Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283 293

An empirical investigation of the effects of downsizing on


buyerseller relationships
Jeffrey E. Lewin*
Department of Marketing, 450 Fulton Hall, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA

Abstract

To survive in todays highly competitive markets, many firms are initiating fundamental changes in organizational form and practice.
These restructuring efforts are having significant effects on the organization and management of work within customer firms. However,
these important changes have been largely ignored in the extant marketing literature. The research presented here represents an early step
toward addressing this important gap in the literature. To that end, this paper examines the effect of buyer firm downsizing on buying
firm structure and buyer seller relationships. The reported findings support several of the proposed hypotheses related to the effects of
downsizing.
D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Buyer seller relationships; Downsizing; Organizational restructuring; Buying firm structure; Threat-rigidity theory

1. Introduction 1.1. Buyer seller relationships

Changes in the business environment continue to accel- Many researchers and practitioners believe that in todays
erate, and competitive pressures throughout world econom- business environment strategic buyer seller relationships
ies continue to intensify. Thus, most organizations now can provide a basis for competitive advantage. As a result,
operate within much more complex environments than was buyer seller relationships are frequently presented in the
the case a relatively few years ago (Watkins, 1994). Unlike marketing and purchasing literatures as generally applicable,
in the past, where many firms adopted a strategy of universally desirable solutions to the problems of sourcing
vertical integration as a means of increasing control in strategy choice (Ramsey, 1996). However, roughly one-third
uncertain environments (cf. Williamson, 1975) and/or tak- of such strategic buyer seller relationships are outright fail-
ing advantage of economies of scale, todays organization ures (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Furthermore, as Heide and
finds it less beneficial to own and operate a large number Stump (1995, pp. 58, 63) observe, establishing supplier
of factories or to employ a large number of people. relationships is not a universally desirable strategy. . . and
Rather, to survive in todays economic environment firms . . .in fact, may introduce a variety of problems. Equally
are significantly modifying organizational form and practice important, buyer supplier partnerships involve both benefits
in order to accommodate rapid change, global competition, and costs and often the costs can outweigh the benefits. These
and the emergence of an information-based economy. These costs include the resources needed to maintain the partner-
developments have collectively precipitated a shift in the ship, lose of options, expanded responsibility, demand for
corporate paradigm; a move away from large, hierarchical nurturing, and the opportunity costs of foregone exchange
organizations and toward smaller, flexible organizations that with alternate suppliers. Further, partners with highly diver-
can better accommodate innovation and change (Bahrami, gent goals may spend considerable economic and psychic
1992). energy in conflict and haggling processes (Dwyer et al.,
1987).
Because of these issues, understanding the various
factors that may lead to the success or failure of a
*
Tel.: +1-617-552-6436; fax: +1-617-552-6677. particular buyer seller relationship becomes particularly
E-mail address: lewinje@bc.edu (J.E. Lewin). important. As a result, the theoretical and empirical invest-

0148-2963/02/$ see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 2 9 6 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 4 3 7 - X
284 J.E. Lewin / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283293

igation of contemporary buyer seller relationships has 1.3. Research synopsis


become a central research paradigm in marketing. How-
ever, to date, the investigation largely has focused on the Because of these environmental and organizational
factors that lead to successful buyer seller relationships, trends, a considerable amount of attention recently has been
with much less attention paid to the factors that may lead directed toward organizational downsizing, especially in the
to failure. organizational management and psychology literatures and
in the popular business press. Most of this interest has
1.2. Downsizing focused on the subsequent performance of firms embracing
such initiatives and on the expected benefits of these types
The past several years have seen seemingly endless of restructuring. However, comparatively little attention has
examples of organizational downsizing. Even as the eco- been directed toward the effects of organizational downsiz-
nomy as a whole expands, many organizations continue to ing on the behavior, roles, and functions of organization
downsize. For example, US companies cut a total of members (Bresnen and Fowler, 1994). This lack of attention
677,795 jobs in 1998 and an additional 675,132 jobs in is especially acute within the marketing research literature,
1999. And, the downsizing phenomenon is not limited to the which has virtually ignored these changing dynamics.
United States. Firms throughout the world are adopting the Recently, Sheth (1996) argued that the effects of increased
new corporate paradigm. For example, during just the first global competition and industry restructuring have caused
quarter of 1999, British Petroleum announced plans to cut fundamental changes in relationships between organizational
10,000 jobs, Japans Sony announced plans to cut 10% of its buyers and sellers. As a result, . . .most of the academic
total workforce (17,000), NEC announced a restructuring research and theory related to organizational decision mak-
plan to include the elimination of 15,000 jobs, and Swedish ing including the buying center concept, make vs. buy,
phone maker Ericsson announced plans to cut 10% of its and. . . buyer seller negotiations will become obsolete. . .
global workforce (11,000). generating numerous opportunities for innovative and
Beyond the expected cost savings, the desired benefits of insightful academic research (pp. 11, 14). As a result, from
downsizing include faster response to environmental the marketing firms perspective, it becomes extremely
change, larger spans of control, and a broader range of important to understand the changes taking place in buying
assignments and roles for individuals and groups. In addi- firms, and to develop appropriate strategies to respond to
tion, flatter organizations are expected to become more these changes.
flexible and responsive to market and competitive dynamics To that end, drawing on threat-rigidity thesis, classic
(Bahrami and Evans, 1987). However, a survey of 1000 administration theory, and the more recent work of Sutton
downsized companies found that fewer than one-third had and DAunno, this study investigates the effects of buyer
realized the benefits expected from downsizing (Emshoff, firm downsizing on organizational structure (i.e., central-
1994). This inability to realize expected benefits has led to ization of authority, formalized rules and procedures, and
subsequent waves of downsizing initiatives. Many compan- participative decision making) and buyer seller relation-
ies now treat downsizing as an ongoing assessment process ships (i.e., relationship trust, relationship commitment, and
rather than a singular action. relationship flexibility) (Fig. 1).
Organizational buyers have not escaped these downsiz- Buyer seller relationships are defined here as purposive
ing trends (Murphy, 1997; Giunipero et al., 1999). Further, strategic relationships between independent firms who strive
the extensiveness of downsizing in procurement has many for mutual benefit and acknowledge a high level of mutual
deeply concerned (Morgan, 1997). For example, a recent trust, commitment, and flexibility in the relationship. It
survey found that 41% of purchasers had experienced should be noted that the proposed theory and related out-
significant downsizing in their departments in recent years comes of organizational downsizing developed and studied
(Fitzgerald, 1999). In a separate survey, purchasers indi- in this research, may be applicable to various other forms of
cated that downsizing had left them woefully short handed, organizational redesign as follows.
leaving existing staff to juggle too many projects, too many First, organizational downsizing often occurs as a direct
deadlines, and too many hours (Porter, 1999). Further, while result of corporate mergers. For example, in December 1998,
many report their departments workload is now more than Citigroup announced plans to lay off approximately 10,400
existing staff can handle, they also indicated that manage- workers (6% of its workforce) as a result of the merger
ment is unwilling to add needed staff (Murphy, 1997; between Citicorp and Travelers Group. In December 1998,
Porter, 1998). Lastly, Michaels et al. (1995, p. 11) observe MCI WorldCom announced plans to cut 3750 jobs (5% of its
that, due to a variety of factors including downsizing, workforce) as a result of WorldComs merger with MCI.
. . .purchasing is experiencing turbulent and rapidly chan- Additional downsizing initiatives directly related to corpor-
ging environments in which its critical activities must be ate mergers include Compaq Computers merger with Digital
conducted. Thus, purchasing decisions are currently being Equipment (17,000 jobs cut), Exxons merger with Mobil
made under conditions of greater uncertainty than ever (12,000 jobs cut), and NationsBanks merger with Bank-
before. America (8000 jobs cut).
J.E. Lewin / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283293 285

