeffer J and G R Salancik (1978) The External Control of Organizations A Resource Dependence Perspective Harper and Row New York

Phillips L (November 1981) Assessing measurement error in key informant reports A methodological note on organizational analysis in marketing Journal of Marketing Research 18 pp 395415

Porter L R Steers R Mowday and P Boulian (1974) Organizational commitment job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians Journal of Applied Psychology 59 pp 603-609

Porter M (1980) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors The Free Press New York

Powell W (1987) Hybrid organizational arrange-ments New form or transitional development California Management Review 30 (I) pp 67-87

Powell W (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy Research in Organizational Behavior 112 pp 295-336

Provan K (1984) Interorganizational cooperation and decision making autonomy in a consortiun~ multihospital system Academy of ~Wanagement Review 9 pp 494504

Pruitt D G (1981) Negotiation Behavior Academic Press New York

Ruekert R and G A Churchill Jr (May 1984) Reliability and validity of alternative measures of channel member satisfaction Journal of Marketing Research 21 pp 226-233

Ruckert R and 0 Walker (January 1987) Market-


ings interaction with other functional units A conceptual framework and empirical evidence Journal of Marketing 51 pp 1-19

Salmond D and R Spekman (1986) Collaboration as a mode of managing long-term buyer-seller relationships In T Shimp et al (eds) A M A Educators Proceedings American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 162-166

Schuler R (1979) A role perception transactional process model for organizational communication- outcome relationships Organizatiotzal Behavior and Human Performance 23 pp 268-291

Sethurman R J Anderson and J Narus (1988) Partnership advantage and its determinants in distributor and manufacturer working relationships Jor~rnal of Business research 17 pp 327-347

Sinha D (October 1990) The contribution of formal planning to decisions Strategic Management Journal 11 pp 479-492

Snyder R and J Morris (1984) Organizational communication and performance Journal of Applied Psychology 69 pp 461465

Spekman R and Ilt Gronhaug (1986) Methodolog- ical issues in buying center research Eiiropean Journal of Marketing 20 pp 50-63

Spekman R and D Salmond (1992) A working consensus to collaborate A field study of manufacturer-supplier dyads Report 92-134 Marketing Science Institute Cambridge MA

Stern L and T Reve (Summer 1980) Distribution channels as political economies A framework for comparative analysis Journal of Marketing 44 pp 52-64

Stohl C and W C Redding (1987) Messages and message exchange processes In F Jablin et al (eds) Handbook of Organizational Communication A n Interdisciplinary Perspective Sage Publications Newbury Park CA pp 451-502

Sullivan J and R B Peterson (1982) Factors associated with trust in Japanese-American joint ventures Management International Review 22 pp 3W0

Thomas Ilt (1976) Conflict and conflict management In M Dunnette (ed) Handbook of Indus- trial and Organizational Psychology Rand McNally Chicago Iamp pp 889-935

Thompson J (1967) Orgarlizatiotzs in Action McGraw-Hill New York

Varadarajan PR and D Rajaratnam (January 1986) Symbiotic marketing revisited Journal of Marketing 50 pp 7-17

Weiss A and E Anderson (February 1992) Con- verting from independent to employee salesforces The role of perceived switching costs Journal of Marketitzg Research 29 pp 101-115

Williamson 0 (1975) Markets atzd Hierarchies Analysis and Antitrust Implications Free Press-Macmillan New York

Williamson 0 (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism The Free Press New York

Zand D (1972) Trust and managerial problem solving Administrative Science Quarterly 19 pp 229-239

APPENDIX ITEMS

Indicators of success

Dyadic sales volume of the referent manufacturers product

What is your approximate volume of sales of this manufacturers product on a monthly basis (Seven categories)

What are the total monthly sales of your dealership (seven categories)

multiplied by Of the total sales of your dealership what percent comes from this manufacturers product (01100 in 10 increments)

Satisfaction How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the relationship with this manufacturer (Very dissatisfiedlvery satisfied)

