When management andcustomers see eye-to-eye:the agreement factor and

performanceCinzia Dessı and Michela Floris

Faculty of Economics, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

Abstract

Purpose – The paper aims to focus on management-customer relations as a way to understand thecompetitive advantages of small/medium-sized family businesses. The aim of this work is to verifywhether management perceptions of business strengths and customer perceptions of the samestrengths agree, and whether this agreement (perceptive concordance) can become an important factorin maintaining the firm’s competitive advantages.

Design/methodology/approach – The research is carried out through a single case study with asample of 120 customers.

Findings – The findings indicate that when management and customers agree on certain businessissues, performance benefits. Comparing management’s perception of strengths and customers’perceptions of the same strengths allow one to relate what the firm thinks of itself to what thecustomer sees in it.

Practical implications – The research offers useful information about the efficiency of the firm’sexternal communications and demonstrates that a shared language between the firm and its customersdoes exist and is understood by both entities. Moreover, practical implications are related tocustomers’ degree of satisfaction with respect to management beliefs, and to management’sopportunity to correct the weaknesses revealed by the agreement factor.

Originality/value – The paper provides a different perspective on how to analyse competitiveadvantage inside small to medium-sized family businesses with cases and specific analyses notconsidered in depth by the family business literature.

Keywords Family firms, Small to medium-sized enterprises, Perception, Buyer-seller relations,Competitive advantage

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionDisciplines such as psychology, sociology, economics, law, business and management(Chrisman et al., 2003; Sharma, 2004; Wortman, 1994;) are all interested in familybusiness dynamics. Although family business represents the greatest entrepreneurialsystem in the world (IFERA, 2003) and 94 per cent of all businesses in Italy arefamily-owned, the study of family businesses is still fragmentary and sporadic. (Birdet al., 2002; Chrisman et al., 2003).

Scholars such as Dyer and Sanchez (1998) noted that in the decade 1988-1997 familybusinesses were most interested in dynamic succession, parent relationships,performance, gender and ethnicity.

The subsequent decade (1997-2006) reinforced an interest in governance,competitive advantage, internationalisation, and internal conflicts. In this decade,Zahra and Sharma (2004, p. 334) showed that succession studies dominate the field,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm

JSBED17,1

102

Journal of Small Business andEnterprise DevelopmentVol. 17 No. 1, 2010pp. 102-122q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1462-6004DOI 10.1108/14626001011019152

with over 22 per cent of published papers; economic performance is next with 15 percent, the corporate governance with 10 per cent, resources and competitive advantagewith 6 per cent, conflicts with 6 per cent, culture with 5 per cent, strategy with 5percent, innovation with 5 percent, internationalisation with 3 per cent, andprofessionalism with 2 per cent. In addition, there are smaller studies that Zahra andSharma (2004, p. 335) report as covering a pot-pourri of topics.

Literature on family businesses continues to ignore or under-study goal andstrategy formulation, innovation and professionalism of firms, resource management,culture and internationalisation (Zahra and Sharma, 2004, p. 334), while theunderstanding of internal/external dynamics of family businesses is very important.This is especially true for policy decisions, because these businesses represent themajority of firms in most countries of the world. Moreover, a thorough understandingof family business dynamics represents an opportunity for managers to implementnew managerial practices and for the academic field to add to the literature with newcase studies and analyses.

Within internal/external dynamics of family business the literature offers limiteddiscussions of the relationship between management and customer perception. For thisreason, our analysis in this article presents the study of management-customerrelations from the side of perception as a way to better understand the competitiveadvantages within small/medium-sized family businesses.

The family business in our analysis is an emblematic company located in SoutheastSardinia, Italy, which distributes industrial and civil electrical equipment. The firmwas founded in 1904 and it is now in its fourth generation of family ownership. Itreacted tenaciously to the deep and radical changes that took place during the pastcentury, especially in the last 20 years. The firm has always been a family business andhas had good results and a defendable competitive advantage. Although these resultsmay result from a variety of factors, we are focusing our attention here onmanagement-customer relations from the side of perception. Beyond traditionalmeasures of entrepreneurial success – such as financial, economic and patrimonialmethods – focusing attention on management-customer relations allows us to discoverwhat the firm thinks of itself with what the customer thinks of it.

Therefore, our paper tries to answer the following research questions:. Are management perceptions of business strengths and customer perceptions of

the same strengths similar?. If this similarity exists, can it (perceptive concordance) be considered an

important tool to preserve the firm’s competitive advantage?

The answers to these questions will allow us to understand whether similarity ofperception by these two entities represents a unique resource within small tomedium-sized family businesses. Indeed, if this similarity exists, it is reasonable toassert that the firm has not only been able to communicate its strengths efficiently, butthat customer loyalty is a function of these strengths.

Literature reviewIn the entrepreneurship literature, researchers have tried to understand howentrepreneurs construct their resource base, given the limitations that family firmsoften face in exploiting perceived market opportunities or in responding to market

The agreementfactor and

performance

103

threats. To date, theoretical models have failed to identify any unambiguous ways toevaluate firm performance in terms of the origin, source or nature of a firm’scompetitive advantage (Tokarczyk et al., 2007, p. 18).

Theoretical models and methods are based on descriptive studies of smallbusinesses (Bird et al., 2002; Chrisman et al., 2003; Handler, 1989; Sharma, 2004;Wortman, 1994), and are reflected in resource-based view postulates (Barney, 1991;Berman et al., 2002a, b; Conner, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984, 1995) and agency theorypropositions (Chrisman et al., 2003, p. 5). Many scholars argue that the application ofthe resource-based view (RBV) is a suitable theoretical structure to analyse family firmcompetitive advantages (Cabrera-Suarez et al., 2001; Habbershon and Williams, 1999).

In brief, the RBV posits that firms differ from each other according to the resourcesowned. This resource endowment is heterogeneous among business firms andgenerates performance differences. Within this view, firms with scarce and valuableresources perform better than those without such assets. We need to isolate thesescarce resources to better understand performance results (Rumelt, 1987). Firms createand defend these resources through isolation mechanisms such as barriers, making itimpossible for rival firms to imitate their products or finding them from the market(Barney, 1986).

In this scenario, family firms represent a fertile ground for examining the valuableresources described by RBV (Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1959; Wernerfelt, 1984) owing tothe condition of “familyness” within these firms that is not present in other types offirm. As a few authors suggest, FBs are unique in the way they evaluate, acquire, shed,bundle and leverage their resources (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003; Chrisman et al., 2003).Informing our discussion by drawing on the RBV means recognising firms ascollections of idiosyncratic resources and capabilities that are able to engender firmcompetitive advantages (Barney, 1991). But what exactly are these peculiar FBresources, and what we can learn from analysing them?

