Efectos de la restricción de la alimentación en premontanera.

Communication is used to initiate and build relationships; mediate ideas, thoughts and feelings, transfer information, solve problems and simply connect people (Bordia, 1997; Rix, Buss, & Herford, 2001). The area of communications research is vast and sometimes confusing, encompassing the transfer of meaning, as well as the transfer of data, and the use of channels of communication (e.g., technology mediated

communication (TMC)) (Eunson, 2005; Rogers & Albritton, 1995). The abundance of communication channels available today increases the volume of information, as well as the quantity of information transferred (Rogers & Albritton, 1995). However this does not necessarily improve the quality of communication and understanding, and instead may culminate in Priestley’s paradox (Eunson, 2005). Priestley’s paradox proposes that quantity of communications (especially through TMC) may actually diminish

communication quality, rather than enhance it. Similar paradoxical findings have been demonstrated in studies of the impact of technology on interpersonal relationships (McQuillen, 2003).

2.5.3.1. Defining Communication in the Context of Relationships

Neither communication nor communication quality appears to have single unified definitions in the RM literature (Mohr & Nevin, 1990). Communication has been “defined broadly as the formal as well as informal sharing of meaningful and timely information between firms ... [focused] on the efficacy of information exchange rather than the quantity or amount, and ... inherently taps past communications” (J. C.

Anderson & Narus, 1990, p. 44). This form of communication definition has been used extensively in the RM literature (J. C. Anderson & Narus, 1984; Lewin & Johnston, 1997; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; N. Sharma & Patterson, 1999).

Communication effectiveness has been defined as the sharing of meaningful and timely information, with timeliness having an impact on perceived communication quality, satisfaction and trust (Moorman et al., 1993; N. Sharma & Patterson, 1999). Communication openness has been used to reflect the formal and informal sharing of plans, goals, expectations, motives and evaluation criteria (E. Anderson & Weitz, 1989; J. C. Anderson & Narus, 1984; J. B. Smith & Barclay, 1997). Some view

communications as the “glue” which holds relationships together (Mohr & Nevin, 1990), and that relationships would be impossible without good communication (Duncan & Moriarty, 1998), while others simply conclude that “communication is the exchange of information between supplier and customer” requiring an open dialog to maintain the relationship and trust (Selnes, 1998, p. 310).

Communication quality is reflected in the effectiveness (i.e., effectiveness of the media used) and efficiency (i.e., message clarity) of the communication (Shelby, 1998). Frequency of communication is also considered an element of quality. The perception exists that more frequent communication is better, yet an inappropriately high frequency of communications may become annoying, negatively impacting the value and quality of the communication (Mohr & Sohi, 1995).

2.5.3.2. Findings from Communication Research

Duncan and Moriarty (1998) argued that business relationships are impossible without communication, and that trust and commitment are simply products of effective communication. The authors suggested that the interactive nature of communication can build or diminish relationships, and therefore proposed a “communications-based relationship marketing model” focused on communication theory. Common elements between marketing and communication include; relationship exchange between stakeholders, feedback (interactivity), and information (messages). Sharma and Patterson (1999) analysed 201 mail survey questionnaires (23 percent response rate) from financial services customers in Australia and provided support for Duncan and Moriarty’s conceptualisation. Their results demonstrated that communication

effectiveness, “the formal and informal sharing of meaningful and timely information between a client and advisor in an empathetic manner”, significantly and positively impacted relationship commitment and trust (N. Sharma & Patterson, 1999, p. 158). Empathetic communication involves listening and providing appropriate feedback to customers which can be used to develop emotional and social bonds, and a sense of closeness and comfort in the relationship. A strong empathetic bond can be

advantageous in a relationship when problems arise (N. Sharma & Patterson, 1999). Communication is not only a precursor to relationship commitment and trust (Lewin & Johnston, 1997; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), but is essential to the nurturing process and long-term orientation of relationships (Geyskens et al., 1998). Smith and Barclay (1997)

studying Canadian sales representatives from two multinational computer companies and their customers, using matched responses from 105 questionnaires, found that trusting characteristics and/or motives led to more open communication. More

importantly however bilateral communication of needs, issues and priorities was what helped create meaningful relationships; not simply communication by itself (Dwyer et al., 1987). Cultivating an interactive, open and frequent communication environment focusing on valuable information – expectations, market information, and partnership performance – delivered in a forthright manner helps develop, sustain and hold the relationship together (Berry, 1995). The case study evidence provided by Lewin and Johnston (1997) supports the view that accurate, open, timely communication is key to relationship building. They found that the candid sharing of important confidential information is an important dimension to relationship maintenance. The authors noted that normal suppliers (i.e., those focused on transactional exchanges) were not viewed, or communicated with, in the same manner as long-term relationship suppliers.

