Integrating Transactional and Relational Exchange Into The Study of Exchange Orientation in Customer Relationships

This article was downloaded by: [International Islamic University]
On: 19 March 2015, At: 23:45

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Marketing Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20
Integrating transactional and relational

exchange into the study of Exchange
Orientation in customer relationships
Aurlia Lefaix-Durand & Robert Kozak
Published online: 23 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Aurlia Lefaix-Durand & Robert Kozak (2009) Integrating transactional and
relational exchange into the study of Exchange Orientation in customer relationships, Journal of
Marketing Management, 25:9-10, 1003-1025, DOI: 10.1362/026725709X479345
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725709X479345
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
JOURNAL OF
MARKETING
Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015
MANAGEMENT
Integrating transactional and relational exchange

into the study of Exchange Orientation in customer
relationships
Aurlia Lefaix-Durand, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina*
Robert Kozak, The University of British Columbia, Canada
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to propose a new conceptual and operational
tool, exchange orientation (EO), which favours a better understanding of the
coexistence of transactional and relational exchanges in contemporary marketing.
First, the literature was reviewed across business management fields to identify
the constructs that play a central role in interfirm exchange. The concept of EO
was then developed and characterised according to levels of trust, cooperation,
commitment, communication, time orientation, interdependence, proximity,
coordination, regulation, and structure of exchange. A multiple case study was
finally used to empirically investigate EO in 58 customers relationships from the
perspective of three wood products manufacturers. This study of EO is a first step
in eliciting hybrid marketing practices within the same business context. It also
points to the need for the strategic management of customer relationships based
on the actual and desired value and orientation of exchange.
Keywords Interfirm exchange, Customer relationships, Transaction marketing,
Relationship marketing, Hybrid marketing practices, Exchange orientation.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Relationship marketing is said to differ from transaction marketing in that it
broadens the marketing focus beyond technical aspects of exchange to include
relational elements, considers multiple stakeholders, and emphasises long-term and
*Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2009, Vol. 25, No. 9-10, pp. 1003-1025
ISSN0267-257X print /ISSN1472-1376 online Westburn Publishers Ltd.
doi: 10.1362/026725709X479345
1004
JMM
Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25
collaborative relationships between buyers and sellers (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Payne
and Holt 2001; Ravald and Grnroos 1996). The advent of relationship marketing
in academia two decades ago led to distinguishing between transactional exchange
and relational exchange (Anderson and Narus 1991; Dwyer et al. 1987; Morgan and
Hunt 1994). In a comparison between these two exchange types, Sheth and Shah
(2003, p. 628) characterised transactional exchange by its short-term nature or by
one-time exchange, with no commitment beyond the limited interaction between
trade actors, and relational exchange by long-term commitments and the desire for
collaboration between trade actors. This widely accepted definition reflects the
tendency in marketing theory to adopt dichotomous approaches of interfirm exchange.
This paper puts forth exchange orientation (EO) as a new conceptual and operational
tool that helps to integrate both types of exchange and enrich the characterisation of
interfirm exchange along the transactional / relational continuum.
The need for developing this tool resides in the fact that dichotomous approaches of
exchange do not help to explain the co-existence of exchange types in contemporary
marketing practices. These approaches include studies that come from a paradigm
shift perspective proclaiming a transition from transaction to relationship
marketing (e.g., Grnroos 1994; Gummesson 1997; Ravald and Grnroos 1996),
as well as studies in what can be called a contingent approach suggesting that
exchange type is context-specific and dependent on the offerings (goods vs. services),
the markets (business-to-consumer vs. business-to-business markets), or the industry
structure (atomised vs. concentrated industries) in question (e.g., Grnroos 1985;
Grnroos 1991; Sharma and Pillai 2003; Sheth and Shah 2003). However, recent
studies in industrial, service, and international marketing have started not only to
document the simultaneous relevance of both types of exchange within the same
context, but also the existence of a hybrid form between transactional and relational
exchange (e.g., Coviello et al. 2002; Chaston 2000; Styles and Ambler 2003). These
empirical findings contradict dichotomist approaches and raise questions regarding
the causes and consequences of this co-existence. Why and when is it appropriate
for an organisation (or a whole value-creating network) to adopt one or both types
of exchange? What exactly is this hybrid form? Are the consequences of this hybrid
form a superior exchange strategy or a stuck-in-the-middle impasse? By proposing
a framework and methodology to integrate exchange types in the study of exchange
orientation, this paper is a first step toward answering these questions.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: THREE KEY ELEMENTS OF INTERFIRM

EXCHANGE
Due to the diversity of approaches and the general adoption of a reductionist inquiry
mode1, the literature dealing with interfirm exchange offers a dense contribution to
knowledge, but generally precludes a holistic understanding of the phenomenon.
To develop a bigger picture understanding of interfirm exchange, we reviewed
the literature in marketing, business strategy, operations management, research and
development, and information systems. Three key elements of interfirm exchange
1
A reductionist inquiry mode implies the separate analysis of a phenomenons constituent

parts as opposed to studying the interrelations between the constituent parts in a holistic
manner (see Meyer et al. 1993).
Lefaix-Durand and Kozak Integrating transactional and relational exchange
emerged from this review: the situation of exchange; the behaviours in exchange;
and the governance of exchange. Each is discussed in turn.
First, the literature indicates that exchange between firms is contextually embedded
in a situational factor, using Ganesans (1993) terminology. Studies on clustering
and supply chains have placed the notion of proximity between organisations at the
core of discussions on enhanced business performance (Ahuja 2000; Conway and Swift
2000; Evans and Bridson 2005; Nielson 1998; Oerlemans and Meeus 2005; Porter
1998). Research based on both the transaction costs theory (Williamson 1975, 1979)
and relational exchange theory (Dwyer et al. 1987; Macneil 1980) have emphasised
the role of dependence (and symmetry of dependence, i.e., interdependence) between
organisations as well as time orientation to explain the performance of exchange
(Chen and Paulraj 2004; Haugland 1999; Heide and John 1988, 1990; Kumar
et al. 1995). For instance, the transaction costs theory states that it is possible to
reduce opportunistic risks and transaction costs in business by establishing long-term
relationships with trade partners. Relationships with long-term orientations have
been shown to be conducive to improved performance of interdependent members
within a distribution channel (Ganesan 1994; Gassenheimer et al. 1989).
Second, the behaviours of trade actors in the exchange process are central to
understanding the nature of exchange. Notably, the establishment of relational
exchange presupposes the existence of commitment, cooperation, communication,
and trust between firms; four constructs that have been highly correlated in the
literature. For instance, commitment between firms has been positively correlated
to interfirm cooperation (Dwyer et al. 1987; Fontenot and Wilson 1997) and
communication has been shown to positively influence cooperation (Anderson and
Narus 1990). In turn, cooperation has been positively correlated to economic and
non-economic relationship outcomes (e.g., friendships between managers) (Anderson
et al. 1994; Geyskens et al. 1999). Trust is considered to be one of the most important
antecedents to communication, commitment, and cooperation (Geyskens et al. 1999;
Gundlach et al. 1995).
Lastly, a large portion of the literature deals with the governance of exchange (i.e.,
the mechanisms used to organise and control interfirm exchange). Work based on
the power / influence theory and the contractual approach has focused on exchange
regulation, which mainly centres on contractual agreements and interfirm influence
strategies (Antia and Frazier 2001; Brown et al. 1995; Frazier and Rody 1991; Gaski
and Nevin 1985; Heide and John 1992; Lusch and Brown 1982). For example, a
non-coercive use of power between firms positively affects exchange relationship
performance, whereas a coercive use of power and a high level of centralisation
both hinder such performance (Boyle and Dwyer 1995; Heide 2003). In parallel,
the literature on supply chains and networks underlines the influence of exchange
coordination and structure on interfirm exchange outcomes (Chen and Paulraj 2004;
Hkansson 1982; Hkansson and Snehota 1995; Harland et al. 2004; Heide and
John 1990). For instance, an efficient coordination in supply chain has positive
impacts on organisational performance (Tan et al. 2002), while networked forms of
organisations foster strategic partnerships which can generate competitive advantage
for organisations (Jarillo 1988).
1005
1006
JMM
CONCEPTUAL AND OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: INTEGRATING