A special feature of FBs is their ability to form stronger and longer-termrelationships with their customers compared to other firms. Cooper et al. (2005) showedthat family businesses have a unique position compared to other firms in the creationof long-lasting customer relationships that generate inimitable competitive advantage(Ashley-Cotler and King, 1999). To acquire customer trust means to build long-lastingrelationships between the firm and its customers. This produces a strategic advantagein a hypercompetitive market where firms are continually jockeying for a leadingposition. Customer loyalty is a strong factor in firm success, and customer satisfactionhelps to create a positive public image for the firm.

To better improve customer relationships, a firm must invest in developing andacquiring an accurate awareness of customer preferences so that they can modify theirbehaviour in the case of a neglected belief. This is not always an automatic approachfor customer-oriented managers, probably because managers “used to organise theircustomer interaction in centralised marketing functions to better accomplish serviceproduction for their customers” (Eriksson and Mattsson, 2002). In this way,relationships with customers are relatively more emotional and behavioural, centredon such variables as bonding, empathy, reciprocity and trust (Yau et al., 2000).

As customer relationships are a key competitive aspect of business, and are alsorelated to the management’s ability to attract, maintain and enhance purchase

JSBED17,1

104

relationships (Berry, 1983), a deeper understanding of thoughts, opinions, beliefs isnecessary to better answer customer needs.

This involves a comprehensive view by management of the whole system ofcustomer beliefs, feelings, opinions, trust and emotions, which includes the ability ofmanagement to hold the right perception of different business aspects.

Research findings on perception come from a relatively new domain of study. Theword “perception” comes from Latin and means receiving, collecting, the action oftaking possession, and apprehension by the senses. A number of scholars havesuggested that perception is the process by which people select, organise and interprettheir sensations of the world (Solomon, 2007). Perception is the process of attainingawareness or understanding of sensory information and an emotional factor that leadspeople to understand reality, even if perceptions of reality are different for everyone.

For these reasons, the concept of perception is complex and difficult to define. It hasbeen analysed in different fields, including communications, psychology (Rookes andWillson, 2000), philosophy (Merleau-Ponty, 1962), neurological sciences, and visualarts (Gombrich et al., 1972; Elsbach, 2006). All of these disciplines define the field ofperception studies as focusing on actions designed and carried out to influenceaudiences’ perceptions of an organisation. This definition is grounded in psychologicalresearch on individual perception management (Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi, 1981;Leary, 1996), as well as in empirical studies of perception management strategies usedby organisations (Staw et al., 1983; Marcus and Goodman, 1991; Elsbach, 2001).

As the market urges managers to develop competitive strategies that differentiatethem from their competitors, focusing on the perceptions of managers and customerscould constitute an important tool to better compete in the market. This method ofcompetition generates different consumer perceptions, especially of firms’ strengths.

This is a significant field of analysis that is still underdeveloped within the field ofrelationship research (Bitner, 1995; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995; Sheth and Sollner,1999), where there are still few studies regarding the perception aspects ofmanagement (Eriksson and Mattsson, 2002).

In marketing studies, perception analysis has been used to understand customerpreferences and customer behaviour in relation to a brand or logo (Han and Schmitt,1997; Roedder and Loken, 1998; Boush and Loken, 1991; Hem and Iversen, 2003;Muzellec et al., 2003; Kohli et al., 2002; Hem and Iversen, 2003; De Wulf et al., 2001,2003).

There is a small niche of literature within studies of interactive feedback systems(Ryals and Payne, 2001; Srinivasan et al., 2002) that compares customer perceptions ofservice effectiveness (Johnson, 1996; Schneider et al., 1998; Lambert et al., 1997;Lengnick-Hall, 1996; London and Smither, 1995; Milliman et al., 1995) withmanagement’s determination of what information will be useful. Other studies(Gronroos, 1984; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Julian and Ramaseshan, 1994; Jun et al.,2004) have focused their attention on the analysis of perceived quality in the age ofservice through gap analysis, and have introduced the concept of perceptional gaps(Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Lewis and Klein, 1987; Zeithaml et al., 1990). Theseanalyses show interesting results when comparing customer expectations to customerperceptions in relation to different features that could engage customer choices (Drewand Karwan, 1994; Ueltschy et al., 2007).

The agreementfactor and

performance

105

Other authors, in contrast, have focused their attention on building models tomeasure the perceived quality of service (Brady and Cronin, 2001, Brady et al., 2002;Parasuraman, 1994; Brown et al., 1993; Teas, 1993; Bellou, 2007; Eisingerich and Bell,2007; Cronin and Taylor, 1994), while recent contributions have proposed an analysisof the role of the supplier of a product/service (Ward and Dagger, 2007). In this sense,the conclusions of Schofield and Breen’s (2006) work are very interesting: theyhighlighted the importance of deep knowledge between a firm and its customers sothat the firm can supply something close to the expectations of their consumers.

In this scenario, there is still little understanding of how aspects of managementperception can weight the development of customer relationships in order to expand itsknowledge of customers’ opinions and preferences. As Fournier et al. (1998) suggest,without an accurate understanding of when and why consumers respond favourablyand strongly to firms’ relationship-building efforts, the consumer relationship remainsvague. This means, for instance, that there is a need for narrowing “perceptional gaps”between management beliefs and customer opinion to adjust workflows. This isespecially important because studies have demonstrated that customer relationshipsare more heterogeneous than homogenous (Anderson et al., 1994; Halle et al., 1991;Blankenburg-Holm et al., 1996; Morgan and Hunt, 1994), and that relationships arebuilt on a foundation of perceived satisfaction.

This means that managers need to verify whether their mental constructs arealigned with customer opinions, because this is a key part of the development ofcustomer loyalty, especially in the retail trade. Moreover, managers must determinewhether customers’ choice of their firm is substantially driven by the same factors asmanagement evaluations, for example, regarding business strengths. In the absence ofthis knowledge, they may embark on enhancement investments that will be doomed tofail because they do not match customer preferences for their firm.

Although these aspects have not received widespread support in the literature, thisanalysis primarily emphasises that a certain degree of correct perception is required toeffectively manage customer relationships. This is strictly linked to the emergingliterature that suggests that a firm has to be capable of gathering knowledge about itscurrent and prospective customers (Campbell, 2003; Crosby and Johnson, 2000) in such away so as to apply this knowledge to shape its subsequent interactions with customers,or to change its behaviour towards them (BradshawandBrash, 2001; Hirschowitz, 2001).

