Efectos del sistema de alimentación durante la fase de acabado.

A number of additional factors with regards to relationship marketing have been examined in the extant literature. However the evidence for inclusion of these additional factors in this study is not compelling and in some cases the results have been found to be contradictory. Other than customer satisfaction (which is used in the relationship performance measure to be discussed later), these factors are not subsequently

incorporated into the conceptual model under study. They are however briefly discussed here for completeness.

2.5.4.1. Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction has been widely researched with respect to relationship marketing, yet defined in a number of different ways (Crosby & Stephens, 1987; Leuthesser & Kohli, 1995; Reynolds & Beatty, 1999; Selnes, 1998; Yeung, Ging, & Ennew, 2002). One definition popular with current researchers focuses on cumulative satisfaction or overall contentment rather than transaction-specific satisfaction

(Andaleeb, 1996; E. W. Anderson, Fornell, & Rust, 1997; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). However, the nature and measurement of customer satisfaction has been debated, with satisfaction found to be related to and difficult to discriminate from other positive emotions (e.g., happiness, joy, and enjoyment) (Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999; Oliver, 1993). Studies have established positive relationships between customer satisfaction and price equity (Verhoef, Franses, & Hoekstra, 2001); loyalty (Oliver, 1999); trust and satisfaction (Selnes, 1998); satisfaction, trust and commitment

(Garbarino & Johnson, 1999); usage level and satisfaction (Bolton & Lemon, 1999); as well as satisfaction and profitability (E. W. Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994). In most cases satisfaction has been shown to be a complex factor, affecting some outcomes

more than others, although customer satisfaction and performance outcomes have been shown to be predominantly linear in nature; customer satisfaction increases as

performance improves (E. W. Anderson et al., 1994; Yeung et al., 2002). Although satisfaction may not constitute a “unique, fundamental construct in and of itself” (Bagozzi et al., 1999, p. 201), the cumulative perspective of customer satisfaction has been considered and found to be significant both as a dependent and independent variable in a number of studies (Ganesan, 1994; Leuthesser & Kohli, 1995).

2.5.4.2. Cooperation

Cooperation between firms has been defined as actions taken in order to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes between the firms or independent singular outcomes with the expectation of reciprocation over time (J. C. Anderson & Narus, 1990; Lewin & Johnston, 1997). Trust, competitive strategy and dependency are generally considered a precursor to cooperation (A. J. Campbell, 1998). Anderson and Narus (1990), using social exchange theory and communications as the backdrop, found that firms meeting or exceeding performance objectives through cooperation with other firms (partners) cultivate trust and satisfaction (cf. Lewin & Johnston, 1997). They concluded that cooperation is an antecedent not a consequence of trust, whereas Morgan and Hunt (1994) found that commitment and trust leads to cooperation. This suggests that the relationship between cooperation, trust and commitment is an iterative process requiring a frank, honest and open exchange of information between the parties (J. C. Anderson & Narus, 1990; Lewin & Johnston, 1997; Selnes, 1998). However cooperation is not always based on trust or interdependency. Young and Wilkinson (1989) showed that in certain instances cooperation is coerced by the more powerful member and justified by the desired outcomes. Overall it was concluded that cooperation tended to overlap and link strongly to trust and commitment, and that its inclusion as a distinct construct would not add significant insight or explanatory power beyond those two constructs.

2.5.4.3. Power

Power, dependency and trust are intertwined to the extent that firms perceived to be powerful can be more trusting, while those perceived less powerful are less trusting of partners (Young & Wilkinson, 1989). Similarly, those firms most dependent are

generally more receptive to the stronger firms overtures and suggestions (J. C. Anderson & Narus, 1990). The judicious exercise of power (acknowledged and accepted by the

other party), can help create a mutually beneficial relationship (Dwyer et al., 1987; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). However asymmetric power tends to leads to conflict, and subsequent loss of trust and commitment, while mutual dependency leads to less conflict (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Young & Wilkinson, 1989). Asymmetric power may be transient in nature (strongly favourable to the more powerful firm initially), yet over time, given increased trust and commitment, culminate in lower risk, erode, or transfer to the other party (Narayandas & Rangan, 2004). Iacobucci and Ostrom (1996) found that good individual to individual relationships are generally balanced, symmetrical and pleasant in nature. They suggested therefore that firms should concentrate on creating the perception of a power balance in order to improve customer relationships. Given the nature of the study (the effect of CRM technology adoption) and the strong interaction between power and trust, the evidence for inclusion of power as a separate construct in this study was not considered sufficient.