TRANSACTIONAL AND RELATIONAL EXCHANGES INTO EXCHANGE
ORIENTATION
Early definitions positioned relationship marketing as being concerned exclusively
with relational exchange (e.g., Morgan and Hunt 1994; Nevin 1995). More recent
conceptualisations position relationship marketing as dealing with exchange (in a
general sense) between buyers and sellers, integrating elements of both transactional
and relational exchange. For instance, Gummesson (2004, p. 136) proposed that to
conceptually incorporate transaction marketing in relationship marketing, transaction
marketing can be defined as the zero point on a relationship scale. Following this
notion, we develop the concept of exchange orientation (EO) using the key elements
and related concepts identified in the literature review.
We define EO as the position of exchange along the transactional / relational
continuum. In this study, we propose that EO be characterised according to levels
of proximity, interdependence, long-term orientation, commitment, communication,
cooperation, trust, regulation, coordination, and structure of exchange. To illustrate
this proposition, one can envision a series of cursors on the continuums presented
in Figure 1. The more cursors are on the extreme right of the continuums, the more
relational the exchange orientation between firms is. In contrast, cursors positioned
at the left side of the continuums are indicative of a more transactional exchange
orientation.
We chose these ten concepts to characterise exchange orientation because they have
received the greatest amount of attention across business research fields and have been
empirically investigated for their impact on exchange outcomes, such as organisational
performance (e.g., Anderson et al. 1994; Boyle and Dwyer 1995; Gassenheimer et al.
1989; Heide 2003; Oerlemans and Meeus 2005). In addition, they have been shown
to be strongly interrelated (e.g., J. C. Anderson and Narus 1990; Dwyer et al. 1987;
Fontenot and Wilson 1997; Ganesan 1993, 1994; Kothandaraman and Wilson 2000;
Tan et al. 2002). In other words, these ten concepts account for a large portion of the
FIGURE 1 Conceptualisation of exchange orientation

KEY ELEMENTS
Situation of
exchange
CONCEPTS
Proximity
Interdependence
Time orientation
Behaviour of
Commitment
exchange
Communication
Cooperation
Trust
Governance of
Regulation
exchange
Coordination
Structure
Exchange Orientation
CONTINUUMS
Distant
In/dependent
Short-term
Opportunist
Occasional/limited
Non-cooperative
Untrusting
Explicit/coercive
Fragmented
Dyadic
Transactional
Close
Interdependent
Long-term
Committed
Frequent/extensive
Cooperative
Trusting
Normative/non-coercive
Integrated
Networked
Relational
nomological network2 of interfirm exchange and represent a strong basis to support

the study of exchange orientation. Relying on previous research, we operationalised
these concepts into multidimensional constructs. For each construct, definitions and
measurement indicators are presented below and summarised in Appendix 1.
Proximity
The concept of proximity between organisations includes the notions of geographic
location and spatial distance between facilities (Oerlemans and Meeus 2005; Porter
1998), perceptions of closeness, i.e., the existence of close and working relationships
(Hkansson 1982; Nielson 1998), and perceptions of technical and cultural proximity,
i.e., similarities in technological background, national culture, legal and political
systems, market structures, business practices, and language (Ahuja 2000; Conway
and Swift 2000; Evans and Bridson 2005).
Interdependence
Dependence between organisations is said to naturally emerge from repeated
interaction episodes over time (Dwyer et al. 1987; Macneil 1980). It has been defined
as a firms need to maintain a relationship with a partner to achieve its goals (Heide
and John 1988). Dependence can be determined by the outcomes given comparison
level for alternatives, i.e., the overall economic, social, and technical outcomes
available to the firm from the best alternative exchange relationship (Anderson and
Narus 1990, p. 43). Common indicators of dependence are the level of specificity of
human and technical assets invested in relationships (Handfield and Bechtel 2002;
Haugland 1999; Heide 1994; Nielson 1998), the level of irreplaceability of trade
partners (Joshi and Stump 1999; Morgan and Hunt 1994; de Ruyter et al. 2001) and,
their contribution to one anothers sales and profits (Anderson and Weitz 1989; Kim
1999). Interdependence characterises the mutuality (or symmetry) of dependence
between firms (Anderson and Narus 1990; Heide and John 1988).
Time orientation
The time orientation of exchange (short-term vs. long-term) is not only a matter of
past duration but also of expected continuity of exchange over time (Chen and Paulraj
2004; Ganesan 1994; Heide and John 1990; Kumar et al. 1995). The notion of time
horizon has also been used to measure the time orientation of relationships in a
context of procurement. Time horizon has been determined by how a manufacturer
assesses the effectiveness and profitability of a supplier relationship. The relationship
is short-term oriented if the evaluation is made on a transaction-by-transaction basis,
and is long-term oriented if the relationship is evaluated over a series of transactions
(Joshi and Stump 1999).
Commitment
Commitment in interfirm exchange has been defined as the belief of an exchange
partner that an ongoing relationship with another firm is important enough to warrant
maximum efforts aimed at maintaining it, including short-term sacrifices (Geyskens
2
A nomological network is defined as the representation of the constructs of interest in a