Filling this gap would allow a firm to better achieve a business-customer orientationwith an in-depth understanding of customer leanings (Lengnick-Hall, 1996), and toincrease and improve management’s tacit knowledge in relation to this aspect ofcustomers. Tacit knowledge is a difficult concept to articulate, as it is implicit,personally embedded and based on experience (Polanyi, 1969; Nelson andWinter, 1982;Tsoukas, 2003). This knowledge is then stored and enhances the firm’s capabilities aspart of a complex system that is not articulated or codified (Nonaka and Takeuchi,1995; Polanyi, 1969).

There is general agreement that tacit knowledge is an important phenomenon,strictly connected with time and acquired through an individual’s direct experiencewith the object of their tacit knowledge (Patel et al., 1999; Herbig et al., 2001). Tacitknowledge development takes time and includes significant of training and experience.In light of this, FBs may offer a suitable context for examining tacit knowledgedevelopment (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000). Generally, FBs have long lives and use sharedlanguage and routines to transfer tacit knowledge from one generation to the next

JSBED17,1

106

(Sharma, 2004). This means that in the business succession process, one of thesurrounding issues is the transfer of the tacit knowledge embedded in theowner-manager’s mind to the successor (Sharma, 2004). In this sense, FBs havebetter opportunities than non-FBs for creating and transferring tacit knowledge,because co-workers from the same family have a deeper understanding of each otherand more trust. This could render an opportunity for constructive feedback that canguarantee better conditions of tacit knowledge development (Habbershon, 2006).

Through tacit knowledge that family members have obtained from their longexperience in the business, FBs may have benefits and new opportunities in terms ofrelationships with customers (Habbershon, 2006). This underlines the possibility thatFBs may have the ability to create better relationships with customers than non-FBs(Luck and Lancaster, 2003).

According to the opinion that perception can contribute to enlarging tacitknowledge, we suggest that if FB owner-managers are accurately able to perceive theFB’s business strengths in relation to their customers’ perception of the samestrengths, then this can become an inimitable resource.

Inimitable resources and firms’ capabilities are typically knowledge-based and verycomplex, making them impossible to purchase or to acquire in the market (Grant, 1991;Maritan, 2001; Teece et al., 1997).

As Stefanou et al. (2003) suggest, knowledge about key customers is essential fordeveloping a “learning relationship” with customers (Zahay and Griffin, 2004).Customer preferences and needs may be captured either directly or indirectly in aninteractive feedback system based on correct management perception.

So, how we can we more deeply analyse this tacit knowledge inside FBs? Isperception an applicable tool for better understanding the significance ofmanagement’s tacit knowledge?

To answer these questions, it is essential to find a way to evaluate whether a correctmanagement perception exists in relation to customer beliefs. While there have been nosystematic attempts to develop a valid measure of management perception related tocustomer beliefs, we believe that it is no longer sufficient to advise practitioners andresearchers that the key to business success is building strong and long-term customerrelationships, without providing information on what dimensions are actually involvedor a way to evaluate them. In this sense, little research has focused on creating ameasurement scale or testing concepts empirically (Sin et al., 2005), especially withregard to management perception.

Our analysis in this paper shows how management perception could be measured.

MethodologyThis work follows and assumes the RBV postulates as the foundation for our analysis.We use a single-case study, a methodology able to better validate the thesis suggestedin this article.

We use a single-case study (Yin, 1989) because:. the survey refers to a contemporary phenomenon based on real life contexts;. the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly

identifiable; and. some resources demonstrate our assumptions (Yin, 1989, p. 23).

The agreementfactor and

performance

107

The single-case study is an unusual instance of a family business in a specific sector(unique case) and represents a critical case that allows us, through the RBV postulates,to observe and analyze a phenomenon (management-customer relations) rarely studiedin a scientific manner (revelatory case) (Yin, 1989, p. 48).

At the same time, this work offers a pilot survey as a prelude to subsequent studiesand other investigations. Thus, it can function as the first step of a subsequent multiplecase study.

We gathered data through a longitudinal approach (Langley, 1996; Leonard-Barton,1990) that permitted data triangulation across various sources such as interviews,documents and direct observations within the family business. The managementinterviews allowed us to learn first-hand what management believed about thebusiness strengths. The rich documentation acquired (through family business data onthe one hand and specific sector data on the other) reflected the features andpeculiarities of the sector and allowed us to understand the competitive dynamics inthe market during the last few years. Finally, our direct observations inside the firmallowed us to compare interview results with actual family firm facts.

The single-case approachThe family business under the microscopeDessy Srl, the family business in our single case study, can correctly be defined as a“family firm”, as Astrachan et al. (2002) suggest. Their definition takes into accountthree dimensions of the family influence:

(1) power;

(2) experience; and

(3) culture.

In Dessy Srl, Giorgio Dessy, the owner, with his sons, Andrea and Alberto, exercisefamily power; firm experience has been passed down through four generations overmore than a century; firm culture is an expression of family values and permeates allcorporate levels. The firm was established in Cagliari (South Sardinia) in 1904 anddeals with electrical equipment. From its inception, the firm has respondedsuccessfully to various environmental challenges, achieving a competitive advantagein the market and consistently positive performance results.

Dessy Srl, owing to its longevity, has a large portfolio of customers. Itsprofessionalism, reliability and willingness have garnered customer trust over theyears. Currently, the turnover of Dessy Srl is about e4 million. The business has onestore in Cagliari and opened another in November 2007, also in Cagliari. As we notedabove, we chose this firm for its unusual longevity in a sector of the market – electricalequipment – characterised by strong threats and tough competitive transactions. Inthis environment, Dessy Srl has not changed the original nature of the family firm,while other similar firms changed their nature, in some cases being bought out orclosing their doors.

The Italian electrical equipment marketMany firms, family-owned or not, in the electrical equipment business, especially inItaly, have been coping with global market pressures due to the great technological andeconomical changes of the last 20 years. Among these pressures are the growth of large

JSBED17,1

108

multinational operators (through global acquisition, consolidation, and diversification),increased competition, and price pressure. In the last 20 years, the Italian electricalequipment market (IEEM) in civil and industrial products has seen deep andcontinuous changes that contributed to the emergence of a complex, unstable andturbulent scenario.

IEEM has experienced strong growth alternating with unexpected and suddenslackening. This is the nature of IEEM, similar to trends in other speciality markets aswell as in general industry. These circumstances caused the redundancy of wholesalersof electric equipment, the expansion of modern retail – for example “do it yourself”centres and “bricocenters” and direct sales transactions between electric manufacturesand installation firms, bypassing the middleman. As a result, the competitivenessamong electrical equipment firms has decreased.