2.5.4.4. Performance of Duties

How each party performs, or is perceived to perform their duties (within and outside the contract), affects the development, trust enhancement, and commitment within the relationship (Narayandas & Rangan, 2004). In particular, performing above the partner’s expectations, leads to trust and satisfaction with the partnership (J. C.

Anderson & Narus, 1990). Bolton (1998) modelled the effect of expected value on the duration of the relationship, postulating that cumulative satisfaction anchors the customers expectations. She found that a performance (service) ‘pluses and minuses’ balance sheet is taken into account with the cumulative effect of satisfaction being positively related to performance over time (i.e., service continuation). Lemon, White, and Winer (2002) investigated actual customer “service” purchase versus intention to buy. Their results also demonstrated that customers incorporate an adaptive

expectations approach to repurchase services, that is, customers consider not only past and current business performance measures of service but also project future

expectations and benefits of performance into their decision-making of retaining or changing service providers. The Gruen et al. (2000) study found that performance of the supplier positively affected customer participation and retention in professional

associations, without necessarily being mediated by commitment. Given the inclusion of Sako’s (1992) competence trust construct, the performance of duty construct is

2.5.4.5. Dependency

Dependency within a relationship relates to the relative power and therefore the extent one party depends on (or must trust) the other party (J. C. Anderson & Narus, 1990). Some believe the development of interdependency is antecedent to a successful relationship (Lendrum, 2003). However, increasing interdependence asymmetry can decrease trust and commitment while increasing interfirm conflict. In addition Kumar, Scheer, and Steenkamp (1995) demonstrated that relationships with greater total interdependence exhibit higher trust, stronger commitment, and lower conflict than relationships with lower interdependence, although perceived mutual benefit may moderate feelings of asymmetrical dependence (Lewin & Johnston, 1997). Similarly Geyskens et al. (1996) found evidence that interdependence enhances commitment, but that the type of commitment will depend on trust.

However, Dwyer et al. (1987, p. 24) considered relationship development simply “a process of ever-expanding interdependency between buyer and seller.” Furthermore they suggested that any form of prolonged dependency (i.e., delayed payment or scheduled delivery) initiates a relationship (expected or not), since an element of trust and cooperation exists. Initially one firm within the relationship will be more dependent on the other, but this dependency asymmetry can be offset over time based on

performance (within and outside contractual obligations), trust and commitment (Narayandas & Rangan, 2004). Due to the complex interactions between dependency, trust, power, performance and commitment, there was no compelling rationale to include dependency as a separate construct in this study.

2.5.4.6. Duration

Duration of the relationship is thought to affect the ongoing relationship dynamics – including trust, commitment and satisfaction (Gruen et al., 2000). Reynolds and Beatty (1999) found that long-term satisfied customers perceive additional social benefits and are more loyal to sales people as well as to the firm itself. Other studies however have found a negative correlation to ongoing relationship development, explained by growing too accustomed to each other, not challenging each other, or not initiating new

innovations (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Helfert et al., 2002). Due to the contradictory results the duration construct was not included in this study.

2.5.4.7. Rapport

Rapport or the chemistry between customer and supplier has been shown to aid the development of trust between buyers and salespeople, as well as positively affect the ongoing relationship dynamics between individuals and firms (Doney & Cannon, 1997). The construct has been characterised as the quality of a relationship, enjoyable

interactions between participants, mutual trust, or simply ‘clicking’ with another person (Bernieri, Gillis, Davis, & Grahe, 1996; Gfeller, Lynn, & Pribble, 1987; Gremler & Gwinner, 2000; Puccinelli, Tickle-Degnen, & Rosenthal, 2003). Irrespective of the definition, marketing researchers have recognised the value of establishing rapport consistent with Gremler and Gwinner (2000) (DeWitt & Brady, 2003; Gremler & Gwinner, 1998). Due to the lack of a clear definition of the rapport construct, and the similarity between rapport measures reported in the literature and the relationship strength and relationship quality constructs in the current study, rapport was not included as a separate construct in this research.