study, their observable manifestations, and the interrelationships among and between them
(see Cronbach and Meehl 1955).
1007
1008
JMM
et al. 1999; Kumar et al. 1994; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Commitment is often
opposed to opportunistic behaviour which is defined as the pursuit of self-interest
with guile (Joshi and Stump 1999), and translates, for instance, in withholding or
distorting information, failing to fulfil promises or obligations, late payments, and
delivery of substandard products (Parkhe 1993).
Communication
Communication can be defined broadly as the formal, as well as informal, sharing
of relevant, reliable, and timely information between firms (Anderson and Narus
1990; Morgan and Hunt 1994). The extent and depth in which trade partners
communicate can be determined by the frequency of information exchange between
actors, the type of communication tactics or methods/media used, and the content
or type of information (i.e., proprietary, technical or social information) (Andersen
2001; Kim 1999; Spekman et al. 2002; Tatikonda and Stock 2003; Wiertz et al.
2004). Overall, higher levels of communication are reflected by communication that
is more interpersonal, that has greater frequency, and that transmits richer and more
complex information (Tatikonda and Stock 2003). Using the concept of information
sharing, scholars also insist on the importance of two-way dyadic interchanges, i.e.,
the reciprocity (or symmetry) in information exchange between buyers and sellers
(Chen and Paulraj 2004; de Ruyter et al. 2001).
Cooperation
Cooperation has been defined as the extent to which trade partners voluntarily
undertake similar or complementary actions to achieve mutual outcomes or singular
outcomes with expected reciprocation over time (Anderson and Narus 1990).
Cooperation emerges when firms goals are compatible (Parsons 2002), and translates
into joint action and conflict solving. Joint action has been defined as the extent
to which parties undertake similar or complementary actions jointly, rather than
unilaterally (Heide and John 1990; Kim 1999). Conflict solving can be defined as
the search for mutually acceptable compromises without having to resort to formal
procedures (de Ruyter et al. 2001: 274).
Trust
Trust has been defined as the willingness to rely on an exchange partner with whom
one has confidence (Moorman et al. 1993; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Common to all
different definitions used to conceptualise trust is the notion that it constitutes the
belief, attitude, or expectation that ones partner will act in a predictable manner, will
keep his/her word, and will perform actions resulting in positive outcomes (Anderson
and Narus 1990; Dwyer et al. 1987; de Ruyter et al. 2001; Spekman et al. 2002;
Walter et al. 2003). Its development largely depends on interpersonal variables such
as shared values, perceived expertise, honesty, benevolence, competence, reliability,
and predictability (Handfield and Bechtel 2002; Moorman et al. 1993).
Regulation
The notions of power, centralisation of decision-making, and formalisation have been
used to determine degrees and forms of exchange regulation. Power has been defined
as the ability of an entity to control or influence the behaviour of another entity or to
impose ones will on others (Dwyer et al. 1987; Lusch and Brown 1982). The use of
power among firms is translated into influence strategies which can either be coercive
(e.g., promises, threats, and legalistic pleas) or non-coercive (e.g., information
exchange, requests, recommendations, and discussions about business strategy)
(Brown et al. 1995; Frazier and Rody 1991). The level of bureaucracy characterising
the exchange is determined by the importance of centralisation (i.e., the degree
to which decision-making authority is concentrated, as opposed to shared, within
the channel system) and formalisation (i.e., the extent to which decision making is
regulated by explicit rules and procedures) (Boyle and Dwyer 1995; Geyskens et
al. 1999; Heide and John 1992). Finally, contractual agreements are said to vary
along a continuum ranging from the explicit (when they are formalised by written
contracts establishing legal bonds) to the implicit or normative (when based on
social bonds and expected behaviours) (Lusch and Laczniak 1987).
Coordination
Coordination in the exchange process refers to the ways in which activities, resources,
and competences of firms are planned and integrated. The levels of logistics and
resources integration between firms and inter-penetration of their boundaries are said
to be important determinants of exchange coordination (Harland et al. 2004; Heide
and John 1990). Integration can be effected with regard to physical resources (such
as manufacturing equipment and technology), human resources (e.g., by means of
extensive human interaction and cross-transfer of staff between firms), or processes
(for instance, by the use of Vendor-Managed or Co-Managed Inventory systems which
enable suppliers to assess stock-data level via Electronic Data Interchange and to take
the necessary replenishment actions) (Harland et al. 2004). Information technologies
play a central role in coordination because they enable functional, geographical,
and inter-temporal coordination of managerial decisions (Shapiro 2001). In this
way, higher levels of coordination and planning in interfirm exchange are usually
associated with an extended use of the Internet (e.g., for email exchange and funds
transfer) and with the use of various inter-organisational information systems, such
as Vendor-Managed or Co-Managed Inventory systems (VMI/CMI), Electronic Data
Interchange (EDI); Collaborative Planning Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR);
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems; and electronic marketplaces (Gallivan
and Depledge 2003).
Structure
A new form of exchange coordination, the network organisation, is said to have
emerged over the past two decades in reaction to a business environment becoming
more and more turbulent and connection-rich (Achrol 1997; Ritter 1999). Early
debates attempting to determine whether this type of organisation represents an
intermediate form of coordination between markets and hierarchies (Thorelli 1986)
or whether it is an entirely new organisational form characterised by its own logic
of exchange (Powell 1990) have led to the latter interpretation prevailing (Josserand
2004). Yet, the linguistic chaos and confusion underlying studies on network
organisations still often generate diverse, varied, inconsistent, and contradictory
findings (Borgatti and Foster 2003, p. 996). The notion of structure in interfirm
exchange is indeed highly complex as it is intertwined with many other concepts
(like regulation, power, and interdependence) (Fombrun 1986). We propose
considering the structural dimension in exchange governance from the interaction
approach standpoint, using the notion of structural embeddedness. The interaction
1009
1010
JMM
approach has established that transactions can only be examined as episodes in often
long-term, embedded, and complex interfirm relationships (Hkansson 1982). The
network organisation is then perceived as an aggregate structure of interconnected
business relationships (Hkansson and Snehota 1995). Close to concepts of
interconnectedness, connectivity, and network complexity which describe the
links that lie within a network (Abrahamson and Fombrun 1992; Antia and Frazier
2001), structural embeddedness represents the extent to which a dyads mutual
contacts are connected to one another (Jones et al. 1997, p. 924). It is measured by
the number of participants involved in the exchange, the likelihood these participants
will interact in the future, and the likelihood they will communicate openly about
their interactions.
Generally, the measure developed in this study included variables and items that
were tested empirically in the supporting literature. However, some variables needed
to be adapted to practices in the research context due to a lack of information in the
literature. This was the case for the structure construct, as well as for the dimensions
of joint action (cooperation construct) and type of trade agreements (regulation
construct). Preliminary interviews with experts in the field were used to define a
list of elements which helped assess the structure of exchange, a list of possible
cooperative practices, and a list of possible trade agreements (Appendix 1). These
lists were then used in a questionnaire developed to assess exchange orientation in
customer relationships. The next section presents the methodology developed to
achieve this objective.
METHODS: A MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY IN THE STRUCTURAL WOOD

PRODUCTS SUPPLY CHAIN
An empirical study was undertaken to investigate the orientation of interfirm exchange
between suppliers and customers along the transactional / relational continuum. We
contextualised this study in the Canadian supply chain of structural wood products
for the North American residential construction because wood products suppliers
marketing strategies have been said to be shifting from a production orientation
towards more of a customer focus (Juslin and Hansen 2002; Lewin and Johnston
1997; Vlosky et al. 1998). Thus, the likelihood was high that both transactional
and relational orientations of exchange could be observed in the current marketing
practices for this supply chain. This study relies on a qualitative approach because
of the complexity of the phenomenon under scrutiny. A multiple-case study research
design was chosen over other qualitative approaches as it allowed for the investigation
of large numbers of variables, and facilitated the extraction of sensitive information
about exchange with customers (Creswell 1998; Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 2003).
The research protocol for this case study was designed in accordance with Yins
(2003) recommendations and included multiple data sources for triangulating
findings: face-to-face semi-structured interviews; face-to-face and telephone
structured interviews using questionnaires (including open-ended and close-ended
questions); direct observation; and documentation analysis. Data was collected over
a five month period between February 2007 and July 2007. All survey instruments
were made available in both French and English according to each informants
preference.
Three Canadian companies manufacturing structural wood products were
selected using the principle of strategic case selection (Hillebrand et al. 2001; Strauss
and Corbin 1998) in order to capture the complexity of the trade of structural
wood products. Variation was sought in the size of trade actors (small, medium,
and large companies), in product types (lumber, engineered wood products, and
prefabricated components for roofs, floors, and walls), in customer types (component
manufacturers, wholesalers/distributors, retailers, and general contractors), and in
market locations (Canada and the United States). At the time of the data collection,
Companies 1 and 2 were among the largest Canadian wood product manufacturers
and sold to wholesalers/distributors, retailers, and component manufacturers across
Canada and the U.S. Data collection and analysis focused on the lumber division of
Company 1 (~ CAN$1B in revenues in 2006) and the engineered wood products
(EWP)3 division of Company 2 (~ CAN$70M in revenues in 2006). Company 3
was comparatively smaller, but ranked as a medium-sized manufacturer of structural
wood-based components (walls, floors, and roofs). They sold to general contractors,
homebuilders, and land developers in Eastern Canada and the North-eastern U.S. (~
CAN$20M in revenues in 2006).
Six senior managers in sales and marketing in the three case companies participated
in this case study4, each agreeing to assess orientations of exchange with some of their
customers. As a first step in the research protocol, the participants were asked to
intuitively position two to four customers into each of the quadrants of a framework
labelled the value / orientation (VAL/OR) matrix, based on two axes: exchange
value (very low to very high) and exchange orientation (very transactional to very
relational). To assist with positioning customers on the value axis, the informants
were asked to think about customers that were either of significantly lower or higher
importance to their companies. To assist with positioning customers on the exchange
orientation (EO) axis, the informants were provided with a basic definition of
exchange types, which stated:
when price counts first with a customer and where business is characterised by oneat-a-time deals, the customer is generally approached using a transactional exchange
orientation; when trust, cooperation, and the continuity of the relationship over time
are more important determinants in the deal than price, the customer is generally
approached using a relational exchange orientation.
This exercise resulted in the selection of 58 customer relationships 19 high value