As we have illustrated, IEEMwholesalers have been forced to adjust their actions inresponse to the new trends – a difficult move. For years, the competition of IEEM hasbeen regulated through steady price increases, which caused profit margins to decreaseand earnings to erode, locking up growth potential.

In the mid-1980s a new threat affected IEEM competitiveness. Foreignmultinationals acquired small/medium-sized firms with the intention of convertingIEEM to the French pattern where about 80 per cent of the market is held by two largemultinationals. Small wholesalers lost bargaining power as multinationals took over.To counter this threat and create better conditions inside the IEEM, wholesalersformed several pools that, at the moment, hold a big share of IEEM, valued at aboute5.4 thousand million out of a total of e7.5 thousand million. The total trade of IEEM isactually more than e7.5 thousand million, since one must consider a substantial (butunknown) amount of direct sales made by the producers (usually related to the publicsector).

For these reasons, Italian electrical equipment (IEE) firms have chosen to competethrough cooperative pools which allow IEE firms to delegate – with regular proxycontracts – all purchase transactions to the head pool while maintaining theirmanagerial independence.

Since 1995 Dessy Srl has been associated with CO.DI.ME (Consorzio Distributori diMateriale Elettrico), a pool that shares e500 million inside IEEM.

IEEM then became hyper-competitive, characterised by fast and strong actions.Thus, IEE firms have to move quickly in order to cope with competitors (D’Aveni,1994). Internationalisation and technological progress (Eisenhard, 1989), in addition tothe complexity, instability and ambiguity of the environment, require strategicaccelerations between competitors.

In these circumstances, IEE firms need to modify their previous strategies byadapting to the market. Firm cooperation is therefore essential to IEEM.

Specialised reviews have recently published some interesting results to explain thecompetitive dynamics inside IEEM. These results show market peculiarities, firm’smapping, actors, competitive positions, organisations and potential evolutionaryroutes of IEE firms.

The Voltimum research analysed the main economic aspects of IEEM, highlightingregional peculiarities. It showed the main IEEM wholesalers in relation to sales, profitmargins and other economic indicators such as ROI and ROE.

The agreementfactor and

performance

109

The Morelli (2006) research discussed wholesaler opinions and feelings concerningthe loss of competition of IEEM – about 20 per cent – in the last five years, whichgenerated a sense of pessimism among wholesalers. They are concerned aboutweakening research, better structural conditions for foreign firms, and the passiveinternationalisation of competition often dishonestly carried out by emerging states.

By analysing and comparing data from sources as diverse as the Chamber ofCommerce and the Federazione Nazionale dei Grossisti di Materiale Elettrico(FNDGME) (National Federation of Electrical Material Wholesalers), in addition to theVoltimum and Morelli research, we found that IEEM remains quite scrappy andregionally differentiated.

In fact, inside IEEM there are 1,636 firms, most of located in the North of Italy (62per cent versus 38 percent), especially in Lombardy (21.15 per cent), Piedmont (10.21percent), and Veneto (6.97 percent). In the South of Italy IEE firms are concentrated inLatium (8.07 percent) and in Campania (7.70 percent).

If we limit the field of IEE firms and consider only those with a turnover higher thane500,000 euros, the number of IEE firms decreases from 1,636 to approximately 537and the most representative areas of IEE wholesalers are Lombardy and Triveneto.These are the regions where there we find the greatest IEE turnover.

The differences between the Northern and Southern IEE territorial divisions alsovary according to the behaviour of IEE firms. Opinions, strategic decisions andcompetitive structures vary by region. Northern IEE firms claim the existence of ahidden conflict between IEE firms and producers because the manufacturers sell theirproducts directly to installation firms, excluding the IEE wholesalers. But SouthernIEE firms fear the threat of giant wholesalers. Southern Italy has manysmall/medium-sized firms, especially family firms. These firms protect theirautonomy and individuality through consortia or buying associations to defendthemselves against electric equipment giants.

In this scenario, IEE firms are looking for alternative ways to compete within IEEMby focusing on internal solutions, paying attention to their specific resources (Penrose,1959; Wernerfelt, 1984). Firms are then able to find exclusive solutions for theircustomers’ problems (Leavitt, 1983).

Consequently, it is important to single out the key internal factors that leadcustomers to prefer one wholesaler rather than another. The preference for a firm’sinternal factors is due to the impossibility of changing IEEM external factors, whichderive from market dynamics.

We identified interesting starting points from the research mentioned above tosingle out internal corporate factors. The Morelli (2006) research illustrates fourinternal corporate strengths selected by the wholesalers interviewed. They recogniseservice, price, promotion and image as the internal elements of IEE firms that canaffect customer preference and store loyalty.

The firm and its market shareWith fierce competition due to over-supply within IEEM, Dessy Srl maintains acompetitive advantage reflected in the main economic indexes of IEE firms, nationaland regional, in the period 2001-2004 and illustrated in Table I. We have highlightedthe regional situation of Sardinia, which suffers from structural limitations due to itsinsularity. In spite of that, Dessy Srl has been able to gain customer appreciation and

JSBED17,1

110

trust over time, resulting in the firm’s longevity. This is different from many other IEEfirms that failed or modified their original forms through acquisitions by largeinternational groups. As Table I shows, Dessy Srl has demonstrated satisfactoryeconomic results through these vicissitudes.

Table I also illustrates the great fluctuations of IEEM in the last four years, asshown by the alternating increase and decrease of income indexes.

Management perception of business strengthWhat characteristics of Dessy Srl have allowed it to survive and flourish in a market socomplex, turbulent and uncertain? How does the management of Dessy Srl react to thecompetitive dynamics of IEEM, and how have they defended their competitiveadvantages? Our interviews with the owner and his two sons revealed some interestingfactors that allowed the company to survive in IEEM.

We asked management to explain their perception of the firm’s strengths that haveled customers to choose Dessy Srl as their wholesaler.