Fig. 1. Downsizing and buyer seller relationships.

Second, downsizing initiatives are also frequently asso- can be handled by more organic means including decreased
ciated with corporate takeovers. For example, in December emphasis on formal rules and procedures, increased flexibil-
1998, Seagram announced a reorganization plan to include ity, and increased participative decision making.
as many as 3000 job cuts related to completion of its Attempting to reconcile this seemingly contradictory set
takeover of music giant PolyGram NV (20% of PolyGrams of expected outcomes, Sutton and DAunno (1989) argue
total workforce). Similarly, in November 1998, as part of its that a significant reduction in work force size evokes both
takeover of Bankers Trust, Deutshe Bank announced plans (a) mechanistic shifts in organizational structure due to the
to cut approximately 5500 jobs. increased anxiety among surviving organizational members
Finally, organizational downsizing is often linked di- and (b) at the same time, a decrease in the organizations
rectly to corporate restructuring efforts. For example, in need for coordination and control brought about by the
December 1998, Johnson and Johnson announced plans to smaller work force. These competing forces occur simulta-
cut 4100 jobs (4% of its workforce) as part of an US$800 neously, but in the short-term, the anxiety produced by
million restructuring effort. In November 1998, Texaco downsizing will prevail and the expected mechanistic shifts
announced plans to cut 1000 jobs (5% of its workforce) in will likely occur. However, in the longer-term, once the
a restructuring effort designed to save approximately anxiety provoked by downsizing wanes, departments/work-
US$200 million annually. Similar downsizing initiatives groups will discard many of these mechanistic means of
are linked to recent restructuring strategies at Polaroid, coordination and control.
Diebold, D.E. Shaw, and Levi Strauss. Further, Sutton and DAunno (1989) identify three key
downsizing characteristics that significantly influence the
expected effects: (1) the degree of downsizing, (2) the
2. Underlying theory and hypotheses implementation tactics used to downsize, and (3) members
collective outcome expectations as to the results of down-
Threat-rigidity thesis (Staw et al., 1981) posits that sizing (discussed more fully below). Sutton and DAunno
decreases in organizational resources (e.g., work force size) (1989) also propose that downsizing firms can be expected
are threatening to organizational members. The anxiety to move through two distinct stages. These stages likely
generated by such threats is proposed to lead to mechanistic will moderate the effects of these three key downsizing
structures throughout the organization (i.e., departments, characteristics. More specifically, during Stage 1 (or in the
functional groups, and work-teams). The resulting mech- short-term), the stress and anxiety brought about by greater
anistic structures manifest through (1) increased centraliza- degrees of downsizing, more severe implementation tactics,
tion of authority, (2) increased emphasis on the use of formal and greater negativity in outcome expectations are amplified
rules and procedures, (3) decreased flexibility in work- and lead to increased mechanistic structures. However, in
related efforts, and (4) decreased levels of participative the longer-term, when downsizing initiatives are completed
decision making. In contrast, classic administrative theory and fears of further downsizing initiatives disappear, the
suggests that decreases in work force size should create threat abates and organizations move into Stage 2. This
opposite effects (cf. Sutton and DAunno, 1989). That is, as latter shift brings about a change in structure so that more
organizations decrease in size problems of coordination and organic means of coordination and control will be adopted
control within departments and groups are reduced, and thus throughout the organization.
286 J.E. Lewin / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283293

Stage 1 organizations are defined here as organizations 2.2. Implementation tactics