customers and 13 low value customers situated in a relational exchange orientation;
13 high value customers and 13 low value customers situated in a transactional
exchange orientation.
In-depth interviews were then conducted in order to collect information pertaining
to each companys motivations and interests in initiating, developing, maintaining,
or interrupting exchange with the selected customers. Next, accounting data for sales
and profits related to selected customers were also analysed to better understand
what the value of a customer is in suppliers opinions. Finally, some phone calls
and email exchanges between supplier informants and their selected customers
3
EWP are wood products made by combining wood and wood fibres with other materials
(e.g. glues, adhesives, and binders).
Informant contacts were made through two research organisations and benefactors of
this study: CIBISA (Industrial Chair on Engineered Wood Products for Structural and
Appearance Applications, www.cibisa.ulaval.ca) and FORAC (Research Consortium on
Electronic Business in the Forest Industry, www.forac.ulaval.ca).
1011
1012
JMM
were observed to better understand the dynamics within these relationships. Finally,
using questionnaires, the exchange orientation of each of the 58 selected customer
relationships was quantified according to participants perceptions of the key elements
of exchange. The questionnaires were administered during structured interviews
and relied on a seven-point continuous scale presented in the following manner:
Please indicate for each customer selected how the following elements rate on a
scale ranging from (1) very low to (7) very high: [indicators). Informants were asked
to successively rate each indicator, dimension, and construct used to operationalise
EO (Appendix 1). This rigorous procedure (and the in-vivo control for consistency
that was carried out) ensured that informants had a common understanding of the
concepts used for profiling EO. Therefore, the ratings provided can be considered an
acceptable basis for comparison across the 58 selected customer relationships.
Finally, within-case and cross-case data analyses and interpretation were performed
following Eisenhardts (1989) recommendations. Axial coding was used to analyse
qualitative data (Strauss and Corbin 1998), while means were computed for the
values that participants provided with the continuous interval scale questions in the
questionnaires. Triangulation of data was conducted using both the qualitative and
quantitative results as a means to confirm, cross-validate and corroborate findings
(Creswell 2003: 217). Results were then sent to the primary informants for review
and comment.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: EXCHANGE ORIENTATION VARIES

WITH THE VALUE OF CUSTOMERS
The selection of 58 customers using the value/orientation (VAL/OR) matrix led
to the emergence of a new taxonomy based on four customer categories. Illustrative
labels are provided for each category of customers (Figure 2). These labels emerged
from the informants descriptions about their motivations and interests in dealing
FIGURE 2 Positions of analysed customer relationships in the Value / Orientation (VAL/
OR) Matrix
EXCHANGE
VALUE
High
Low
PROMISING
CUSTOMERS
STRATEGIC
CUSTOMERS
(n=13)
(n=19)
QUESTIONABLE
CUSTOMERS
SUPPORTIVE
CUSTOMERS
(n=13)
(n=13)
Transactional
Relational
EXCHANGE
ORIENTATION
FIGURE 3 Profiles of exchange with transactional and relational customers

Proximity
7
Networked Structure
Interdependence
5
4
3
Coordination
Long-term orientation
1
Regulation
Commitment
Trust
Communication
Cooperation
Exchange with 'Relational' Customers
Exchange with 'Transactional' Customers
with the selected customers.

Emergent themes from the in-depth interviews revealed that selected customers
in a relational exchange orientation were considered to be either strategic (high
value) customers or supportive (low value) customers. According to informants,
strategic customers purchase high volumes, generate significant sales revenues, and
pay fair prices, in long-term, collaborative, and often difficult to replace relationships.
On the contrary, supportive customers individually represent a rather insignificant
portion of the total business, but have been purchasing for a long time often
upwards of 15 or 20 years and help to stabilise sales volumes and/or profits by
purchasing periodic volume surpluses and by-products. Selected customers in a
transactional exchange orientation were considered to be either promising (high
value) customers or questionable (low value) customers. Promising customers
had strong growth potential or were occasionally involved in high volume/profitable
deals; they were newcomers or buyers that had purchased with irregularity and low
reorder predictability over many years. Finally, questionable customers purchased
insignificant annual volumes of products, with limited profits for the manufacturer,
and interactions generally over price and volume were perceived to be pointless
and time-consuming.
The questionnaire results served to precisely characterise exchange in the 58
selected customer relationships according to levels of proximity, interdependence,
long-term orientation, commitment, communication, cooperation, trust, regulation,
coordination, and networked structure of exchange. Means were computed for the
values that participants provided with the continuous interval scale questions5. Based
on the average values obtained for each construct, Figure 3 shows how exchange
with customers in a transactional orientation differs from exchange with customers
in a relational orientation.
5
Scale from 1: very low to 7: very high
1013
1014
JMM
Figure 3 illustrates two distinct profiles of exchange orientation with selected