Personal dealings with manufacturers sales reps Assistance in managing inventory Cooperative advertising support Promotional support (coupons rebates displays) Off-invoice promotional allowances Profit on sales of manufacturers product

How does this manufacturers product stack up to its closest competitors o n reseller margins (LowerIHigher)

Attributes of ampRepartnership (Strongly disagree1 strongly agree) Commitment Wed like to discontinue carrying this manufacturers product (reverse scored) W e are very committed to carrying this manufacturers products We have a minimal commitment to this manufacturer (reverse scored)

Coordination Programs a t the local level are well coordinated with the manufacturers national programs W e feel like we never know what we are supposed to be doing o r when we are supposed to be doing it for this manufacturers product (reverse scored)

152 J Mohr and R Spelcrnan

Our activities with the manufacturer are well coordinated

Trust (Strongly disagreelstrongly agree) We trust that the manufacturers decisions will be beneficial to our business We feel that we do not get a fair deal from this manufacturer This relationship is marked by a high degree of harmony

bnterdependence (Strongly disagreelstrongly agree) If we wanted to we could switch to another manufacturers product quite easily (reverse-scored) If the manufacturer wanted to they could easily switch to another reseller (reverse-scored)

Csmmnnication behavior Communication Quality To what extent do you feel that your communication with this manufacturer is

Timelyluntimely Accurateiinaccurate Adequatelinadequate Completeiincomple te Crediblelnot credible

Participation (Strongly disagreeistrongly agree) Our advice and counsel is sought by this manufacturer We participate in goal setting and forecasting with this manufacturer We help the manufacturer in its planning activities Suggestions by us are encouraged by this manufacturer

Informatiorz sharirzg (Strongly disagreelstrongly agree) We share proprietary information with this manufacturer We inform the manufacturer in advance of changing needs

In this relationship it is expected that any information which might help the other party will be provided The parties are expected to keep each other informed about events or changes that may affect the other party It is expected that the parties will only provide information according to prespecified agreements (reverse scored) We do not volunteer much information regarding our business to the manufacturer (reverse scored) This manufacturer keeps us fully informed about issues that affect our business This manufacturer shares proprietary information with us (eg about products in development etc)

Conflict resolution techniques Assuming that some conflict exists over program and policy issues and how you implement the manufacturers programs how frequently are the following methods used to resolve such conflict

Smooth over the problem Persuasive attempts by either party Joint problem solving Harsh words Outside arbitration Manufacturer-imposed domination

(Very infrequentlylvery frequently)

Csvariate for strategic partnership (Strongly disagreelstrongly agree) In this relationship the parties work together to solve problems The manufacturer is flexible in response to requests we make The manufacturer makes an effort to help us during emergencies When an agreement is made we can always rely on the manufacturer to fulfill all the requirements

All items are on a 5-point scale with the endpoir~ts labeled as shown in parentheses except where noted Variable eliminated during scale purification

You have printed the following article

Characteristics of Partnership Success Partnership Attributes Communication Behaviorand Conflict Resolution TechniquesJakki Mohr Robert SpekmanStrategic Management Journal Vol 15 No 2 (Feb 1994) pp 135-152Stable URL


This article references the following linked citations If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR Pleasevisit your librarys website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR

References

The Salesperson as outside Agent or Employee A Transaction Cost AnalysisErin AndersonMarketing Science Vol 4 No 3 (Summer 1985) pp 234-254Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0732-2399281985222943A33C2343ATSAOAO3E20CO3B2-P

The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution ChannelsErin Anderson Barton WeitzJournal of Marketing Research Vol 29 No 1 (Feb 1992) pp 18-34Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819920229293A13C183ATUOPTB3E20CO3B2-M

Resource Allocation Behavior in Conventional ChannelsErin Anderson Leonard M Lodish Barton A WeitzJournal of Marketing Research Vol 24 No 1 (Feb 1987) pp 85-97Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819870229243A13C853ARABICC3E20CO3B2-G