that are currently downsizing or have completed downsizing
within the past 2 years. Stage 2 organizations are defined as The extent that work force reduction is perceived as
organizations that have previously completed downsizing, threatening may depend on the implementation tactics
have not implemented any downsizing initiatives for 2 or through which it is accomplished, e.g., natural attrition,
more years, and are not expected to downsize further in the voluntary redeployment, involuntary redeployment, layoff
foreseeable future. with assistance, layoff without assistance, and abrupt
termination (Greenhalgh et al., 1988). Natural attrition
2.1. Degree of downsizing and voluntary redeployment are often viewed as the least
severe implementation tactics, and layoff without assist-
The degree or percentage of reduction in work force ance and abrupt termination the most severe. Sutton and
size may significantly influence the strength of the DAunno (1989, p. 205) argue that Layoffs (i.e., termi-
anticipated effects. For example, Staw et al. (1981) argue nations) are clearly the most threatening form of work
that the shift toward mechanistic structures depends on force reduction for all groups of surviving employees.
whether the reduction represents a significant and/or The increased threat comes from at least two sources. First,
fundamental shift in resources versus a modest and/or surviving employees may feel guilty because they some-
temporary disruption in an essentially supportive envir- how avoided the fate of their less fortunate coworkers and
onment. When the reduction is perceived as significant second, surviving employees may worry that they will be
and/or fundamental, increased rigidity in structure is next in line for termination if subsequent downsizing is
expected and will likely hamper the ability of a firm to expected (Brockner et al., 1986). In contrast, downsizing
develop needed novel responses. Similarly, Ford and initiatives accomplished through natural attrition and/or
Bacus (1987) observe that managers interpretations of voluntary redeployment are much less threatening since
reduction in resources play a key role in determining the survivors have no reason to feel either guilty or anxious
extent and kind of substantive responses. If small reduc- (Sutton and DAunno, 1989). Thus, it is expected that the
tions in resources are perceived as a temporary condition use of severe strategies will be more threatening to
little or no rigidity may occur. In contrast, increasingly survivors and provoke more pronounced and longer lasting
large losses in resources may cause managers to construe effects, while the use of less severe strategies will be less
that they face a significant threat, and resulting rigidities threatening and provoke less pronounced and less lengthy
will likely ensue. Analogous arguments can be found in effects. Therefore:
the more recent works of Sutton and DAunno (1989)
Hypothesis 2a: Severity of implementation tactics will be
(DAunno and Sutton, 1992).
positively related to (a) centralization of authority and (b)
Additionally, Sutton and Kahn (1987) argue that work
emphasis on formal rules and procedures, and negatively
force reduction implemented in ways that are unpredictable in
related to (c) participative decision making within down-
magnitude and duration likely will be more threatening to
sized organizations.
survivors. Further, Greenhalgh (1983) posits that a job
insecurity crisis may be provoked when surviving employ- Hypothesis 2b: The strength of the relationship between
ees, who have witnessed numerous rounds of unexpected severity of implementation tactics and (a) centralization of
layoffs, become frozen by the stress of uncertainty. As the authority, (b) emphasis on formal rules and procedures, and
magnitude and duration of downsizing initiatives increase, (c) participative decision making will be greater for Stage 1
survivors perceptions of threat and uncertainty increase as organizations as compared to Stage 2 organizations.
well. Thus, greater reductions (i.e., over 25%) are expected to
have more negative effects than smaller reductions (i.e., less 2.3. Members outcome expectations
than 10%). Combined, these arguments suggest the following
hypotheses: Finally, organizational members expectations of the out-
comes related to downsizing can influence the predicted
Hypothesis 1a: Degree of downsizing will be positively effects. For example, organizational members may perceive
related to (a) centralization of authority and (b) emphasis on downsizing as a necessary evil needed to insure the organ-
formal rules and procedures, and negatively related to (c) izations long-term health. These perceptions may be
participative decision making within downsized organiza- strengthened by top managements assurances that downsiz-
tions. ing will improve competitive advantage (Mishra and Spreit-
zer, 1998). To the extent that such positive perceptions are
Hypothesis 1b: The strength of the relationship between collectively held, it is expected that downsizing will lead to
degree of downsizing and (a) centralization of authority, (b) less rigidity in structure (Sutton and DAunno, 1989). In
emphasis on formal rules and procedures, and (c) partic- contrast, uncertainty surrounding downsizing initiatives is
ipative decision making will be greater for Stage 1 orga- likely to increase if the . . .process and/or outcome of the
nizations as compared to Stage 2 organizations. layoff is of questionable legitimacy and/or. . . the layoff is
J.E. Lewin / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283293 287

perceived to be avoidable (Brockner et al., 1990, pp. 392, 1994). These researchers have demonstrated that as organ-
393). In other words, if survivors perceive the downsizing izations downsize and mechanistic structures are imple-
initiative was avoidable, survivors may question the legit- mented, survivors work-related motivation, trust, and
imacy of the decision to downsize. When this is the case, commitment often suffer significantly. One possible explana-
survivors may begin to speculate that the organization will tion for these downsizing effects can be found in equity and
take other actions of questionable legitimacy in the future social exchange theory and research (cf. Kelly and Thibaut,
(Brockner et al., 1990). These speculations likely will cause 1978), which posits that when individuals find themselves
survivors to develop negative outcome expectations regard- participating in inequitable relationships, they feel angry and
ing the future of the organization. If collective perceptions are resentful. These feelings, in turn, result in suspicion and
negative and downsizing is expected to result in a weakened mistrust (Ganesan, 1994). Once these general feelings of
organization, greater rigidity and anxiety is expected and mistrust and lack of commitment manifest in individuals,
likely will continue until these collective negative percep- they continue into the future. Then these feelings are often
tions subside (Sutton and DAunno, 1989). Thus: attributed to or manifest in other aspects of the individuals
surroundings and/or behaviors. In the workplace, the
Hypothesis 3a: Negativity of outcome expectations will be decreased levels of trust and commitment created by down-
positively related to (a) centralization of authority and (b) sizing will likely manifest in other internal and external
emphasis on formal rules and procedures, and negatively work-related assignments and behaviors as well. It, there-
related to (c) participative decision making within down- fore, seems reasonable to theorize that in downsized firms
sized organizations. these attributions could negatively affect buyers disposition
toward building relationships with supplier firms.
Hypothesis 3b: The strength of the relationship between Furthermore, Sutton and DAunno (1989) posit that the
negativity of outcome expectations and (a) centralization of anxieties created by downsizing will cause organizational
authority, (b) emphasis on formal rules and procedures, and members to adopt a general tendency toward risk aversion
(c) participative decision making will be greater for Stage 1 and conservatism, preferring to continue with existing
organizations as compared to Stage 2 organizations. orientations that are consistent with the status quo regard-
less of whether or not this is appropriate. Supporting this
2.4. Downsizing and buyer seller relationships view, Hitt et al. (1994) found that survivors are often
unwilling to take risks for fear of being penalized for a bad
Heide and John (1992) argue that the concept of an decision. Instead, survivors tend to emphasize extreme
industrial buyer supplier relationship may manifest in sev- caution in their decisions due to the uncertainty involved
eral different though related domains. In this study, the in their jobs. Fombrun and Ginsberg (1990) provide
domains of relationship trust, relationship commitment, and additional empirical support for these propositions. Adding
relationship flexibility were chosen to measure the concept to downsized buyers tendencies toward reduced levels of
of an industrial buyer seller relationship. [Relationship trust and commitment in supplier relationships are the risks
trust is defined here as a willingness to rely on an exchange associated with these relationships. And, while most pre-
partner in whom one has confidence, and exists when one vious work has examined the corporate risks, a few
party has confidence in an exchange partners reliability and researchers have argued that in these types of relationships
integrity. This definition is adapted from Morgan and Hunt there is clearly the potential for buyer or personal risk (cf.
(1994). Relationship commitment is defined as a desire to Hawes and Barnhouse, 1987; Ramsey, 1996; Stump and
develop, build, and maintain a stable relationship with a Heide, 1996). One common way for buyers to reduce risk
supplier. This definition is adapted from Anderson and is by pursuing more traditional multisourcing strategies, as
Weitz (1992). Relationship flexibility is defined as a rela- opposed to embracing single- or reduced-source, buyer
tionship partners expectation and willingness toward mak- supplier partnerships.
ing flexible adjustments in response to changing Finally, Gilbert et al. (1994) observe that close buyer
circumstances. This definition is adapted from Heide seller relationships involve compromise and hard work for
(1994).] These three relational measures have received long-term benefits to accrue to both partners. Dabholkar et
considerable attention, and one could argue have achieved al. (1994) add that for a buyer seller relationship to be
a certain level of unanimity, in the relationship marketing successful over time, it is the individuals involved who must
literature (cf. Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Anderson and Weitz, work continually at building and maintaining trust and
1992; Heide, 1994). commitment, and at understanding each others needs. How-
ever, if the individuals involved within the buying firm are
2.4.1. Downsizing and relationship trust and commitment suffering from decreased levels of motivation, trust, and
Downsizing initiatives generally result in decreased levels commitment, it is unlikely that these relationships will
of work-related trust and commitment on the part of down- develop as desired no matter how strong managements
sizing survivors. Support for this position can be found in the commitment to them might be. Also, in accordance with
work of Brockner and his colleagues (1986, 1987, 1990, Sutton and DAunnos (1989), it seems reasonable to expect
288 J.E. Lewin / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283293