customers. These profiles suggest that the conceptualisation of EO proposed in
this study does help to position exchange more precisely along the transactional /
relational continuum, using the ten selected constructs. A gap is observed, however,
between constructs which reveal a marked distinction between orientations (like
interdependence, time-orientation, commitment, and communication), and constructs
for which the difference observed between the two orientation profiles is not as
noticeable as the literature suggests (like proximity, cooperation, trust, regulation,
coordination, and structure of exchange). At first sight, this observation questions
the relevance of using the above mentioned constructs to characterise exchange
orientation. Yet, information collected during in-depth interviews and the feedback
on these results obtained from study participants suggest alternative explanations.
First, the constructs of proximity, coordination, and structure may indeed be of
lesser relevance but this could well be context-specific to the supply chain analysed.
Indeed, participants mentioned that the nature and history of the trade of structural
wood products in North America have forced suppliers to deal with and assimilate
significant geographic distances, in markets where cultural and technical differences
were perceived to be relatively minor. Studying other industrial or geographic
settings could lead to the observation of a wider divergence between transactional
and relational orientation profiles with regards to the proximity dimension. Similarly,
other business settings involving more advanced coordination and networked structure
of exchange could point to a higher relevance of these constructs in characterising
exchange orientation. Indeed, the specialised literature and the information collected
empirically in this study suggest that electronically-based coordination and networked
forms of organisation have been introduced in the wood products and construction
industries relatively recently and, thus far, only to a limited extent. This early stage
of diffusion may explain why the relational exchange profile does not differentiate
significantly from the transactional profile on these dimensions. This is an aspect that
needs to be further investigated in future research.
Second, results with regards to the constructs of cooperation, trust, and regulation
contrast surprisingly with the results of previous research. The supporting literature
suggests that exchange with relational customers would be characterised by a
significantly higher level of trust and cooperation and a significantly lower level of
formal regulation, than exchange with transactional customers. Results from the
questionnaires in this study show, however, few differences in this regard between
the two exchange profiles. One way to approach this inconsistency has been to more
carefully consider the notion of exchange value. Interviews revealed that informants
seemed equally ready to trust and cooperate with customers that were actually
or potentially valuable customers. Notably, several informants discussed ways to
turn promising customers into strategic customers and how to develop more
of a relational exchange orientation with these transactional, yet high value
customers. They perceived cooperation and trust to be instrumental in doing so,
not necessarily viewing these dimensions as resulting only from long-term oriented
relationships. This is consistent with the literature on trust which questions its role as
an antecedent to or a consequence of many of the behavioural variables involved in
relationship development. Overall, the value of exchange appeared to be an important
factor to take into account when studying exchange orientation. Figure 4 illustrates
the characterisation of exchange according to the value of the 58 selected customers
in this case study. It shows an amplified divergence between the two profiles (low-
FIGURE 4 Profiles of exchange with low value and high value customers
Proximity
7
Networked Structure
Interdependence
5
4
3
Coordination
2
1
Regulation
Commitment
Trust
Communication
Cooperation
Exchange with 'High Value' Customers
Exchange with 'Low Value' Customers
value and high-value customers), not only in trust, cooperation, and regulation, but
in most of the other dimensions under scrutiny6.
An important result of this study is the observation that perceptions of exchange
orientation vary with perceptions of exchange value. The characterisation of exchange
in each category of customers positioned in the VAL/OR matrix provides additional
evidence to support this observation (Figure 5).
Exchange with strategic customers (high value/relational orientation) was
described as being oriented towards the long-term and was characterised by high
levels of interdependence, communication, trust, commitment, and cooperation. On
the other hand, exchange with questionable customers (low value/transactional
orientation) rated lower than all other categories on all dimensions, was thought
of as short-term, and was characterised by low levels of commitment and poor
communication, cooperation, and coordination. Interestingly, exchange with
promising customers (high value/transactional orientation) was similar to exchange
with supportive customers (low value/relational orientation), but rated higher on
dimensions like interdependence, commitment, communication, and trust. One
possible interpretation of this surprising observation is that participants intuitively
thought of their promising customers as being less relationally orientated than
what was revealed by a thorough examination. Another possible interpretation is the
potential existence of an intermediate exchange orientation, residing somewhere
between clearly transactional and clearly relational orientations. Figure 5
(overleaf) suggests that exchange with promising and supportive customers
is characterised by a somewhat equivalent EO in this intermediate position. This
supports the notion that there are no clear-cut types of exchange (Anderson and
6
The exceptions being the constructs of proximity and structure, possibly due to the contextspecific nature of the study, mentioned earlier.
1015
1016
JMM
FIGURE 5 Profiles of exchange in four categories of customers
Proximity
7
6
Networked Structure
Interdependence
5
4
3
Coordination
1
Regulation
Commitment
Trust
Communication
Cooperation
Exchange with 'Strategic' Customers
Exchange with 'Supportive' Customers
Exchange with 'Promising' Customers
Exchange with 'Questionable' Customers
Narus 1991) and raises questions that need to be addressed by future research. For
instance, does an intermediate orientation represent a transition phase (e.g., from
a promising to a strategic status)? Or is such an orientation sustainable in and
of itself?
Furthermore, findings suggest that this intermediate exchange orientation (i.e.,
an orientation that is neither clearly transactional nor clearly relational) should be
distinguished from the hybrid form of exchange orientation (i.e., the simultaneous
existence of transactional, intermediate, and relational exchange types). By situating
the hybrid form beyond the industry level to within an organisation itself (since each
participating company dealt with customers in both transactional, intermediate, and
relational exchange orientations), this study supports and extends previous findings
about plural marketing practices put forth by the Contemporary Marketing
Practices (CMP) research program (Coviello et al. 2002; Pels et al. 2004). However,
it also points to a distinct area of study, while leading to a new taxonomy based on
customer relationships instead of marketing practices. This distinction opens new
research avenues regarding the strategic management of customer relationships.
CONCLUSIONS: TOWARDS THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF

CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS
In summary, the following conclusions have been drawn from this research:
Interfirm exchange and its orientation along the transactional/relational

continuum can be precisely characterised according to levels of proximity,
interdependence, long-term orientation, commitment, communication, cooperation,
trust, regulation, coordination, and networked structure of exchange between
organisations;
An intermediate exchange orientation (i.e., an orientation that is neither clearly

transactional nor clearly relational) needs to be distinguished from the hybrid
form of exchange, which can be defined as the simultaneous use of transactional,
intermediate, and relational exchange orientations to serve customers;
A hybrid form of exchange has been empirically observed in this study,
illustrating how transactional and relational types of exchange can co-exist
within the same business context (at the supply chain level, but also within an
organisation itself);
The notion of exchange value emerges as a central mechanism to understand
why and when a specific exchange orientation with customers is appropriate, and
supplements explanations based on the types of offerings, markets, or industry
structures proposed in previous research;
By combining the exchange orientation and value of exchange with customers, a
new taxonomy emerges which distinguishes between strategic, promising,
supportive, and questionable customers, and therefore suggests a novel
approach for segmenting customer bases into cohesive portfolios of customers.
Each of these conclusions helps to address the questions formulated in the introduction
of this paper and offers potential for future research. As in any qualitative study,
findings were not intended to be representative of the population of manufacturing
companies under scrutiny, but to provide insight for a deeper understanding of
the phenomenon of interfirm exchange. This research was conducted within the
North American supply chain of structural wood products and its structure in
terms of customer relationships may not reflect the supply chain of other industrial
sectors/geographic regions. However, the concept of exchange orientation and the
methodology developed in this case study are transferable to any other industrial or
service sectors with appropriate adaptation.
To conclude, the present research puts forth the concept of exchange orientation
(EO), which allows for an integration and a broader characterisation of transactional
and relational exchanges between organisations. This concept is operationalised
into a tool that can help researchers and managers to measure and monitor EO in
customer relationships over time. At the conceptual and methodological levels, this
work presents a novel approach for integrating transactional and relational exchanges
and bridging transaction and relationship marketing. The notion of EO offers an
alternative perspective one favouring integration rather than dichotomy to other
notions used to depict plurality in contemporary marketing, such as paradigms (e.g.,
Grnroos 1994; Gummesson 1997), practices (e.g., Coviello et al. 2002; Pels et al.
2004), and logics (e.g., Vargo and Lusch 2004). Such integration offers potential
gains for suppliers through the management of their customer relationships based
on a consideration of the appropriate exchange orientation. At the managerial level,
this study suggests that customer base segmentation criteria and strategic objectives
regarding relationship portfolio management can be modified to better integrate the
concepts of exchange orientation and exchange value. This study therefore advocates
the strategic management of customer relationships according to the existing and
1017
1018
JMM
desired exchange orientation and exchange value, as an alternative to customer