The first five strengths identified by management, in order of importance, are:

(1) large product stock – the availability of products in a short time;

(2) payment terms – deferred payment with attention to the customer’s needs;

(3) experience and professionalism based on more than a century of being inbusiness;

2001(per cent)

2002(per cent)

2003(per cent)

2004(per cent)

ROEIEE trade (national data) 8.63 7.14 5.20 5.45IEE trade (regional data) 7.97 6.12 6.59 3.50IEE wholesale trade (regional data) 8.30 4.90 6.10 7.80Dessy Srl 8.50 6.20 6.60 7.80

ROIIEE trade (national data) 5.69 5.60 5.08 4.79IEE trade (regional data) 5.10 5.13 4.95 4.41IEE wholesale trade (regional data) 5.00 4.60 4.40 4.60Dessy Srl 5.70 5.68 5.12 4.88

ROSIEE trade (national data) 3.16 3.07 2.91 2.89IEE trade (regional data) 2.87 2.73 2.95 2.79IEE wholesale trade (regional data) 3.20 2.80 3.10 3.50Dessy Srl 3.22 3.11 3.12 3.60

EBITDAIEE trade (national data) 3.80 4.70 4.60 3.35IEE trade (regional data) 3.30 3.30 3.60 2.96IEE wholesale trade (regional data) 5.27 3.01 3.09 3.12Dessy Srl 5.30 5.00 4.90 3.38

VAIEE trade (national data) 10.70 10.80 11.00 12.03IEE trade (reginal data) 8.70 9.60 9.90 13.65IEE wholesale trade (regional data) 8.35 7.44 7.51 7.63Dessy Srl 9.50 10.02 10.25 13.68

Table I.Indexes of income

The agreementfactor and

performance

111

(4) focus on human relations, both internal (between management andsubordinates) and external (between the firm and its customers); and

(5) wide brand range to assure a broad choice for customers.

Following our interviews with management, we went on to determine whethercustomer perceptions of the company were similar to those of management. Weanalysed this through questionnaires based on scaling over a period of eight months.

To analyse qualitative data it is possible to use different kinds of scales (Stevens,1946). We chose the multi-item scale (Nunnally, 1978) built with four modalitiesaccording to the scale of Likert (1932). We added bootstrap calculus replications(Davison and Hinkley, 1997) to obviate some limitations of the estimate.

We asked customers to indicate, anonymously, their degree of satisfaction inrelation to a series of elements. In the middle of these elements, we inserted the five corestrengths singled out by the management of Dessy Srl. For each element we allotted avalue (weight) equal to: 1 (nothing), 2 (little), 3 (enough), and 4 (much). In this way, weobtained two early results: Customers directly expressed their opinion about thestrengths of Dessy Srl and indirectly expressed their preference for Dessy Srl instead ofother competitors. The data told us whether management’s perception of firmstrengths corresponded to customer preference for Dessy Srl. Elaboration of the datashows whether there is agreement between management and customer perceptions, i.e.a perceptive concordance, as explained below.

The index of perceptive concordance as an indicator ofmanagement-customer relationsThe research was carried out with a sample of 120 homogeneous customers selected asfollows: in 2006, the active customer portfolio of Dessy Srl numbered 1,423. Weestimated 1,189 clients as regular customers by virtue of the number of invoices issued(and not by the amount of the invoices). These 1,189 regular customers had a minimumof ten invoices each. As a sample, we extrapolated 10 per cent of these 1,189, and gavethem our questionnaires.

Afterwards, we processed our data and applied the following formula for eachstrength:

Ic ¼X

ðXiFiÞh i

=nn o

2 m:

This formula expresses the index of perceptive concordance.Specifically, Xi is the variable mode (1, 2, 3, or 4). Fi is the absolute frequency, or the

number of answers for each mode, n is the number in the sample and m is equal to 2.5,the central value of the scale.

The index of perceptive concordance (Ic) can be between 21.5 and 1.5; if Ic isnegative it means that there is no coincidence between management and customerperceptions or, in other words, there is a perceptive discordance. Instead, if Ic ispositive it means that there is perceptive concordance or coincidence betweenmanagement and customer perceptions. In this case, if 0 # Ic , 0:75, the perceptiveconcordance is weak. The perceptive concordance is strong if 0:75 # Ic , 1:5. In caseof Ic ¼ 1:5 there is perfect concordance, although this case is unlikely to occur. AsMaturana and Varela (1984) affirm, the observation of the same system from different

JSBED17,1

112

observers does not entail the same perception because there is no unambiguouslanguage so formal that it precludes any cognitive and perceptive misinterpretation.Moreover, some characteristics ascribed by the “observing system” to the “observedsystem” are not necessarily intrinsic attributes, but could come from the relationsestablished between the two systems. Consequently, many attributes ascribed by theobserving system to the observed system are not actually attributes of the observedsystem. It is utopian to think that every customer perceives the attributes andstrengths of the firm in the same way and with the same intensity. The results obtainedwith Ic calculations are presented in Table II.

The second column of Table II shows how the management perception of the firm’sstrengths carries out a positive perceptive concordance with customer perception, eventhough there is a different order of preference. By way of illustration, managementconsiders the first element, large product stock, as the pre-eminent strength of the firm,while customers ascribe the third position to the same strength. Customers rate otherelements such as human relations or experience and professionalism higher.

Within the data analysis, we paid attention to the variability of the sample. For thisreason, we randomly selected a different group of 120 clients from the sample andcalculated Ic again.

This procedure was repeated 10,000 times, yielding 10,000 tables and 10,000bootstrap replications of Ic (Davison and Hinkley, 1997). With the results obtained, weremoved the smaller 2.5 percent and the wider 2.5 percent. In this way, we determinedthe minimum and the maximum of 95 per cent of the 10,000 replications, obtaining theinterval of probability at 95 percent of Ic based on 1,189 clients, conditionally to the 120clients observed.

We can state that the global index of perceptive concordance (measured on theaverage of Ic for each single strength pointed out by management) of Dessy Srl is equalto 0.89 with a probability of 95 per cent. This means that there is a positive and strongperceptive concordance, which allows us to answer our first research question,pointing out that there is a coincidence between management’s perception of strengthsand customers’ perception of the same strengths. There is just a variation in the orderof preference expressed by customers. This information is of great use to the firm.

In Table III we report the results of the Ic intervals so that we can generalise thebehaviour of 120 clients, which formed the sample examined, to the whole portfolio ofcustomers.

Table III shows that the results obtained through the Ic formula agree with theintervals obtained with bootstrap replications.

Finally, to verify the trustworthiness of our results, we also calculated the varianceof Ic with regard to the central value of the scale. The outcomes obtained havemiddle/low values. This confirmed what we noted above.

Management’s perception of firm strengths Index of perceptive concordance

(3) Large product stock 0.85(4) Payment terms 0.78(2) Experience and professionalism 0.94(1) Human relations 1.12(5) Wide brand range 0.74

Table II.Indexes of perceptive

concordance

The agreementfactor and

performance

113

Table IV summarizes values of variance in order of management preference, while theorder of customer preference is indicated in parentheses.