that these diminished levels of trust and commitment would and (c) relationship flexibility within downsized organiza-
be more acute in Stage 1 organizations as compared to Stage tions.
2 organizations.
Hypothesis 4b: The strength of the relationship between
2.4.2. Downsizing and relationship flexibility degree of downsizing and (a) relationship trust, (b) relation-
As previously discussed, threat-rigidity thesis posits that ship commitment, and (c) relationship flexibility will be
reductions in work force size (downsizing) are threatening greater for Stage 1 organizations as compared to Stage 2
to organizational members. Empirical support for this organizations.
proposition can be found in the work of DAunno and
Hypothesis 5a: Severity of implementation tactics will be
Sutton (1992), Griffin et al. (1995), and Palmer et al.
negatively related to (a) relationship trust (b) relationship
(1995). The anxiety caused by this threat leads to mech-
commitment, and (c) relationship flexibility within down-
anistic shifts in organizational structures including depart-
sized organizations.
ments, functional groups, and work-teams. The results of
these mechanistic shifts include increased emphasis on the Hypothesis 5b: The strength of the relationship between
use of formal rules and procedures and decreased work- severity of implementation tactics and (a) relationship trust,
related autonomy and flexibility. (b) relationship commitment, and (c) relationship flexibility
Here too, it seems reasonable to assume that the in- will be greater for Stage 1 organizations as compared to
creased emphasis on rules and procedures within downsized Stage 2 organizations.
buying firms, coupled with the decreased autonomy and
flexibility afforded organizational members within these Hypothesis 6a: Negativity of outcome expectations will be
same firms, will significantly influence the amount of negatively related to (a) relationship trust (b) relationship
flexibility buyers have in forming and maintaining supplier commitment, and (c) relationship flexibility within down-
partnerships. Additionally, given the potential risks and sized organizations.
negative consequences associated with buyer supplier part-
nerships (as outlined in the previous section), it is unlikely Hypothesis 6b: The strength of the relationship between
that purchasers will be willing to go-out-on-a-limb by negativity of outcome expectations and (a) relationship trust,
being generally flexible in their day-to-day dealings with (b) relationship commitment, and (c) relationship flexibility
suppliers. will be greater for Stage 1 organizations as compared to
Eventually, however, these downsized buying organiza- Stage 2 organizations.
tions will move to Stage 2 and begin adopting more organic
structures. These organic organizational structures will place
much less emphasis on the use of formal rules and proce- 3. Method
dures, and encourage instead increased autonomy, flexibil-
ity, and intelligent risk-taking among organizational mem- 3.1. Measure development and purification
bers. As this occurs it is expected that, when appropriate,
buyers will be in a position to be more flexible in their Of the 10 scales used in this study, seven were adapted
relationships with suppliers. from previous work in the relationship marketing and man-
In sum, the above discussions suggest that in downsizing agement literatures. The remaining three scales were con-
organizations there is a strong tendency toward reduced structed based on an extensive review of the existing
levels of trust and commitment, and increased levels of risk downsizing literature. Additionally, two pretests were per-
aversion among organizational members. These tendencies formed to further refine each selected scale. First, seven
will likely permeate numerous aspects of organizational academic colleagues were asked to review the proposed items
members attitudes and behaviors. However, as downsizing for clarity and representativeness based on their prior know-
organizations move from Stage 1 to Stage 2 these reduced ledge and experiences. Several refinements were incorpo-
levels of trust and commitment, and increased levels of risk rated based on this first series of pretests. Second, iterative
aversion will likely reverse as the threats and anxieties personal interviews were conducted with 20 purchasing
associated with downsizing diminish. Based on the above managers employed in a large, southeastern metropolitan
arguments, it is posited here that these same tendencies will area. Each purchasing professional answered the question-
likely manifest in organizational buyers propensity toward naire and, as they read the questions, verbalized any thoughts
developing and/or maintaining strategic supplier partner- that came to mind (e.g., ambiguity and inapplicability). Items
ships. Thus, adopting Sutton and DAunnos (1989) two- were revised based on each personal interview until no further
stage perspective and applying it to buyer seller relation- changes were suggested.
ships, the following hypotheses are suggested: Prior to testing the hypotheses, measures were purified
to assess the unidimensionality, reliability, and convergent
Hypothesis 4a: Degree of downsizing will be negatively and discriminant validity of each individual measure, as
related to (a) relationship trust (b) relationship commitment, well as each group of theoretically related measures
J.E. Lewin / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283293 289