profitability used in current customer relationship management (CRM) practices.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, Eric and Fombrun, Charles J. (1992), Forging the Iron Cage: Interorganizational
Networks and the Production of Macro-Culture, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol.
29, No. 2, pp. 175-94.
Achrol, R. S. (1997), Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing:
Toward a network paradigm, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No.
1, pp. 56-71.
Ahuja, G. (2000), Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal
study, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 425-55.
Andersen, Poul Houman (2001), Relationship development and marketing communication:
An integrative model, The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.
167.
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1989), Determinants of Continuity in Conventional Industrial
Channel Dyads, Marketing Science, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 310-23.
Anderson, J. C. and Narus, J. A. (1990), A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm
Working Partnerships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Anderson, J. C. and Narus, J. A. (1991), Partnering as a Focused Market Strategy, California
Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 95-113.
Anderson, J. C., Hkansson, Hakan , and Johanson, J. (1994), Dyadic Business Relationships
within a Business Network Context, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 1-15.
Antia, K. D. and Frazier, G. L. (2001), The severity of contract enforcement in interfirm
channel relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 67-81.
Borgatti, Stephen P. and Foster, Pacey C. (2003), The Network Paradigm in Organizational
Research: A Review and Typology, Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 9911013.
Boyle, B. A. and Dwyer, F. R. (1995), Power, Bureaucracy, Influence, and Performance - Their
Relationships in Industrial Distribution Channels, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32,
No. 3, pp. 189-200.
Brown, James R, Lusch, Robert F, and Nicholson, Carolyn Y (1995), Power and relationship
commitment: Their impact on marketing channel member performance, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 363-92.
Conway, Tony and Swift, Jonathan S. (2000), International relationship marketing - The
importance of psychic distance, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, No. 11/12, pp.
1391.
Coviello, Nicole E, Brodie, Roderick J, Danaher, Peter J, and Johnston, Wesley J (2002),
How firms relate to their markets: An empirical examination of contemporary marketing
practices, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 33-46.
Creswell, J. W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. (1955), Construct validity in psychological tests,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 52, pp. 281-302.
Chaston, I. (2000), Relationship marketing and the orientation customers require of
suppliers, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 147-66.
Chen, I. J. and Paulraj, A. (2004), Towards a theory of supply chain management: the
constructs and measurements, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.
119-50.
de Ruyter, Ko, Moorman, Luci, and Lemmink, Jos (2001), Antecedents of Commitment
and Trust in CustomerSupplier Relationships in High Technology Markets, Industrial

Marketing Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 27186.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., and Oh, S. (1987), Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989), Building Theories From Case Study Research, The Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Evans, Jody and Bridson, Kerrie (2005), Explaining retail offer adaptation through psychic
distance, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.
69.
Fombrun, Charles J. (1986), Structural Dynamics Within and Between Organizations,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 403-21.
Fontenot, Renee J and Wilson, Elizabeth J (1997), Relational exchange: A review of selected
models for a prediction matrix of relationship activities, Journal of Business Research, Vol.
39, No. 1, pp. 5-10.
Frazier, Gary L. and Rody, Raymond C. (1991), The Use of Influence Strategies in Interfirm
Relationships in Industrial Product Channels, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.
52-69.
Gallivan, M. J. and Depledge, G. (2003), Trust, control and the role of interorganizational
systems in electronic partnerships, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 15990.
Ganesan, Shankar (199), Negotiation strategies and the nature of channel relationships,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 183-203.
Ganesan, Shankar (199)), Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships,
Gaski, John F. and Nevin, John R. (1985), The Differential Effects of Exercised and
Unexercised Power Sources in a Marketing Channel, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
22, No. 2, pp. 130-42.
Gassenheimer, Jule B., Sterling, Jay U. and Robicheaux, Robert A. (1989), Long-Term
Channel Member Relationships, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Materials
Management, Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 15-31.
Geyskens, Inge, Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., and Kumar, Nirmalya [1999), A metaanalysis of satisfaction in marketing channel relationships, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 223-39.
Grnroos, C. (1991), The Marketing Strategy Continuum: A Marketing Concept for the
1990s, Management Decision, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 7-13.
Grnroos, C. (1985), The Competitiveness of Customer-Oriented and Service-Oriented
Strategies in Marketing, Ekonomiska Samfundets Tidskrift, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 131-43.
Grnroos, Christian (1994), From marketing mix to relationship marketing: Towards a
paradigm shift in marketing, Management Decision, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 4-22.
Gummesson, Evert (1997), Relationship marketing as a paradigm shift: some conclusions
from the 30R approach, Management Decision, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 267-77.
Gummesson, Evert (2004), Return on relationships: the value of relationship marketing
and customer relationship management in business-to-business contexts, The Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 136-48.
Gundlach, Gregory T, Achrol, Ravi S, and Mentzer, John T (1995), The structure of
commitment in exchange, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 78-88.
Hkansson, Hakan and Snehota, I. (1995), Developing relationships in business marketing,
London: Routledge, pp. 418.
Hkansson, Hakan (1982)), International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods: an
interaction approach, Chichester: Wiley, pp. 406.
Handfield, Robert B. and Bechtel, Christian (2002), The role of trust and relationship
structure in improving supply chain responsiveness, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 31, pp. 367-82.
Harland, Christine, Zheng, Jurong, Johnsen, Thomas, and Lamming, Richard (2004), A
1019
1020
JMM
Conceptual Model for Researching the Creation and Operation of Supply Networks,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 15, pp. 1-21.
Haugland, Sven A (1999), Factors Influencing the Duration of International BuyerSeller
Relationships, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 273-80.
Heide, Jan B (1994), Interorganizational governance in marketing channels, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Heide, Jan B (2003), Plural governance in industrial purchasing, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
67, No. 4, pp. 18-29.
Heide, Jan B. and John, George (1988), The Role of Dependence Balancing in Safeguarding
Transactions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 20-35.
Heide, Jan B. and John, George (1990), Alliances In Industrial Purchasing: The Determinants
Of Joint Action in Buyer-Seller Relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, No.
1, pp. 24-36.
Heide, Jan B. and John, George (1992), Do Norms Matter in Marketing Relationships?,
Hillebrand, Bas, Kok, Robert A. W., and Biemans, Wim G. (2001), Theory-testing using case
studies: A comment on Johnston, Leach, and Liu, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.
30, No. 8, pp. 651-57.
Jarillo, J. Carlos (1988), On strategic networks, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, No.
1, pp. 31-41.
Jones, Candace, Hesterly, William S, and Borgatti, Stephen P (1997), A general theory of
network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 911-45.
Joshi, Ashwin W and Stump, Rodney L (1999), Determinants of commitment and opportunism:
Integrating and extending insights from transaction cost analysis and relational exchange
theory, Revue Canadienne des Sciences de lAdministration, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 334-52.
Josserand, Emmanuel (2004), The Network Organization: The Experience of French World
Leaders (New Dimensions in Networks Vol. 4) Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing
Inc).
Kim, Keysuk (1999), On determinants of joint action in industrial distributor-supplier
relationships: Beyond economic efficiency, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 16, pp. 217-36.
Kumar, Nirmalya, Hibbard, Jonathan D., and Stern, Louis W. (1994), An empirical Assessment
of the Nature and Consequences of Marketing Channel Intermediary Commitment,
Working Paper Series, Report 94-115, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Kumar, Nirmalya, Scheer, Lisa K. and Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. (1995), The Effects of
Perceived Interdependence on Vulnerable Resellers, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
32, August, pp. 348-56.
Lusch, R. F. and Laczniak, G. R. (1987), The evolving marketing concept, competitive
intensity and organizational performance, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences,
Vol. 15, Fall, pp. 1-11.
Lusch, Robert F, and Brown, James R, (1982), A modified model of power in the marketing
channel, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 312-24.
Macneil, Ian (1980), The New Social Contract, An Inquiry into Modern Contractual Relations,
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Meyer, Alan, Tsui, Anne S., and Hinings, C.R. (1993), Configurational approaches to
organizational analysis, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 1175-95.
Moorman, Christine, Deshpande, Rohit, and Zaltman, Gerald (1993), Factors affecting trust
in market research relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 81-91.
Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994), The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Nevin, John R (1995), Relationship marketing and distribution channels: Exploring
fundamental issues, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.
327-34.
Nielson, C. C. (1998), An empirical investigation of the role of closeness in industrial buyer