In light of this, we can state that Dessy Srl satisfies its customers’ needs because theindex of perceptive concordance is positive. Dessy Srl has been able to communicateeffectively with their customers over time. There is a concordance between what thefirm believes about itself and what customers believe about it. There is a coincidencebetween “to be, to appear, to perceive and to enunciate” (Maturana and Varela, 1984).The real (true) features of the system observed (the firm) are similar to the features ofthe system expressed and are communicated to and understood by the market. Ingeneral, a deliberate or accidental dichotomy can exist between the circumstancesmentioned above. In this case, management must solve or remove this dichotomy. Thiscondition is significant because the manner of “to be” or “to become” by the systemobserved depends on the perception of the observant system (the customer).The firm’sendurance results from the customer’s perception of what the firm communicates to theoutside world.

The results obtained allow us to answer the second research question (b)highlighting that customer preferences are based on the same strengths identified bymanagement; therefore, this agreement represents an essential element that supportsthe firm’s competitive advantage.

The firm’s longevity is a direct consequence of the agreement between customer andmanagement perceptions. The firm’s longevity – hence its experience – has increasedthe tacit knowledge within the firm based on management-customer relations. This is astrong feature of inimitability of the firm for other competitors and derives from thenature of the firm (its “familyness”). In other words, values, ideologies, habits, stylesand behaviours of the family members have steered the actions of the firm towardcommon projects and mutual agreement to build a strong hundred-year-old experience.

With future research and by extending our analysis to other firms, we willdetermine if the perceptive concordance represents a typical inimitable factor ofsuccess for small/medium-sized family businesses.

Management’s perception of firm strengths Variance values

(3) Large product stock 0.23(4) Payment terms 0.52(2) Experience and professionalism 0.43(1) Human relations 0.36(5) Wide brand range 0.27

Table IV.Variance values

Management’s perception of firm strengthsIntervals of probability at 95 per cent of perceptive

concordance indexes

(3) Large product stock 0.77-0.94(4) Payment terms 0.64-0.90(2) Experience and professionalism 0.82-1.06(1) Human relations 1.01-1.22(5) Wide brand range 0.65-0.83

Table III.Intervals of probability at95 per cent

JSBED17,1

114

Conclusions and managerial implicationsAs we have already emphasised, FBs are a fertile ground for evaluating peculiarresources (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003; Chrisman et al., 2003), and are extremely interestingwith respect to a multifaceted analysis of customer relationships.

According to firm success is based on the resources owned, the results of this studyconfirm that this particular FB possesses a specific resource related to having the rightcustomer perceptions. Using the Ic calculation, we isolated this resource (Rumelt, 1987),and this helped us to study deeply the relationships between the firm and itscustomers.

The special feature of FBs in forming strong and long-term relationships with theircustomers is here confirmed by the Ic values that we found.

Values from the Ic calculations allowed us to learn more about customer opinions,and this is an important clue for managers to better answer customer needs.

Although the main limitation of this study is that it is based on a single case thatmight not be representative of all small/medium-sized family businesses, our Iccalculations can be seen as a picture showing a more comprehensive view of customeropinions related to the choice of this firm. Taking into account this limitation andpointing out the need for additional research, our analysis provides interestingmanagerial implications.

The first implication is related to the comparison between management’s perceptionof strengths and customers’ perceptions of the same strengths. This offers us usefulinformation regarding the efficiency of the firm’s external communications anddemonstrates that a shared language between the firm and its customers does existand is understood by both entities. Thus, management knows their customers’ needsand the customer identifies in this firm the source of solutions for their problems. Inthis way, managers could develop tailored competitive strategies through results fromIc calculations, because this is grounded in the association between customer andmanagement perceptions. This requires that managers validate their mental constructof customer opinions. It also represents a key element in the development of customerloyalty. Moreover, managers correctly realised that customers’ choice of their firm wasdriven by the same factors as management evaluations – in this case, businessstrengths. Through this knowledge, managers may embark on investments that will belikely to improve customer preferences for their firm.

A second implication relates to customers’ degree of satisfaction with respect tomanagement beliefs. In fact, customers’ preference for this firm rather than others is aresult of the degree of customer satisfaction with the firm.

A third implication, and possibly the most important, is that management has theopportunity to correct the weaknesses revealed by the Ic calculations. The resultsobtained show the existence of a positive concordance perception, and illustrate adifferent order of customer preferences compared to the order listed by management.This means that the customer ascribes different weights to the strengths identified bymanagement. Management must address issues that are considered to be weak andinvest resources in factors that have already demonstrated their intrinsic strength.

This supports our previous assertion that to better improve customer relationships,the firm must invest in developing and acquiring a correct awareness of customerpreferences, so that they can modify their behaviour in case of neglected concept. Thismeans to better achieve a business customer orientation through an in-depth

The agreementfactor and

performance

115

comprehension of customer leanings (Lengnick-Hall, 1996) and by increasingmanagement’s tacit knowledge associated with these customer aspects. Having thecorrect degree of perception helps to gather the knowledge necessary to effectivelymanage customer relationships. Results show that these FB owner-managers are ableto accurately perceive their FB’s business strengths. All this enlarges their tacitknowledge and becomes an inimitable resource that cannot be purchased in the market(Grant, 1991; Maritan, 2001; Teece et al. 1997).

As Ic calculations represent a suitable way to capture (both directly and indirectly)correct management perception about different firm features through an interactivefeedback system, this is a significant field of study that needs more empirical analysisto support these results with multiple case studies to test the initial research questionsin greater depth.

Accordingly, this research sketches out a few suggestions for future research in thefield of FB management studies. The first suggestion is to exploit a larger sample ofFBs of different sizes and from a broader range of industries. The second proposal is toexplore whether there is a difference between FBs and non-FBs. Another directionderives from the question whether there is a correspondence between managers andcustomers’ perceptions and the firm’s competitive advantage.

References

Anderson, J.C., Hakansson, H. and Johanson, J. (1994), “Dyadic business relationships within abusiness network context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 1-15.

Ashley-Cotler, C. and King, S. (1999), “Family business and relationship marketing: the impact ofrelationship marketing on second generation family businesses”, paper presented at theannual meeting of the United States Association of Small Business and Entrepreneurship,San Diego, CA, January.

Astrachan, H.J., Klein, S.B. and Smyrnios, K.X. (2002), “The F-PEC scale of family influence:a proposal for solving the family business definition problem”, Family Business Review,Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 45-58.

Barney, J. (1986), “Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy”,Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1231-41.

Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.

Bellou, V. (2007), “Achieving long-term customer satisfaction through organizational culture:evidence from the health care sector”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 510-22.

Berman, S., Down, J. and Hill, C. (2002), “Tacit knowledge as a competitive advantage in theNational Basketball Association”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 1,pp. 13-31.

Berry, L.L. (1983), “Relationship marketing”, in Berry, L.L., Shostak, G.L. and Upah, G.D. (Eds),Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago,IL, pp. 25-8.

