Implicaciones tributarias para el promotor persona jurídica

As expressed previously, an important structural property of individual actors within a network is “centrality”. The latter assesses the importance of an actor in the overall network. “In-degree centrality” is the number of ties linked to an actor and is often a sign of the popularity of an actor (Van den Bulte and Wuyts, 2007). Another aspect of “centrality” stemming from social identity research is “in-group” tie that is construed in the framework as “in-group centrality”. “In-group” ties are defined as the “psychological ties that bind the self to the group” (Cameron, 2004; p.242).

This research views “in-group” centrality measures as how connected the customer is to the company’s other customers. Cameron (2004) suggests “in-group ties are invested with emotional importance, perhaps contributing to the feelings that are associated with the group” (p. 253). Therefore in-group ties are associated with emotions and we expect it to be significantly impacted by the process of identification with the company’s customer group. While Customer Engagement Theory views the process of identification with a “community” as an antecedent of Customer Engagement, we view it

;<

as an inherent part of the relationship strength. In-group ties as defined by Cameron (2004) are viewed as the larger process of self-identification and as part of a scale that encompasses three dimensions: in-group affect (positive valence of feelings towards the group), in-group ties (how well one connects with the group) and cognitive centrality (time spent thinking about the group). One cognitive centrality item was included in the “in-group centrality”. Our other two items were intended to measure in-group ties through the presence of interaction with other customers of the company (could be viewed as being part of the community as defined in CE at the most basic level) and customer awareness of being associated with such customers (saliency of in-group ties when present). In our operationalization of centrality we measure the company in-group ties with the customer’s network but also the saliency of interaction with the company’s other customers and his feeling of association with those customers. Saliency of belonging or being “associated with the group” consequently leads to overall perceived centrality of the company ultimately impacting the Customer-Company Network Strength and therefore the reciprocity towards the company. As introduced in the previous discussion we view Customer-Company centrality as a two-dimensional factor of Customer-Company Network Strength.

Because the company is where the value proposition originates (i.e.: sent out), this paper considers “in-degree centrality”. On the one hand, we operationalize in-degree centrality as how connected the company is to thecustomer’s groups (other members in the customer’s network). Customers’ networks (private actors) in this framework are classified as “work”: coworkers and colleagues, “social”: friends and acquaintances and “family”.

;=

On the other hand, we consider in-group centrality perceptions as the extent to which the customer is connected to other company customers and the degree to which the customer is aware that he is being associated with other customers of the company. Our final aspect was associated with the extent to which the customer assesses how other customers are perceived but the item was performing poorly and was dropped in early analysis.

The following hypotheses were derived from the previous discussion:

H2: Overall Centrality is a higher-order factor of Customer- Company Network Strength

H3: In-degree Centrality is a dimension of Overall Centrality H4: In-group Centrality is a dimension of Overall Centrality.

Next we discuss some of the previous research on reciprocity within the context of Social-Exchange Theory and explain the conceptualization of reciprocity as a three- dimensional construct. As stated in the introduction, we use one of the dimensions of overall reciprocity as a way to assess the effect of network strength on customer behaviors that are usually desirable to companies. However, in our view this form of reciprocity is part of the overall reciprocity and an important factor of overall network strength not just an outcome of it. It is an integrant part of the relationship.

;>

3.3 Reciprocity

Morgan and Hunt (1994) define relationship marketing “as all marketing activities directed towards establishing, developing and maintaining successful relational exchange” (p.34). Exchange partners include suppliers, other organizations, customers and employees. Commitment is a pivotal concept of relationship marketing and is defined as “an implicit or explicit pledge or relational continuity between exchange partners” (Dwyer, Shurr and Oh, 1987; p.19). Furthermore, Morgan and Hunt (1994) argue that both commitment and trust are at the core of relationship marketing and define the constructs as follows: “[…] relationship commitment as an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is as important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it […] trust as existing when one party has confidence in an exchange partner reliability and integrity” (p. 23). Commitment is driven by factors such as shared values, relationship benefits, termination cost and trust. Trust is elicited by factors such as shared values, communication and opportunistic behavior (negative). Opportunism is defined as “self-interest seeking with guile” (Williamson, 1975, p.6, Wathne and Heide, 2000). This form of opportunism is often referred to as blatant opportunism and may violate general norms (e.g. truthfulness) or contractual norms that can be formal or relational as formal contracts are often complemented by informal agreements (Wathne and Heide, 2000). The authors differentiate between passive (evasion of obligations or refusal to adapt in light of new circumstances) and active opportunism (violations of implicit or explicit agreement as well as forced renegotiations in light of new developments). Reciprocity norms as perceived by the actors in a network hence influence perceptions of the relationship quality (e.g. Is it determined by trust and

;?

commitment or by “self-interest” only?). This in turn will impact the strength of the Customer-Company network.

In this thesis, we measure company reciprocity towards the customer as well as towards society as a whole, and the reciprocity from the customer to the company (e.g. commitment to the company is one of the items of reciprocomp). Those are the dimensions of the overall reciprocity and we view them as the customer-company relationship reciprocity norms.

H5: Overall Reciprocity is a dimension of Customer-Company Network Strength

H6: Overall Reciprocity is a three dimensional construct

In the next sub-section we explain the conceptualization and operationalization of the company reciprocity norms towards the customer by identifying some of the key superior process that may drive the relationship.