Selnes (1998) found that communication had a significant influence on trust and customer satisfaction, contributing to the enhancement of the relationship and the propensity to re-purchase (i.e., continue the relationship). A mail survey study of 102 industrial companies (46% response rate) in the US B2B environment demonstrated that buyers can be satisfied with technology-mediated communication (TMC) (MacDonald & Smith, 2004). TMC demonstrated a positive effect on future purchase intention and trust (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). At the same time the trust and

commitment relationship factors mediated the effect of TMC satisfaction on future purchase intention. Yet the increase in CRM initiated TMC (i.e., Call centres and Internet) may delay or inhibit trust and relationship development (Wilson & Vlosky, 1998); creating a level of delayed or fragile trust, whereby parties may be more prone to defect due to “social deindividuation” (Bos, Olson, Gergle, Olson, & Wright, 2002). That is, in the absence of a face-to-face relationship there may manifest a lack of other- awareness that can decrease behavioural inhibitions making it easy for individuals to “opt-out” of relationships (Bordia, 1997).

Leuthesser and Kohli (1995) investigated the effect of RM on customer satisfaction and share of business by looking at the communication between customers and

suppliers. They focused on three types of behaviours identified from the literature: type of information conveyed, frequency and richness (i.e., face-to-face) of the interactions

and organisational involvement. The sample consisted of 800 randomly chosen National Association of Purchasing Management members, obtaining a 59.3% response rate (n = 454). The results indicated that the type of interaction as well as the interaction

frequency had a significant effect on customer satisfaction. Frequency of interaction appeared to be more important for trust-building at the beginning of a relationship. Contrary to the authors’ hypothesis, there was a significant relationship between frequency of interaction and products with low customer importance. This was

interpreted as buyers paying relatively more attention to quality of interaction when the product itself was less important.

Mohr and Sohi (1995) suggested that communication quality is a function of completeness, credibility, accuracy, timeliness and adequacy of communication flows. Their study consisted of 125 returned questionnaires (22 percent response rate) from a U.S. national sample of computer dealers. They found that only frequency of

communication flow was significantly related to perceived quality of communication. Bidirectionality (i.e., feedback) and formality (i.e., formal or informal communication) had no significant impact on perceived communication quality, while bidirectionality did significantly affect communication satisfaction, as did communication frequency.

These studies highlight that correct initiating behaviour and quality of

communication is important in relationship development and maintenance (Leuthesser & Kohli, 1995; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). In contrast Chong and Dick’s (2004)

empirical IT focused study of the influence of predictable and timely communication on cognition-based trust (rational and action based trust) in a virtual environment did not find a significant relationship. They argued this may be due, in part, to the

methodology; a limited sample size, single site, and sample demographics. In summary, RM researchers view communication effectiveness and quality as important factors in relationship development, maintenance and performance (J. C. Anderson & Narus, 1984, 1990; Berry, 1995; Dwyer et al., 1987; Fontenot & Wilson, 1997; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Selnes, 1998), if not the key factor (Duncan & Moriarty, 1998), significantly affecting the initiation and development of trust and commitment directly (Geyskens et al., 1998). Key dimensions of communication quality appear to include timeliness, frequency, openness and accuracy. Communication enhances the relationship, and influences trust and commitment (J. C. Anderson & Narus, 1990; Lewin & Johnston, 1997; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Selnes, 1998). However the empirical

research investigating the affects of CRM technology adoption on communication quality and effectiveness within a business relationship environment is sparse and general in nature. Park and Kim (2003), from their single case study analysis, conclude that CRM relationship activities benefit from appropriate, frequent and active

communication between the company and the customer. The general importance of communication, the potential impact of technology-mediated communication in relationships, and the lack of specific CRM communications research indicates an important research gap.