- seller relationships, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32, No. 5/6, pp. 441-63.
Oerlemans, Leon A. G. and Meeus, Marius T. H. (2005), Do Organizational and Spatial
Proximity Impact on Firm Performance?, Regional Studies, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 89-104.
Parkhe, Arvind (1993), Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost
examination of interfirm cooperation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4,
pp. 794-829.
Parsons, Amy L (2002), What determines buyer-seller relationship quality? An investigation
from the buyers perspective, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp.
4-12.
Payne, A. and Holt, S. (2001), Diagnosing customer value: Integrating the value process and
relationship marketing, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 159-82.
Pels, Jaqueline, Brodie, Roderick J., and Johnston, Wesley J. (2004), Benchmarking businessto-business marketing practices in emerging and developed economies: Argentina compared
to the USA and New Zealand, The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19,
No. 6, pp. 386-96.
Porter, M. E. (1998), Clusters and the new economics of competition, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 76, No. 6, pp. 77-85.
Powell, W. W. (1990), Neither Market nor Hierarchy - Network Forms of Organization,
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 295-336.
Ravald, Annika and Grnroos, Christian (1996), The value concept and relationship
marketing, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 19-30.
Ritter, T. (1999), The Networking Company Antecedents for Coping with Relationships and
Networks Effectively, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 467-79.
Ritter, T. (2000), A framework for analyzing interconnectedness of relationships, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 317-26.
Shapiro, J. F. (2001), Modeling and IT perspectives on supply chain integration, Information
Systems Frontiers, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 455-64.
Sharma, A and Pillai, K (2003), The Impact of Transactional and Relational Strategies in
Business Markets: An Agenda for Inquiry, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No.
8, pp. 623-626.
Sheth, Jagdish N. and Shah, Reshma H. (2003), Till Death Do Us Part...But Not Always:
Seven Antecedents to a Customers Relational Preference in Buyer-Seller Exchanges,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 627-31.
Spekman, Robert E, Spear, Joseph, and Kamauff, John (2002), Supply chain competency:
Learning as a key component, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 41-55.
Strauss, Anselm L and Corbin, Juliet (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications Inc.
Styles, C. and Ambler, T. (2003), The coexistence of transaction and relational marketing:
Insights from the Chinese business context, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32,
No. 8, pp. 633-42.
Tan, Keah Choon, Lyman, Steven B, and Wisner, Joel D (2002), Supply chain management:
A strategic perspective, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 22, No. 5/6, pp. 614-27.
Tatikonda, Mohan V. and Stock, Gregory N. (2003), Product Technology Transfer in the
Upstream Supply Chain, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 20, pp. 44467.
Thorelli, H. (1986), Networks, between Markets and Hierarchies, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 37-51.
Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2004), Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,
Walter, Achim, Mller, Thilo A., Helfert, Gabriele, and Ritter, Thomas (2003), Functions
of industrial supplier relationships and their impact on relationship quality, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 32, pp. 159-69.
1021
1022
JMM
Wiertz, Caroline, de Ruyter, Ko, Keenb, Cherie, and Streukensa, Sandra (2004), Cooperating
for service excellence in multichannel service systems An empirical assessment, Journal of
Business Research Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 424-36.
Williamson, Oliver E. (1975), Market and Hierarchies, New York: Free Press.
Williamson, Oliver E. (1979), Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual
Relations, The Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 233-260.
Yin, Robert K. (2003), Case Study Research - Design and Methods, 3rd edition, Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
APPENDIX 1
Operationalisation of exchange orientation

CONSTRUCTS
Dimensions
INDICATORS (References)
Proximity
Closeness
Existence of: numerous person-to-person contacts; close personal

and working relationships (Hkansson 1982; Nielson 1998)
Geographic
proximity
Distance between facilities (Oerlemans and Meeus 2005; Porter

1998)
Cultural proximity
Similarities in: national culture, legal and political systems, market

structure, business practices and language (both general and
technical vocabulary) (Conway and Swift 2000; Evans and Bridson
2005)
Technical proximity Similarities in technological background (e.g., equipment, software)

(Ahuja 2000)
Interdependence
Technical and
human specificity
Levels of: adaptation in products, production, equipment for

customer; interactions at facilities; specific training of people
in charge of customer; difficulty (time/efforts) to switch to other
customer or supplier; costs (money/risk) involved in switching
(Handfield and Bechtel 2002); Haugland 1999; Heide 1994;
Nielson 1998)
Irreplaceability
Levels of irreplaceability of: customer, supplier (Joshi and Stump

1999; Morgan and Hunt 1994; de Ruyter et al. 2001)
Contribution
Current and expected (2 year horizon) contribution to one anothers

business (sales/purchasing volume, profits) (Anderson and Weitz
1989; Kim 1999)
Mutuality of
dependence
Dependence: towards customer, of customer, in the relationship

(Anderson and Narus 1990; Heide and John 1988)
Time Orientation
Duration and
expected
continuity
Duration of relationship: Expectation for continuing the relationship

(both customer and supplier sides) (Chen and Paulraj 2004;
Ganesan 1994; Heide and John 1990; Kumar et al. 1995)
Contd...
CONSTRUCTS
Dimensions
Time horizon
Length of time on which the effectiveness and profitability of

relationship is assessed (both customer and supplier sides) (Joshi
and Stump 1999)
Commitment
Willingness to stay
and propensity to
leave
Desire (for both customer and supplier) to maintain the relationship

even at the price of short-term sacrifices; propensity to terminate
the relationship within the next: one year, two years (Geyskens et
al. 1999; Kumar et al. 1994; Morgan and Hunt 1994)
Opportunism
Levels of opportunistic behaviour of: customer, supplier, and in the

relationship (Joshi and Stump 1999; Parkhe 1993)
Communication
Frequency of
exchange and
media used
Frequency of: information exchange; interactions / face-to-face,

phone, e-mail, instant messenger, facsimile, video-conference
(Andersen 2001; Spekman et al. 2002; Tatikonda and Stock 2003;
Wiertz et al. 2004)
Content and quality Levels of: proprietary or sensitive information exchanged; technical
of information;
information exchanged (e.g., ordering and billing); social
Reciprocity
information exchanged (e.g., outside of work, family); informality,
relevance, timeliness of exchange; Reciprocity in information
exchange (Chen and Paulraj 2004; Kim 1999; de Ruyter et al.
2001; Wiertz et al. 2004)
Cooperation
Willingness to
partner
Willingness to work together as partners (Anderson and Narus