Table 1 (i.e., 1.00 .520), which is more than twice the correspond-
Properties of purified measures
ing standard error (i.e., 2*.10=.20).
Measures Items Range Mean S.D. a
Downsizing characteristics 3.2. Procedure
Degree of downsizing 1 14 2.47 0.99
Implementation tactics 1 16 3.64 1.54
Included with their monthly newsletter, each member
Negative outcome expectationsa 4 17 4.34 1.53 .88
(513) of NAPM-Ga. was mailed a survey, a cover letter
Moderator encouraging participation and promising anonymity, and a
Stage of downsizingb 2 01 self-addressed, prepaid return envelope. A second mailing
was included with the following months newsletter includ-
Organizational structure
ing a survey (coded for identification as part of the second
Centralization of authoritya 3 17 3.44 1.75 .88
Emphasis on rules and proceduresa 5 17 4.84 1.36 .85 mailing) and new cover letter stressing importance and
Participative decision makinga 3 17 3.92 1.80 .95 encouraging response. To foster response rates, respond-
ents could choose to be included in a lottery drawing for 1
Buyer seller relationships of 10 cash prizes ranging from US$50 to US$500. To
Relationship trusta 5 17 3.49 1.76 .84
participate, respondents simply attached a business card to
Relationship commitmenta 3 17 3.75 1.60 .86
Relationship flexibilitya 5 17 3.96 1.45 .74 their survey. The first mailing produced 120 responses and
a the second mailing produced an additional 98. Of the total
Items were measured using a Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly
disagree and 7 = strongly agree. 218 questionnaires returned, 215 were usable (41.9%). Of
b
Dummy coded: Stage 1 = 1, Stage 2 = 0. these, 31 were from organizations that had never down-
sized, 124 were from Stage 1 type organizations and 60
were from Stage 2 type organizations.
The difference between Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 organizations
(Gerbing and Anderson, 1998; Joreskog and Sorbom, was determined by asking respondents: (1) During what
1989). First, item-to-total correlations were examined for years did your company engage in the process of downsiz-
all items in each of the measurement scales. Items with ing? and (2) Do you believe your company will downsize
low correlations were deleted if they tapped no additional further between now and the year 2000 (which represented a
domain of interest. Next, confirmatory factor analyses were 2+-year period at the time the surveys were administered)?
performed on items from subsets of theoretically related If the respondent indicated that their company had down-
measures (based on the proposed hypotheses) to assess the sized in the recent past (i.e., 1991 1996) and was expected
extent to which they reflected a single dimension. [This to downsize between 1997 and 2000, then the firm was
procedure follows Moorman et al. (1993, p. 89), who considered a Stage 1 organization. Similarly, if the re-
suggest it as a means of overcoming . . .the problems spondent indicated that their company had downsized
associated with purifying large numbers of constructs by
confirmatory factor analysis and the importance of estab-
lishing unidimensionality only for highly theoretically
related measures.] Finally, models ranging from one to Table 2
n factors were estimated, with n corresponding to the Variable description N Mean Range
number of hypothesized measures. Without exception, the (a) Organization demographics
models representing the predicted number of constructs Total Sales1996 152 US$6261 US$1.43 million to
were superior to all other models estimated as indicated by million US$84,400 million
Total income1996 68 US$831 US$0 10,081
their individual goodness-of-fit indices (c2) and low cross- (nbt) million million
loadings between constructs (Moorman et al., 1993). Table Age of organization 214 27.5 >1 to <30
1 contains the properties of the purified measures and (in years)
shows that the fitted model retained measures at acceptable Total full-time employees 206 22,946.7 7 380,000
reliability levels. # People in purchasing 208 42.2 1 1000 +
department
Additionally, discriminant validity is examined by ana-
lyzing the Pearson correlation coefficients among con- (b) Respondent demographics
structs. Following previous research, discrimination is Age 207 43 23 62
achieved . . .when each correlation is less than 1.0 by an Education 214 College High school to
amount greater than twice its respective standard error (cf. degree graduate degree
Years of purchasing 214 11.5 >2 to <13
Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1990, p. 135; Tax et al., 1998, p. 67). experience
All pairwise correlations are less than one by amounts Years with current 214 7.5 >2 to <13
significantly greater than twice their respective standard organization
errors. The least discriminating case is between RELTRUS Years in current 214 4.5 >2 to <13
and OUTCOM, where the correlation is .480 less than 1.00 department
290 J.E. Lewin / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283293

between 1994 and 1996 (regardless of future downsizing and flexibility) the organizational variables (h) centraliza-
plans), the firm was considered a Stage 1 organization. If the tion of authority, (i) emphasis on rules and procedures,
respondent indicated that their company had not downsized and (j) participative decision making were included as
since 1993 and was not expected to downsize further independent variables in model estimation. Table 3 con-
between 1997 and 2000, then the firm was considered a tains the standardized regression coefficients estimated for
Stage 2 organization. Finally, if the respondent indicated the independent variables in each regression model, as
their company had never downsized (31 of the total of 218), well as the amount of variance explained (R2) for each
the survey was eliminated from the analysis. model.
Response bias was assessed by first splitting the sample
into two parts, representing early responses and late 4.1. Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b: centralization,
responses. Then earlier and later responses were compared formalization, and participation
on all key variables and no differences were found. Table 2
summarizes select demographic characteristics of the final Hypothesis 1a predicts that degree of downsizing will be
sample. positively related to centralization of authority and emphasis
on formal rules and procedures, and negatively related to
participative decision in downsized organizations. Addition-
4. Results ally, Hypothesis 1b predicts that the relationship between
degree of downsizing and centralization of authority,
Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, and emphasis on formal rules and procedures, and participative
6b were tested by estimating a series of OLS regression decision will be greater in Stage 1 as compared to Stage 2
models. As part of the initial regression analysis, several organizations. Findings provide no support for either of
diagnostic tests, graphs, and scatter plots of the residuals these hypotheses.
were used to test for appropriateness of the assumptions of Hypothesis 2a predicts that severity of implementation
normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. An examination tactics used to downsize will be positively related to
of the results of these tests and plots suggest that these centralization of authority and emphasis on formal rules
assumptions were appropriate. Further, the results of several and procedures, and negatively related to participative
multicollinearity diagnostic tests indicated no serious multi- decision in downsized organizations. Additionally, Hypo-
collinearity problems. thesis 2b predicts that the relationship between severity of
The independent variables in each of the regression implementation tactics and centralization of authority,
models were (a) degree of downsizing, (b) implementation emphasis on formal rules and procedures, and participative
tactics, (c) outcome expectations, (d) stage of downsiz- decision will be greater in Stage 1 as compared to Stage 2
ing dummy coded, (e) degree of downsizing*stage of organizations. Findings provide partial support for Hypo-
downsizing, (f) implementation tactics*stage of downsiz- thesis 2b. Specifically, results indicate that the positive
ing, and (g) outcome expectations*stage of downsizing. In relationship between severity of implementation tactics
addition, for the three regression models focusing on the and emphasis on rules and procedures is greater in Stage
dependent relationship variables (i.e., trust, commitment, 1 as compared to Stage 2 organizations (b=.47, r=.01).