Bird, B., Welsh, H., Astrchan, J.H. and Pistrui, D. (2002), “Family business research: the evolutionof an academic field”, Family Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 337-50.

Bitner, M.J. (1995), “Building service relationships: it’s all about promises”, Journal of AcademyMarketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 246-51.

JSBED17,1

116

Blankenburg-Holm, D., Eriksson, K. and Johansson, J. (1996), “Business networks andcooperation in international business relationships”, Journal of International BusinessStudies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1033-53.

Boush, D.M. and Loken, B. (1991), “A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, pp. 16-28.

Bradshaw, D. and Brash, C. (2001), “Managing customer relationships in the e-business world:how to personalize computer relationships for increased profitability”, InternationalJournal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 520-9.

Brady, M.F. and Cronin, J.J. Jr (2001), “Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived servicequality: a hierarchical approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, July, pp. 34-49.

Brady, M.F., Cronin, J.J. Jr and Brand, R.R. (2002), “Performance-only measurement of servicequality: a replication and extension”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 17-31.

Brown, T.J., Churchill, G.A. and Peter, J.P. (1993), “Improving the measurement of servicequality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69, Spring, pp. 127-39.

Cabrera-Suarez, K., De Saa-Perez, P. and Garcia-Almeida, D. (2001), “The succession processfrom a resource and knowledge-based view of the family firm”, Family Business Review,Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 37-47.

Campbell, A. (2003), “Creating customer knowledge competence: managing customerrelationship management programs strategically”, Industrial Marketing Management,Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 375-83.

Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H. and Sharma, P. (2003), “Current trends and future directions in familybusiness management studies: toward a theory of the family firm”, available at: www.usasbe.org/knowledge/whitepapers/index.asp

Conner, K.R. (1991), “A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of theorywithin industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm?”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 121-54.

Cooper, M., Upton, N. and Seaman, S. (2005), “Customer relationship management: a comparativeanalysis of family and nonfamily business practices”, Journal of Small BusinessManagement, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 242-56.

Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a re-examination andextension”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.

Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconcilingperformance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of servicequality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 125-31.

Crosby, L.A. and Johnson, S.L. (2000), “What to do before going 1-to-1”,Marketing Management,Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 15-21.

D’Aveni, R. (1994), Hypercompetition, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Davison, A.C. and Hinkley, D.V. (1997), Bootstrap Methods and their Application, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), “Investments in consumerrelationship: a cross-country and cross- industry exploration”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 33-50.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G. and Van Kenhove, P. (2003), “Investments in consumerrelationship: a critical reassessment and model extension”, The International Review ofRetail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 245-61.

The agreementfactor and

performance

117

Drew, R.L. and Karwan, K.R. (1994), “Prioritising the dimensions of service quality: an empiricalinvestigation and strategic assessment”, International Journal of Service Industry

Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 39-62.

Dyer, W.G. Jr and Sanchez, M. (1998), “Current state of family business theory and practice asreflected”, Family Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 287-95.

Eisenhard, K.M. (1989), “Making fast strategic decisions in high velocity environments”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 543-76.

Eisingerich, A.B. and Bell, S.J. (2007), “Maintaining customer relationships in high credenceservices”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 253-62.

Elsbach, K. (2001), “Coping with hybrid organizational identities: evidence from Californialegislative staff”, in Wagner, J. (Ed.), Advances in Qualitative Organizational Research,Vol. 3, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 59-90.

Elsbach, K. (2006), Organizational Perception Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ.

Eriksson, K. and Mattsson, J. (2002), “Managers’ perception of relationship management inheterogeneous markets”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 535-43.

Fournier, S., Dobscha, S. and Mick, D.G. (1998), “Preventing the premature death of relationshipmarketing”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75, January/February, pp. 43-51.

Gombrich, E., Hochberg, J. and Black, M. (1972), Art, Perception and Reality, The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore, MD.

Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications forstrategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.

Gronroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.

Habbershon, T.G. (2006), “The family as a distinct context for entrepreneurship”, in Habbershon,T. and Rice, M. (Eds), Praeger Perspectives on Entrepreneurship, Vol. III, Praeger, NewYork, NY.

Habbershon, T.G. and Williams, M. (1999), “A resource-based framework for assessing thestrategic advantage of family firms”, Family Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 27-39.

Haldin-Herrgard, T. (2000), “Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations”, Journalof Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 357-67.

Halle, L., Johanson, J. and Seyed-Mohamed, N. (1991), “Interfirm adaptation in businessrelationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, April, pp. 29-37.

Han, J.K. and Schmitt, B.H. (1997), “Product-category dynamics and corporate identity in brandextension: a comparison of Hong Kong and US consumers”, Journal of International

Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 77-92.

Handler, W. (1989), “Methodological issues and considerations in studying family businesses”,Family Business Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 257-76.

Hem, L.E. and Iversen, N.M. (2003), “Transfer of brand equity in brand extensions:the importance of brand loyalty”, Advances Studies in Consumer Research, Vol. 30,January, pp. 72-9.

Herbig, B., Bussing, A. and Ewert, T. (2001), “The role of tacit knowledge in the work context ofnursing”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 687-95.

JSBED17,1

118

Hirschowitz, A. (2001), “Closing the CRM loop: the 21st century marketer’s challenge:transforming customer insight into customer value”, Journal of Database Marketing,Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 168-78.

IFERA (2003), “Family firms dominate”, Family Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 235-9.

Johnson, J.W. (1996), “Linking employee perceptions of service climate to customer satisfaction”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 831-51.

Julian, C.C. and Ramaseshan, B. (1994), “The role of customer-contact personnel in the marketingof a retail bank’s services”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 29-34.

Jun, M., Yang, Z. and Kim, D. (2004), “Customers’ perceptions of online retailing service qualityand their satisfaction”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management;, Vol. 21No. 8, pp. 817-40.

Kohli, C., Suri, R. and Thakor, M.V. (2002), “Creating effective logos: insights from theory andpractice”, Business Horizons, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 58-64.

Lambert, D.M., Sharma, A. and Levy, M. (1997), “What information can relationship marketersobtain from customer evaluations of salespeople?”, Industrial Marketing Management,Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 177-87.

Langley, A. (1996), “Strategie d’analyse de donnees processuelles”, document de travail, no. 21,October, Centre de recherche en gestion, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, pp. 1-22.

Leary, M. (1996), Self Presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behaviour,Westview Press, Oxford.

Leavitt, T. (1983), The Marketing Imagination, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Lengnick-Hall, C.A. (1996), “Customer contributions to quality: a different view of thecustomer-oriented firm”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 791-824.

Leonard-Barton, B.D. (1990), “A dual methodology for case studies: synergistic use of alongitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 3,pp. 248-66.

