اثر بازارگرایی بر رفتار فروشندگان و خریداران، روابط کانال و عملکرد تولید کنندگان
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|18706||2001||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7397 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Research in Marketing, Volume 18, Issue 3, September 2001, Pages 221–234
This study uses data from matched sets of suppliers, manufacturers and customers to examine the influence of the manufacturer's market orientation on the behaviors of salespersons and purchasers, the impact of these behaviors on relationships with customers and suppliers, and the effect of these relationships on the manufacturer's financial performance. The results show that market orientation positively influences customer-oriented behaviors of salespersons and supplier-oriented behaviors of purchasers. The behaviors of salespersons also have a positive effect on the customer's trust in, cooperative norms in, and satisfaction with the relationship with the manufacturer. The behaviors of purchasers positively affect the supplier's trust and cooperative norms in the relationship. The customer's perception of trust, cooperative norms, and satisfaction positively influences the manufacturer's financial performance. The supplier's trust and cooperative norms in the relationship also positively affect the manufacturer's financial performance. An important managerial implication is that the manufacturer is partly dependent upon the behaviors of purchasers and salespersons for using market orientation to build and maintain channel relationships. This implication provides ample opportunities for further research on market orientation.
To date, research has demonstrated that market orientation has, depending upon environmental conditions and organizational factors, positive effects on financial performance Narver and Slater, 1990 and Ruekert, 1992, organizational innovativeness (Han et al., 1998), organizational learning (Baker and Sinkula, 1999), employee attitudes (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993), customer-oriented behavior of salespersons (Mengüç, 1996), and relationships with resellers in distribution channels (Siguaw et al., 1998). This extant body of research has ignored, however, the potential effect of the manufacturer's market orientation on relationships with partners in industrial channels. This is regrettable, given the potentially sweeping effects of the manufacturer's market-oriented behaviors, and the importance of productive partnerships with suppliers and customers (Heide and Stump, 1995). The purpose of this research is to contribute to our knowledge about market orientation in industrial channels by providing new insights into the effect of the market orientation on the behaviors of salespersons and purchasers, the impact of these behaviors on relationships with customers and suppliers, and the pay-off of these relationships for the manufacturer. This is accomplished by making four contributions over two studies that investigate the effect of market orientation on relationships in distribution channels Baker et al., 1999 and Siguaw et al., 1998. First, we simultaneously focus on supplier–manufacturer and manufacturer–customer dyads in industrial channels instead of supplier–reseller dyads in distribution channels. Second, we suggest that the manufacturer's market orientation has an indirect effect on channel relationships through the behavior of salespersons and purchasers, rather than a direct effect on channel relationships. Third, we use reports from three, instead of two, channel partners to examine the effect of the manufacturer's market orientation on channel relationships. Fourth, we posit that the manufacturer's market orientation may also have upstream besides downstream effects. In the sections to follow 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, we discuss the background of the study and present the hypothesized relationships. In Section 7, we explain the research design and review the findings from a sample of 72 matched sets of suppliers, manufacturers and customers in industrial channels in the Netherlands. In the final sections 8, 9 and 10, the results and implications will be discussed, and suggestions for further research will be presented.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Given the small sample size, ordinary least squares regression analysis was used to estimate 10 separate models in order to test the hypothesized relationships. Before estimating each model, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was computed for each independent variable to assess multicollinearity. The VIF should be close to 1.0, which indicates little or no multicollinearity. The VIFs range between 1.00 and 2.11, which indicates that a moderate degree of multicollinearity exists among the independent variables. The discussion of the results, shown in Table 3 and Table 4, is organized around the relationships shown in Fig. The results support H1a and H1b, as the manufacturer's DMO and UMO positively influence the COS (β=0.56; p<0.01) and the SOP (β=0.45; p<0.01), respectively. These findings are consistent with findings that have tentatively found the organizational orientation (i.e., DMO and UMO) desired at the firm level to positively affect the orientation (i.e., COS and SOP) practiced at the individual level (Mengüç, 1996). 