Table 3
Standardized regression coefficients (hypotheses tests)
Independent variables Dependent variables
ORGAUTH ORGRULS ORGDECS RELTRUS RELCOM RELFLEX
Centralization of authority .21 * .13* * .49 *
Emphasis on rules and procedures .17 * .05 .11* *
Participative decision making .05 .30 * .27 *
Degree of downsizing .02 .04 .08 .10 .04 .04
Severity of implementation tactics .04 .02 .02 .01 .07 .07
Negativity of outcome expectations .37 * .33* * .39 * .50 * .39 * .42 *
Stage of downsizinga .23* * .09 .18* * .76 * .59 * .35* *
Degree of downsizing*Stage .01 .06 .11 .31* * .33* * .19
Implementation tactics*Stage .07 .47 * .08 .29 .32* * .23
Neg. outcome expectations*Stage .04 .01 .35 * .29 .05 .16
Model R2 .20 .23 .25 .37 .43 .66
ORGAUTH = Centralization of authority, ORGRULS = emphasis on rules and procedures, ORGDECS = participative decision making, RELTRUS = relation-
ship trust, RELCOM = relationship commitment, RELFLEX = relationship flexibility.
a
Dummy coded with Stage 1 = 1 and Stage 2 = 0.
* P < .01.
** P < .05.
J.E. Lewin / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283293 291

Similarly, Hypothesis 3a predicts that the negativity of ings provide support for Hypothesis 6a, but do not support
outcome expectations related to downsizing will be pos- Hypothesis 6b. Results indicate that negativity of outcome
itively related to centralization of authority and emphasis expectations is negatively related to relationship trust
on formal rules and procedures, and negatively related to (b = .50, r=.01), relationship commitment (b = .39,
participative decision in downsized organizations. Addi- r=.01), and relationship flexibility (b = .42, r=.01) in
tionally, Hypothesis 2b predicts that the relationship downsized organizations.
between negativity of outcome expectations and centraliza-
tion of authority, emphasis on formal rules and procedures, 4.2.1. Amount of variance explained
and participative decision will be greater in Stage 1 as Table 3 also includes the R2 statistic for each of the
compared to Stage 2. The results provide support for regression models. As shown in Table 3, the variables
Hypothesis 3a and partial support for Hypothesis 3b. examined in this study explain roughly one-third to two-
Findings indicate that negativity of outcome expectations thirds of the variance in the dependent variablesrelation-
is positively related to centralization of authority (b=.37, ship trust, commitment, and flexibility (R2=.37, .43, and .66,
r=.01) and emphasis on formal rules and procedures respectively). Obviously, previous examinations of buyer
(b=.33, r=.05), and negatively related to participative seller relationships have established a variety of variables
decision making (b = .39, r=.01) in downsized organiza- that can influence the variance across these relationships.
tions. Additionally, the negative relationship between neg- For example, relationship termination costs, relationship
ativity of outcome expectations and participative decision benefits, shared values, communication, opportunistic
making is greater in Stage 1 as compared to Stage 2 behavior, transaction specific investments, environmental
organizations (b = .35, r=.01). unpredictability/volatility, and satisfaction with previous
outcomes (cf. Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Ganesan, 1994;
4.2. Hypotheses 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, and 6b: relationship Stump and Heide, 1996) have all been demonstrated to
trust, commitment, and flexibility affect the strength of buyer seller relationships. Because of
this, one would not expect the downsizing-related variables
Hypothesis 4a predicts that degree of downsizing will be examined in this study to explain a great majority of the
negatively related to relationship trust, relationship commit- variance in these relationships. Still, the amount of variance
ment, and relationship flexibility. Additionally, Hypothesis explained by these variables is noteworthy, and thus has the
4b predicts that the relationship between degree of down- potential to provide insight to marketers attempting to build
sizing and relationship trust, relationship commitment, and relationships with these downsizing or downsized customer
relationship flexibility will be greater in Stage 1 as com- organizations.
pared to Stage 2 organizations. Findings provide partial
support for Hypothesis 4b. Specifically, results indicate that
the negative relationships between degree of downsizing and 5. Discussion
relationship trust (b = .31, r=.05) and relationship com-
mitment (b = .33, r=.05) are greater in Stage 1 as com- Briefly, based on theories developed in the sociology,
pared to Stage 2 organizations. psychology, and marketing literatures, the major thesis of this
Hypothesis 5a predicts that severity of implementation research is that the anxiety produced by organizational
tactics used to downsize will be negatively related to downsizing leads to short- and long-term shifts in the way
relationship trust, relationship commitment, and relationship departments and work groups within downsized organiza-
flexibility. Additionally, Hypothesis 5b predicts that the tions are structured and managed. Further, it is posited that
relationship between severity of implementation tactics these anxieties and shifts lead to changes in the characteristics
and relationship trust, relationship commitment, and rela- of buyer seller relationships. It is also proposed that the
tionship flexibility will be greater in Stage 1 as compared to impact of downsizing will be greater in organizations that are
Stage 2 organizations. Findings provide partial support for currently downsizing and/or have completed downsizing
Hypothesis 5b. Results indicate that the negative relation- within the past 2 years (Stage 1) as compared to organizations
ship between severity of implementation tactics and rela- that have completed their downsizing initiatives, have not
tionship commitment is greater in Stage 1 as compared to downsized for at least 2 years or longer, and are not expected
Stage 2 organizations (b = .32, r=.05). to downsize further in the foreseeable future (Stage 2).
Finally, Hypothesis 6a predicts that the negativity of In support of these propositions, findings indicate that
outcome expectations related to downsizing will be neg- survivors collective negative outcome expectations, regard-
atively related to relationship trust, relationship commit- ing their organizations downsizing efforts, have a strong
ment, and relationship flexibility. Additionally, Hypothesis negative impact on respondents propensity toward trust,
6b predicts that the relationship between negativity of commitment, and flexibility in their relationships with
outcome expectations and relationship trust, relationship suppliers. Thus, if members within downsized buying firms
commitment, and relationship flexibility will be greater in are generally gloomy toward the success and/or outcome
Stage 1 as compared to Stage 2 organizations. The find- of their firms downsizing initiatives, then attempts by the
292 J.E. Lewin / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283293