Lewis, R.C. and Klein, D.M. (1987), “The measurement of gaps in service quality”, in Czepiel, J.A.,Congram, C.A. and Shannahan, J. (Eds), The Services Challenge: Integrating forCompetitive Advantage, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.

Likert, R. (1932), “A technique for measurement of attitudes”, Archives of Psychology, Vol. 140,pp. 5-55.

London, M. and Smither, J.W. (1995), “Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goalaccomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes? Theory-basedapplications and directions for research”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 803-39.

Luck, D. and Lancaster, G. (2003), “E-CRM: customer relationship marketing in the hotelindustry”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 213-31.

Marcus, A. and Goodman, R. (1991), “Victims and shareholders: the dilemmas of presentingcorporate policy during a crisis”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2,pp. 281-305.

Maritan, C.A. (2001), “Capital investments as investing in organizational capabilities: anempirically grounded process model”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3,pp. 513-31.

Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1984), El arbol del conoscimiento, Ed. Universitaria, Santiago.

The agreementfactor and

performance

119

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962) in Smith, C. (Ed.), Phenomenology of Perception, Routledge & KeganPaul, London.

Milliman, J.F., Zawacki, R.A., Schulz, B., Wiggins, S. and Norman, C.A. (1995), “Customer servicedrives 360-degree goal setting”, Personnel Journal, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 136-42.

Morelli, R. (2006), “Grossisti sotto la lente”, Commercio Elettrico, No. 8.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38.

Muzellec, L., Lambkin, M.C. and Doogan, M. (2003), “Corporate rebranding: an exploratoryreview”, Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2.

Nelson, R. andWinter, S. (1982), An Evolutional Theory of Economic Change, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

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

Parasuraman, A. (1994), “Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuringservice quality: implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January,pp. 111-24.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service qualityand implications for further research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,pp. 12-40.

Patel, V.L., Arocha, J.F. and Kaufman, D.R. (1999), “Expertise and tacit knowledge in medicine”,in Sternberg, R.J. and Horvath, J.A. (Eds), Tacit Knowledge in Professional Practice,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 75-100.

Penrose, E. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Blackwell, Oxford/Wiley, New York,NY.

Polanyi, M. (1969), Knowing and Being, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL.

Roedder, J.D. and Loken, B. (1998), “The negative impact of extensions: can flagship products bediluted?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 19-32.

Rookes, P. and Willson, J. (2000), Perception. Theory, Development and Organization, Routledge,London.

Rumelt, R. (1987), “Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship”, in Teece, D.J. (Ed.), The CompetitiveChallenge, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp. 556-79.

Ryals, L. and Payne, A.F.T. (2001), “Customer relationship management in financial services:towards information-enabled relationship marketing”, Journal of Strategic Marketing,Vol. 9, March, pp. 1-25.

Schlenker, B. (1980), Impression Management: The Self-concept, Social Identity, and InterpersonalRelations, Brooks Cole, Monterey, CA.

Schneider, B., White, S.S. and Paul, M.C. (1998), “Linking service climate and customerperceptions of service quality: test of a causal model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83No. 2, pp. 150-63.

Schofield, R.A. and Breen, L. (2006), “Suppliers, do you know your customers?”, InternationalJournal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 390-408.

JSBED17,1

120

Sharma, P. (2004), “An overview of the field of family business studies: current status anddirections for the future”, Family Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-36.

Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “Relationship marketing in consumer markets: antecedentsand consequences”, Journal of Academy Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 255-71.

Sheth, J.N. and Sollner, A. (1999), “Introduction: special issue on relationship marketing”, Journalof Business Research, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 205-7.

Sin, L.Y.M., Tse, A.C.B. and Yim, F.H.K. (2005), “CRM: conceptualization and scaledevelopment”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12, pp. 1264-90.

Sirmon, G. and Hitt, M. (2003), “Managing resources: linking unique resources, management, andwealth creation in family firms”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 4,pp. 339-58.

Solomon, M. (2007), Consumer Behaviour, Financial Times, London.

Srinivasan, S.S., Anderson, R. and Ponnavolu, K. (2002), “Customer loyalty in e-commerce:an exploration of its antecedents”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 41-50.

Staw, B., McKechnie, P. and Puffer, S. (1983), “The justification of organizational performance”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 582-600.

Stefanou, C., Sarmaniotis, C. and Stafyla, A. (2003), “CRM and customer-centric knowledgemanagement: an empirical research”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5,pp. 617-34.

Stevens, S.S. (1946), “On the theory of scales of measurement”, Science, Vol. 103, pp. 677-80.

Teas, R.K. (1993), “Expectations, performance evaluation and consumers’ perceptions of quality”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 18-34.

Tedeschi, J. (1981), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research, AcademicPress, New York, NY.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.

Tokarczyk, J., Hansen, E., Green, M. and Down, J. (2007), “A resource-based view and marketorientation theory examination of the role of ‘familiness’ in family business success”,Family Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 17-31.

Tsoukas, H. (2003), “Do we really understand tacit knowledge?”, in Easterby-Smith, M. andLyles, M. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and KnowledgeManagement, Blackwell, Oxford.

Ueltschy, L.C., Laroche, M., Eggert, A. and Bindl, U. (2007), “Service quality and satisfaction:an international comparison of professional services perceptions”, Journal of Services

Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 410-23.

Ward, T. and Dagger, T.S. (2007), “The complexity of relationship marketing for servicecustomers”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 281-90.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5No. 2, pp. 171-80.

Wernerfelt, B. (1995), “A resource-based view of the firm: ten years after”, Strategic ManagementJournal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 171-4.

Wortman, M.S. Jr (1994), “Theoretical foundations for family-owned businesses: a conceptual andresearch based paradigm”, Family Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3-27.

The agreementfactor and

performance

121

Yau, O.H.M., McFetridge, P.R., Chow, R.P.M., Lee, J.S.Y., Sin, L.Y.M. and Tse, A.C.B. (2000),“Is relationship marketing for everyone?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos9/10, pp. 1111-27.

Yin, R.K. (1989), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,CA.

Zahay, D. and Griffin, A. (2004), “Customer learning processes, strategy selection, andperformance in business-to-business service firms”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 2,pp. 169-203.

Zahra, S.A. and Sharma, P. (2004), “Family business research: a strategic reflection”, FamilyBusiness Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 331-46.

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service – BalancingCustomer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Further reading

Habbershon, T.G., Williams, M. and MacMillan, I. (2003), “A unified systems perspective offamily firm performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 451-65.

Corresponding authorCinzia Dessı can be contacted at: cdessi@unica.it

JSBED17,1

122

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