8.2. Impact of the COS on trust, cooperative norms and satisfaction The results support H2a, H3a and H4a, as the customer's perception of the COS positively influences the customer's trust in (β=0.44; p<0.01), cooperative norms in (β=0.33; p<0.01), and satisfaction with (β=0.50; p<0.01) the relationship with the manufacturer. These findings are consistent with studies that have posited that the salespersons' perceived efforts at satisfying the customer result in the customer's belief that the manufacturer is more expert in the performance of its duties, and is concerned with behaving in the best interest of the customer (Michaels and Day, 1985). The results further show that DMO has no (direct) effect on the customer's trust in, cooperative norms in, and satisfaction with the relationship. These findings are consistent with Siguaw's et al. (1998) findings from a distribution channel context. They found that the supplier's market orientation has no (direct) effect on the distributor's trust and cooperative norms in the relationship with the supplier.In support of hypotheses H2b and H3b, the results reveal that the supplier's perception of the SOP positively influences the supplier's perception of the relationship with the manufacturer in terms of trust (β=0.25; p<0.05) and cooperative norms (β=0.22; p<0.05). These findings are consistent with studies that have posited that the SOP results in the supplier's belief that the manufacturer is credible and benevolent, and that both parties are working to satisfy mutual goals while avoiding opportunistic behaviors. Hypothesis H4b is not supported, as the SOP has no effect on the supplier's satisfaction with the relationship. The results further reveal that the manufacturer's UMO also has a (direct) positive effect on the supplier's cooperative norms in (β=0.48; p<0.01) and satisfaction with (β=0.29; p<0.01) the relationship. These findings are supported by previous research revealing a positive effect of the distributor's market orientation on the supplier's cooperative norms in and satisfaction with the relationship (Baker et al., 1999). The findings that UMO has no (direct) effect on the supplier's trust, and that the SOP has no (direct) influence on the supplier's satisfaction, might relate to the fact that even suppliers engaged in relationships with upstream market-oriented manufacturers are occasionally put under cost-pressure from purchasers. In these circumstances, the manufacturer's management clearly elects to discourage the SOP by motivating purchasers to apply cost-pressure. Suppliers put under cost-pressure are likely to be dissatisfied with the purchaser (i.e., at the individual level) applying the cost-pressure, and distrustful of the manufacturer's management (i.e., at the firm level) initiating the cost-pressure. 3 This viewpoint might also explain the low explanatory power of the regression models with supplier trust and supplier satisfaction as dependent variables.The results provide support for H5a, as the customer's perception of trust in (β=0.21; p<0.01), cooperative norms in (β=0.56; p<0.01), and satisfaction with (β=0.36; p<0.01) the relationship positively influence the manufacturer's financial performance. These findings support previous studies that have demonstrated that the manufacturer benefits from relationships with selected customers (Kalwani and Narayandas, 1995). The results further reveal that DMO has a (direct) positive (β=0.11; p<0.05) effect on the manufacturer's financial performance. Although this finding is, in general, consistent with results from previous studies investigating the relationship between market orientation and financial performance (e.g., Jaworski and Kohli, 1993 and Narver and Slater, 1990), it is likely that manufacturers with a superior financial performance, in comparison to manufacturers with an inferior financial performance, can afford to develop a DMO. 4 Although unexpected, the finding that there is no (direct) effect of the COS on financial performance is supported by Michaels and Day (1985). Their explanation is that salespersons often exercise a higher customer orientation than the manufacturer desires. This might cause salespersons to sacrifice the immediate sale, at the expense of the manufacturer's financial performance, in the interest of the relationship with the customer.The results provide partial support for H5b, as the supplier's perception of trust in (β=0.44; p<0.01) and cooperative norms in (β=0.33; p<0.01) the relationship positively influence the manufacturer's financial performance. 5 Although these findings are in agreement with previous studies that have posited the importance of trust and cooperative norms as predictors for financial performance (cf. Kalwani and Narayandas, 1995), the relatively weak effects might be caused by suppliers' growing certainty about the relationship with the manufacturer over time (cf. Rust et al., 1999). This might also explain why the supplier's satisfaction with the relationship has no effect on financial performance. The finding that UMO has no (direct) effect on financial performance might be explained by the fact that the adoption of UMO has not been widespread. This is plausible because research indicates that the behaviors associated with the implementation of UMO are likely to be even more costly and time-consuming than the implementation of a DMO (Langerak, 1997). The finding that the SOP has no (direct) effect on the manufacturer's financial performance might be explained because supplier-oriented purchasers are often reluctant to apply cost-pressure to suppliers with whom they are engaged in relationships.