supplier firm to develop/maintain buyer seller partnerships difficult to establish/maintain relational trust, commitment,
likely will be met with resistance. and flexibility as the individuals involved lack the motiva-
Additionally, findings indicate that the potential for sus- tion necessary to work toward building and maintaining
taining buyer seller relationships is significantly weaker in these relationships. Therefore, in these situations, vendors
Stage 1 as compared to Stage 2 (as indicated by the signific- will need to develop special relational strategies to motivate
ance of the main effect of stage of downsizing). This is found their buying firm counterparts, especially the front-line
to be true for each of the relational constructs (i.e., trust, buying firm members, to view the relationship as mutually
commitment, and flexibility) examined in this study. Thus, beneficial and desirable. Otherwise, they likely will be
supplier firms should expect to find it much more difficult to unwilling and/or unmotivated to exert the effort required
establish and/or maintain partnering relationships with buy- to develop and maintain these relationships.
ing firms currently in Stage 1 of their downsizing initiatives. Finally, in todays business environment, high product
Also, the interaction between degree of downsizing and quality is common to most vendors and is considered a
stage of downsizing has a significant negative impact on necessary, but not sufficient condition for gaining a custom-
respondents perceptions of trust in and commitment to their ers business. Rather, it is the added benefits, increased
supplier relationships. And, while not statistically signific- service, and uniqueness of the total offering that differ-
ant, this same interaction may also have a negative impact entiates one vendor from another. And, while price is, of
on respondents perception of flexibility toward their rela- course, always a factor in relationships with suppliers, when
tionship with suppliers. Finally, the findings suggest that the buyers are exceptionally risk averse (as is likely in Stage 1
interaction between the severity of implementation tactics type customer firms), the importance of price diminishes in
used to downsize and stage of downsizing also may exert a favor of risk reducing features. These features might include
negative influence on respondents inclination toward rela- performance guarantees, greater flexibility in current and
tionship commitment, as well as relationship trust and future negotiations, extended warranties, on-site installation,
flexibility. This will further exacerbate efforts by suppliers and both remote and on-site technical assistance (24 hour/7
to develop partnerships with Stage 1 buyer firms charac- day). Thus, sellers seeking to build relationships with key
terized by higher degrees of downsizing and the use of more customers should emphasize these types of features and
severe implementation tactics. arrangements as benefits of the partnership. They should
also strive to show how these features can reduce risks to the
5.1. Managerial implications buying firm, as well as risks to the individual buyer
decision maker.
The work reported here has largely focused on the
hazards and costs of buyer seller partnerships, and the 5.2. Research limitations
pitfalls that downsizing can bring to these relationships.
However, it is an inescapable truth that, in many cases, these The research reported here must be considered explor-
partnerships are strategically appropriate. For example, atory in nature. Some of the constructs examined (i.e., stage
buyer supplier relationships can often simplify and im- of downsizing, degree of downsizing, etc.) have not been
prove the overall exchange process; especially in the case examined before in the context of buyer seller relation-
of staple products and services that are needed on a ships. Therefore, the results and implications presented here
recurring, regular basis. However, to be successful, these must be viewed with a certain amount of reservation until
relationships frequently require significant amounts of nur- future studies can either provide additional support or refute
turing over time. And this time and effort must come from the findings presented here.
participants on both sides of the buyer supplier dyad. Additionally, while several of the measurement scales
Hopefully, some of the findings reported here may prove used in this study have a rich history in marketing research,
helpful to suppliers seeking to develop these relationships some of the scales are either entirely new or were modified
with key customers. to match the context of this particular study. And, while the
For example, in downsized customer firms where group results of the tests used to assess unidimensionality, reli-
members hold negative outcome expectations related to ability, and measurement validity provide some level of
downsizing, sustaining buyer seller relationships becomes confidence in these new and/or adapted scales, they must be
more difficult. In these customer firms, decreased levels of tested using different samples and multiple methods before
trust, commitment, and flexibility toward buyer seller rela- statements regarding their validity and reliability can be
tionships likely will be more severe and extend over a made with relative certainty.
longer period of time. Further, when strategic buyer seller Also, the assumption is made that purchasing professio-
relationships are considered primary to the marketing nals working within the respondent organizations are in a
objective, the task likely will be much more difficult and position to accurately assess and report the impact organiza-
require much greater effort when working with Stage 1 type tional downsizing has had on their organizations, especially
buyer organizations, as compared to Stage 2 type organiza- in terms of buyer seller relationships. The problems sur-
tions. In these Stage 1 type customer firms, it will be more rounding the use of key informant data has been discussed
J.E. Lewin / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 283293 293