1990; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Tatikonda and Stock 2003)
Joint action
Extent to which the following activities are undertaken jointly

(as opposed to unilaterally): product design, new product
development, problem analysis and resolution, long-range
planning and inventory levels / reserved production capacity,
delivery solutions (e.g., inventory management), promotion
programs, local / regional advertising, performance review,
strategic planning and development (Heide and John 1990; Kim
1999)
Goal congruence
Compatibility of objectives (Parsons 2002)
Conflict solving and History of noticeable conflicts in relationship and resolution

accommodation
(arrangement, neutral third party, lawsuits, etc.); levels of:
conflict and tensions in relationship; mutual accommodation to
solve conflicts (Achrol 1997; de Ruyter et al. 2001).
Trust
Benevolence,
honesty,
competence,
reliability and
predictability
Levels of: benevolence, honesty, competence, reliability, and

predictability (for customer, for supplier, in the relationship)
(Anderson and Narus 1990; Dwyer et al. 1987; Handfield and
Bechtel 2002; Moorman et al. 1993; Spekman et al. 2002; Walter
et al. 2003)
Contd...
1023
1024
JMM
CONSTRUCTS
Dimensions
Shared values
Levels of common belief in: important goals; appropriate
behaviours (Heide and John 1992; Morgan and Hunt 1994)
Regulation
Use of power
and influence
strategies
Use of power / control: on customers decisions, of customer;

Symmetry of power use; Use of: coercive influence (e.g.,
promises, threats) and non-coercive influence (e.g., requests,
recommendations) on customer, of customer (Brown et al. 1995;
Dwyer et al. 1987; Frazier and Rody 1991; Gaski and Nevin 1985;
Lusch and Brown 1982)
Centralisation and
formalisation
Levels of: decision-making concentration and formalisation of

decision-making process (e.g., procedures) in company (sales
decisions), customer (purchasing decisions), relationship (Boyle
and Dwyer 1995; Geyskens et al. 1999; Heide and John 1992;
Lusch and Laczniak 1987)
Specification of
Levels of specification of agreements on: pricing, gross margin
trade agreements
levels, product attributes, volume, minimum order sizes, sales
quota, delivery, installation and use of material, partners
selection, payment, delay penalties, claims and return goods
policy; Type of trade agreements: spot market, lumber futures,
quarterly contracts, yearly contract, long-term agreement (over
a year), semi or exclusive arrangements (Handfield and Bechtel
2002; Lusch and Laczniak 1987)
Coordination
Integration
Levels of integration in: physical resources (e.g., technology),

human resources (e.g., transfer of staff), processes (e.g., VendorManaged Inventory); interpenetration of firms boundaries
(Harland et al. 2004; Heide and John 1990)
Logistics
coordination
Levels of: coordination for collecting, handling, transporting,

warehousing, and inspecting products (Chen and Paulraj 2004)
Information
systems
Use of: inter-organisational information systems (e.g., tracking

delivery), VMI/CMI, EDI, CPFR, ERP systems; electronic
marketplaces (Gallivan and Depledge 2003; Shapiro 2001)
Structure
Transparency
and structure of
supply chain
Levels of knowledge on who are: customers customers; products

end-user; customers other suppliers (and their offerings/
pricing); for customer: suppliers suppliers, other customers
(and their orders/pricing); distribution channel: one-step or twosteps (Antia and Frazier 2001; Hkansson 1982; Hkansson and
Snehota 1995)
Embeddedness
Levels of: interconnectedness with other actors when dealing

with customer; networked exchange (vs. dyadic exchange) when
dealing with customer (Abrahamson and Fombrun 1992; Jones et
al. 1997; Ritter 2000)
ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE
Aurelia Lefaix-Durand is a Visiting Professor in the Business School at the University

Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos Aires (Argentina), where she teaches courses in International
Marketing and Business Management. Native of France, she completed her MBA
and PhD in Business Administration programs in Canada. Her research interests
are situated at the crossroad of marketing, strategic management and supply chain
management, as they revolve around value creation and business relationships in
industrial settings (value-creating networks, relationship value, exchange orientation,
customer relationship management).
Corresponding author: Professor Aurlia Lefaix-Durand Escuela de Negocios
#101, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella 1010 Saenz Valiente, Capital Federal 1428,
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
T +54 11 5169 7371
F +54 11 5169 7347
E alefaixdurand@utdt.edu
Robert Kozak is a Professor in the Faculty of Forestry at the University of British
Columbia, Canada. His research and teaching interests revolve around sustainable
business management practices and issues and providing business solutions to
complex problems related to sustainable development, forestry, wood products and
the emerging conservation economy. Current research interests include strategies
for forest-dependent communities in transition, value-added wood products,
forest certification, supply chain management in the forest sector, corporate social
responsibility, and forest products marketing.
Professor Robert Kozak, The University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry,
4040 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4
T +1-604 822 2402
F +1-604 822-9104
E rob.kozak@ubc.ca
1025

Integrating Transactional and Relational Exchange Into The Study of Exchange Orientation in Customer Relationships

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Integrating Transactional and Relational Exchange Into The Study of Exchange Orientation in Customer Relationships

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [International Islamic University]

On: 19 March 2015, At: 23:45

Journal of Marketing Management

Integrating transactional and relational

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Integrating transactional and relational exchange

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: THREE KEY ELEMENTS OF INTERFIRM

A reductionist inquiry mode implies the separate analysis of a phenomenons constituent

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Lefaix-Durand and Kozak Integrating transactional and relational exchange

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

CONCEPTUAL AND OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: INTEGRATING

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

FIGURE 1 Conceptualisation of exchange orientation

Lefaix-Durand and Kozak Integrating transactional and relational exchange

nomological network2 of interfirm exchange and represent a strong basis to support

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

A nomological network is defined as the representation of the constructs of interest in a

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Lefaix-Durand and Kozak Integrating transactional and relational exchange

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

METHODS: A MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY IN THE STRUCTURAL WOOD

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Lefaix-Durand and Kozak Integrating transactional and relational exchange

This exercise resulted in the selection of 58 customer relationships 19 high value

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: EXCHANGE ORIENTATION VARIES

Lefaix-Durand and Kozak Integrating transactional and relational exchange

FIGURE 3 Profiles of exchange with transactional and relational customers

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

with the selected customers.

Scale from 1: very low to 7: very high

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

Figure 3 illustrates two distinct profiles of exchange orientation with selected

Lefaix-Durand and Kozak Integrating transactional and relational exchange

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

FIGURE 5 Profiles of exchange in four categories of customers

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Exchange with 'Strategic' Customers

Exchange with 'Supportive' Customers

Exchange with 'Promising' Customers

Exchange with 'Questionable' Customers

CONCLUSIONS: TOWARDS THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF

Lefaix-Durand and Kozak Integrating transactional and relational exchange

Interfirm exchange and its orientation along the transactional/relational

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

An intermediate exchange orientation (i.e., an orientation that is neither clearly

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

desired exchange orientation and exchange value, as an alternative to customer

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Downloaded by [International Islamic University] at 23:45 19 March 2015

Lefaix-Durand and Kozak Integrating transactional and relational exchange

and Trust in CustomerSupplier Relationships in High Technology Markets, Industrial