An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational EffectivenessHarold L Angle James L PerryAdministrative Science Quarterly Vol 26 No 1 (Mar 1981) pp 1-14Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0001-83922819810329263A13C13AAEAOOC3E20CO3B2-A

httpwwwjstororg

LINKED CITATIONS- of 5 -

Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail SurveysJ Scott Armstrong Terry S OvertonJournal of Marketing Research Vol 14 No 3 Special Issue Recent Developments in SurveyResearch (Aug 1977) pp 396-402Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819770829143A33C3963AENBIMS3E20CO3B2-M

Constructive Role of Interorganizational ConflictHenry AssaelAdministrative Science Quarterly Vol 14 No 4 Conflict within and between Organizations (Dec1969) pp 573-582Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0001-83922819691229143A43C5733ACROIC3E20CO3B2-23

The Interorganizational Network as a Political EconomyJ Kenneth BensonAdministrative Science Quarterly Vol 20 No 2 (Jun 1975) pp 229-249Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0001-83922819750629203A23C2293ATINAAP3E20CO3B2-Q

Hybrid Arrangements as Strategic Alliances Theoretical Issues in OrganizationalCombinationsBryan Borys David B JemisonThe Academy of Management Review Vol 14 No 2 (Apr 1989) pp 234-249Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0363-74252819890429143A23C2343AHAASAT3E20CO3B2-2

The Informant in Quantitative ResearchDonald T CampbellThe American Journal of Sociology Vol 60 No 4 (Jan 1955) pp 339-342Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0002-96022819550129603A43C3393ATIIQR3E20CO3B2-4

A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing ConstructsGilbert A Churchill JrJournal of Marketing Research Vol 16 No 1 (Feb 1979) pp 64-73Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819790229163A13C643AAPFDBM3E20CO3B2-A

httpwwwjstororg

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 2 of 5 -

Organizational Information Requirements Media Richness and Structural DesignRichard L Daft Robert H LengelManagement Science Vol 32 No 5 Organization Design (May 1986) pp 554-571Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0025-19092819860529323A53C5543AOIRMRA3E20CO3B2-O

Trust and Participation in Organizational Decision Making as Predictors of SatisfactionJames W DriscollThe Academy of Management Journal Vol 21 No 1 (Mar 1978) pp 44-56Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0001-42732819780329213A13C443ATAPIOD3E20CO3B2-R

A Contingency Approach to Strategy Implementation at the Business-Unit Level IntegratingAdministrative Mechanisms with StrategyVijay GovindarajanThe Academy of Management Journal Vol 31 No 4 (Dec 1988) pp 828-853Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0001-42732819881229313A43C8283AACATSI3E20CO3B2-U

Vertical Integration and Corporate StrategyKathryn Rudie HarriganThe Academy of Management Journal Vol 28 No 2 (Jun 1985) pp 397-425Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0001-42732819850629283A23C3973AVIACS3E20CO3B2-D

Alliances in Industrial Purchasing The Determinants of Joint Action in Buyer-SupplierRelationshipsJan B Heide George JohnJournal of Marketing Research Vol 27 No 1 (Feb 1990) pp 24-36Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819900229273A13C243AAIIPTD3E20CO3B2-C

Covariance Structure Modeling and Measurement Issues A Note on Interrelations among aChannel Entitys Power SourcesRoy D HowellJournal of Marketing Research Vol 24 No 1 (Feb 1987) pp 119-126Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819870229243A13C1193ACSMAMI3E20CO3B2-H

httpwwwjstororg


An Empirical Investigation of Some Antecedents of Opportunism in a Marketing ChannelGeorge JohnJournal of Marketing Research Vol 21 No 3 (Aug 1984) pp 278-289Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819840829213A33C2783AAEIOSA3E20CO3B2-F

Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational RelationshipsSol Levine Paul E WhiteAdministrative Science Quarterly Vol 5 No 4 (Mar 1961) pp 583-601Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0001-8392281961032953A43C5833AEAACFF3E20CO3B2-W

Collinearity Power and Interpretation of Multiple Regression AnalysisCharlotte H Mason William D Perreault JrJournal of Marketing Research Vol 28 No 3 (Aug 1991) pp 268-280Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819910829283A33C2683ACPAIOM3E20CO3B2-F

New Venture Strategies An Empirical Identification of Eight Archetypes of CompetitiveStrategies for EntryPatricia McDougall Richard B Robinson JrStrategic Management Journal Vol 11 No 6 (Oct 1990) pp 447-467Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0143-20952819901029113A63C4473ANVSAEI3E20CO3B2-W

Assessing Measurement Error in Key Informant Reports A Methodological Note onOrganizational Analysis in MarketingLynn W PhillipsJournal of Marketing Research Vol 18 No 4 (Nov 1981) pp 395-415Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819811129183A43C3953AAMEIKI3E20CO3B2-H

Interorganizational Cooperation and Decision Making Autonomy in a ConsortiumMultihospital SystemKeith G ProvanThe Academy of Management Review Vol 9 No 3 (Jul 1984) pp 494-504Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0363-7425281984072993A33C4943AICADMA3E20CO3B2-I

httpwwwjstororg


Reliability and Validity of Alternative Measures of Channel Member SatisfactionRobert W Ruekert Gilbert A Churchill JrJournal of Marketing Research Vol 21 No 2 (May 1984) pp 226-233Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819840529213A23C2263ARAVOAM3E20CO3B2-6

The Contribution of Formal Planning to DecisionsDeepak K SinhaStrategic Management Journal Vol 11 No 6 (Oct 1990) pp 479-492Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0143-20952819901029113A63C4793ATCOFPT3E20CO3B2-H

Converting from Independent to Employee Salesforces The Role of Perceived Switching CostsAllen M Weiss Erin AndersonJournal of Marketing Research Vol 29 No 1 (Feb 1992) pp 101-115Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0022-24372819920229293A13C1013ACFITES3E20CO3B2-1

Trust and Managerial Problem SolvingDale E ZandAdministrative Science Quarterly Vol 17 No 2 (Jun 1972) pp 229-239Stable URL

httplinksjstororgsicisici=0001-83922819720629173A23C2293ATAMPS3E20CO3B2-N

httpwwwjstororg


Strategic Management Journal Vol 15 135-152 (1994)

CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS PARTNERSHIP ATTRIBUTES COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

- TECHNIQUES JAKKl MOHR College of Business and Administration University of Colorado Boulder Colorado USA

ROBERT SPEKMAM Darden Graduate School of Business Administration University of Virginia Charlottesville Virginia USA

The formation of partnerships between firms is becoming an increasingly common way for firms to find and maintain competitive advantage While the antecedents of partnership formation and the characteristics of the resulting cooperative working relationship have been explored in the literature an understanding of characteristics associated with partnership success is lacking Such an understanding is important in reconciling the prescriptions to form partnerships with the reality that a majority of such partnerships do not succeed We hypothesize that partnership attributes communication behavior and conflict resolution techniques are related to indicators of partnership success (satisfaction and sales volume in the relationship) The hypotheses are tested with vertical partnerships between manufacturers and dealers Results indicate that the primary characteristics of partnership success are partnership attributes of commitment coordination and trust communication quality and participation and the conflict resolution technique of joint problem solving The findings offer insight into how to better manage these relationships to ensure success

PURPOSE

To begin partnerships are defined as purposive strategic relationships between independent firms who share compatible goals strive for mutual benefit and acknowledge a high level of mutual interdependence They join efforts to achieve goals that each firm acting alone could not attain easily The formation of these alliances and partnerships is motivated primarily to gain competitive advantage in the marketplace (Bleeke

Key words Strategic partnership success communication

CCC 0143-20951941020135-18 01994 by John Wiley amp Sons Ltd

and Ernst 1991 Powell 1990) Partnerships can afford a firm access to new technologies or markets the ability to provide a wider range of productsservices economies of scale in joint research andlor production access to knowledge beyond the firms boundaries sharing of risks and access to complementary skills (Powell 1987 71) However prescriptions for the formation of such partnerships often overlook the drawbacks1 hazards of such relationships For example increasing complexity loss of autonomy and information asymmetry (Provan 1984 William- son 1975) may accompany partnering relationships

Although the number of attempted partnerships

Received 31 July 1991 Final revision received 2 June 1993



LITERATURE REVIEW



















- Domination









Coordination


Iizterdeperidence










Information sharing


Participation














METHOD














Measurement


















Commitment

Coordination

Interdependence


Participation

Information sharing


Persuasion

Smoothing

Arbitration

Severe resolution

Covariate Closeness














ConJlict resolution




Covariate



Multicollinearity




RESULTS




Hypothesis 1


Hypothesis 2


Hypothesis 3





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg




LITERATURE REVIEW



















- Domination









Coordination


Iizterdeperidence










Information sharing


Participation














METHOD














Measurement


















Commitment

Coordination

Interdependence


Participation

Information sharing


Persuasion

Smoothing

Arbitration

Severe resolution

Covariate Closeness














ConJlict resolution




Covariate



Multicollinearity




RESULTS




Hypothesis 1


Hypothesis 2


Hypothesis 3





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg












- Domination









Coordination


Iizterdeperidence










Information sharing


Participation














METHOD














Measurement


















Commitment

Coordination

Interdependence


Participation

Information sharing


Persuasion

Smoothing

Arbitration

Severe resolution

Covariate Closeness














ConJlict resolution




Covariate



Multicollinearity




RESULTS




Hypothesis 1


Hypothesis 2


Hypothesis 3





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg




Coordination


Iizterdeperidence










Information sharing


Participation














METHOD














Measurement


















Commitment

Coordination

Interdependence


Participation

Information sharing


Persuasion

Smoothing

Arbitration

Severe resolution

Covariate Closeness














ConJlict resolution




Covariate



Multicollinearity




RESULTS




Hypothesis 1


Hypothesis 2


Hypothesis 3





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg


Information sharing


Participation














METHOD














Measurement


















Commitment

Coordination

Interdependence


Participation

Information sharing


Persuasion

Smoothing

Arbitration

Severe resolution

Covariate Closeness














ConJlict resolution




Covariate



Multicollinearity




RESULTS




Hypothesis 1


Hypothesis 2


Hypothesis 3





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg




METHOD














Measurement


















Commitment

Coordination

Interdependence


Participation

Information sharing


Persuasion

Smoothing

Arbitration

Severe resolution

Covariate Closeness














ConJlict resolution




Covariate



Multicollinearity




RESULTS




Hypothesis 1


Hypothesis 2


Hypothesis 3





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg






Measurement


















Commitment

Coordination

Interdependence


Participation

Information sharing


Persuasion

Smoothing

Arbitration

Severe resolution

Covariate Closeness














ConJlict resolution




Covariate



Multicollinearity




RESULTS




Hypothesis 1


Hypothesis 2


Hypothesis 3





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg










Commitment

Coordination

Interdependence


Participation

Information sharing


Persuasion

Smoothing

Arbitration

Severe resolution

Covariate Closeness














ConJlict resolution




Covariate



Multicollinearity




RESULTS




Hypothesis 1


Hypothesis 2


Hypothesis 3





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg







ConJlict resolution




Covariate



Multicollinearity




RESULTS




Hypothesis 1


Hypothesis 2


Hypothesis 3





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg




RESULTS




Hypothesis 1


Hypothesis 2


Hypothesis 3





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg





Covariate Closeness


Interdependence - -







Covariate Closeness




Change in F 1379 308 797








Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg




Dependent variables

Covariate Closeness


Change in F ^ A

RZadjusted for df



















CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg











CONCLUSIONS










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


REFERENCES




























































































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg


























































APPENDIX ITEMS





























References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg




















References









httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg














httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg










httpwwwjstororg


Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior, and...

Documents

Transcript of Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior, and...