throughout the literature (cf. Phillips, 1981; John and Torger, Greenhalgh L, Lawrence AT, Sutton RI. Determinants of work force reduc-
tion in declining organizations. Acad Manage Rev 1988;13(1):241 54.
1982). Yet, reliance on key informant data continues to be a
Griffin MA, Tesluk PE, Jacobs RR. Bargaining cycles and work related
widely used methodology within the marketing literature. attitudes: evidence for threat-rigidity effects. Acad Manage J 1995 (De-
cember);38:1709 25.
Hawes JM, Barnhouse SH. How purchasing agents handle personal risk.
Acknowledgements Ind Mark Manage 1987 (November);16:287 93.
Heide JB. Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. J Mark
The author gratefully acknowledges the research grant 1994 (January);58:71 85.
Heide JB, John G. Do norms matter in marketing relationships? J Mark
supporting this project, which was received from the
1992 (April);56:32 44.
National Association of Purchasing Management. Heide JB, Stump RL. Performance implications of buyer supplier relation-
ships in industrial markets: a transaction cost explanation. J Bus Res
1995;32(1):57 66.
References Hitt MA, Keats BW, Harback HF, Nixon RD. Rightsizing: building and
maintaining strategic leadership and long-term competitiveness. Organ
Anderson E, Weitz B. The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment Dyn 1994 (Autumn);23:18 32.
in distribution channels. J Mark Res 1992 (February);29:18 34. John G, Torger R. The reliability and validity of key informant data from
Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. Trying to consume. J Consum Res 1990 (Sep- dyadic relationships in marketing channels. J Mark Res 1982 (Novem-
tember);17:127 40. ber);19:517 24.
Bahrami HH. The emerging flexible organization: perspectives from silicon Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. Lisrel 7: a guide to the program and applications.
valley. Calif Manage Rev 1992 (Summer);34:33 52. Chicago, IL: SPSS; 1989.
Bahrami HH, Evans S. Stratocracy in high technology firms. Calif Manage Kelly HH, Thibaut JW. Interpersonal relationships: a theory of interdepend-
Rev 1987 (Fall);29:126 33. ence. New York, NY: Wiley; 1978.
Bresnen M, Fowler C. The organizational correlates and consequences of Michaels RE, Kumar A, Samu S. Activity-specific role stress in purchasing.
subcontracting: evidence from a survey of south Wales business. J Int J Purch Mater Manage 1995;31(1):11 21.
Manage Stud 1994 (November);31:847 64. Mishra AK, Spreitzer GM. Explaining how survivors respond to downsiz-
Brockner J, Greenberg J, Brockner A, Bortz J, Davy J, Carter C. Layoffs, ing: the roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign. Acad
equity theory, and work performance: further evidence of the impact of Manage Rev 1998;23(3):567 88.
survivor guilt. Acad Manage J 1986;29(2):373 84. Moorman C, Deshpande R, Zaltman G. Factors affecting trust in market
Brockner J, Grover S, Reed T, DeWitt RL, OMalley M. Survivors reac- research relationships. J Mark 1993 (January);57:81 101.
tions to layoffs. Adm Sci Q 1987;32(2):526 41. Morgan J. The path of those who would reengineer the industrial buy.
Brockner J, DeWitt RL, Grover S, Reed T. When it is especially important Purchasing 1997;122(10):28 9.
to explain why: factors affecting the relationship between managers Morgan RM, Hunt SD. The commitment trust theory of relationship mar-
explanations of a layoff and survivors reactions to the layoff. J Exp Soc keting. J Mark 1994 (July);58:20 38.
Psychol 1990;26(1):389 407. Murphy E. Purchasing organizations outsource projects. Purchasing 1997;
Brockner J, Konovsky M, Cooper-Schneider R, Folger R, Christopher M, 123(6):43 4.
Bies RJ. Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity Palmer TB, Danforth GW, Clark SM. Strategic responses to poor perform-
on victims and survivors of job loss. Acad Manage J 1994 (June); ance in the health care industry: a test of competing predictions. Acad
37:397 409. Manage J Best Paper 1995;125 9.
Dabholkar PA, Johnston WJ, Cathey AS. The dynamics of long-term busi- Phillips LW. Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: a
ness-to-business exchange relationships. J Acad Mark Sci 1994 methodological note on organizational analysis in marketing. J Mark
(Spring);22:130 45. Res 1981 (November);17:395 415.
DAunno T, Sutton RI. The responses of drug abuse treatment organizations Porter AM. Hoping for a big raise? Purchasing 1998;124(6):20 2.
to financial adversity: a partial test of the threat-rigidity thesis. J Manage Porter AM. Middle managers see looser job market. Purchasing 1999;
1992 (March);18:117 31. 126(6):20 1.
Dwyer FR, Schurr P, Oh S. Developing buyer seller relationships. J Mark Ramsey J. The case against purchasing partnerships. Int J Purch Mater
1987 (April);51:11 27. Manage 1996 (Fall);32:13 9.
Emshoff JR. How to increase employee loyalty while you downsize. Bus Sheth JN. Organizational buying behavior: past performance and future
Horiz 1994 (March/April);37:49 57. expectations. J Bus Ind Mark 1996;11(3/4):7 24.
Fitzgerald KR. Profile of the purchasing professional. Purchasing 1999; Staw BM, Sandelands LE, Dutton JE. Threat-rigidity effects in organiza-
127(1):74 84. tional behavior: a multilevel analysis. Adm Sci Q 1981;26(3):501 24.
Fombrun CJ, Ginsberg A. Shifting gears: enabling change in corporate Stump RL, Heide JB. Controlling supplier opportunism in industrial rela-
aggressiveness. Strateg Manag J 1990;11(20):297 308. tionships. J Mark Res 1996 (November);33:431 50.
Ford JD, Bacus DA. Organizational adaptation to performance downturns: an Sutton RI, DAunno T. Decreasing organizational size: untangling the ef-
interpretation-based perspective. Acad Manage Rev 1987;12(2):366 80. fects of money and people. Acad Manage Rev 1989;14(2):194 212.
Ganesan S. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer seller relation- Sutton RI, Kahn RL. Prediction, understanding, and control as antidotes to
ships. J Mark 1994 (April);58:1 19. organizational stress. In: Lorsch J, editor. Handbook of organizational
Gerbing DW, Anderson JC. An updated paradigm for scale development incor- behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1987. p. 272 85.
porating unidimensionality and its assessment. J Mark 1998 (May); Tax SS, Brown SW, Chandrashekaran M. Customer evaluations of service
25:186 92. complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. J Mark
Gilbert FW, Young JA, ONeal CR. Buyer seller relationships in just-in- 1998 (April);62:60 76.
time purchasing environments. J Bus Res 1994;29(1):111 20. Watkins N. The corona effect. Market Research Societys Conference. Dal-
Giunipero L, Dawley D, Anthony W. The impact of tacit knowledge on las, TX: Market Research Society; 1994. p. 217 25.
purchasing decisions. J Supply Chain Manag 1999 (Winter);35:42 9. Williamson OE. Markets and hierarchies. New York, NY: Free Press; 1975.
Greenhalgh L. Managing the job insecurity crisis. Hum Resour Manage
1983 (Winter);22:431 44.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi