EXPLORING THE DRIVERS OF INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIP MAGNITUDE

Analogous to maintaining a portfolio of different investments, a firm is involved in a wide range of different relationships with suppliers and customers. These relationships are each structur differently. The arrangement is therefore the manner in which the relationship is builded (i.e., comprised of its essential parts). Golicic, Foggin, and Mentzer (2003) break relationship constitution down into two distinct composings magnitude and type, to better explain the many possible interorganizational relationships. They define relationship impressed sign as the group or class of relationships that share public governance characteristics and span a continuum from transactional relationships to integrated, with greatest in quantity relationships somewhere in between these most distants The same authors define the little-researched fabricate of relationship magnitude as the step or extent of closeness or potency of the relationship among organizations. The distinction between these sum of two units is important to both interorganizational relationship theory and practice as it provides a better understanding of the portfolio of different relationship constructions firms need to manage.

Understanding that companies manage a variety of different relationship constitutions but knowing little about relationship magnitude, the view of the study is to examine what contributes to various horizontals of magnitude. This will not sole help managers understand what contributes to the magnitude of a relationship, on the other hand will also help explain relationship magnitude and its distinction from relationship emblem The principal objective is to expand on the research started by Golicic, Foggin, and Mentzer (2003) and explore the contextual drivers that influence relationship magnitude. Eight drivers were identified: capabilities, wait fored benefits, external influence, history, importance, interpersonal interaction, performance, and strategy congruence This was done end a qualitative study of interconnected firms in four different stock chains. The following section briefly describes the theoretical background for the inquiry The qualitative methodology to explore the phenomenon is then not absented followed by a discussion of the comes Finally, implications and opportunities for time to come research are provided.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Interorganizational relationships have historically been categorized by dint of where they fall on a governance image The channels literature was the first to present a range of relationships from arms extent transactions (or market governance) to vertical integration (or hierarchical governance) with cooperative relationships (or hybrid governance) in between (Contractor and Lorange 1988; Heide 1994; Webster 1992) These studies attempted to categorize relationships beneath a particular type based upon the relationship characteristics. Although there is confusion as to the distinction among different cooperative relationships, relationship stamp can be defined as the assemblage or class of relationships that share public governance characteristics and operationalized by the agency of the three accepted categories of arms longitudinal dimensions cooperative, and integrated relationships (Bove and Johnson 2001; Golicic, Foggin, and Mentzer 2003)

Much of the existing research upon different cooperative relationship types (eg alliances or partnerships) views them as interorganizational governance arrangements that fall between the sum of two units ends of markets and hierarchies (Thorelli 1986) However, a certain quantity of authors argue a single emblem such as alliances, can span a variety of conformations along a continuum with varying horizontals of collaboration throughout its evolution (Iyer 2002) Thus, the emblem of relationship only explains part of the configuration of a relationship. Another dimension of make relationship magnitude, is necessary to to the full explain a portfolio of relationship structures

Relationship magnitude is a broad bound that encompasses the ideas and research concerning the potency and closeness of relationships. Donaldson and O'Toole (2000) attempted to classify relationships using relationship puissance which they conceptualize as categorical. These authors then place governance manner of makings (i.e., types of relationships) in single of four total strength categories, which ultimately omits many possible relationship structures. Bove and Johnson (2001) reviewed the literature upon relationship strength, closeness, and quality in an attempt to determine when it is appropriate to use each of the three fabricates They concluded that the distinction is the adjoining matter in which each is used (eg closenes directs to a friendship in a commercial setting, quality is appropriate in industrial settings, and might describes a relationship between sum of two units individuals in a commercial service setting). Bove and Johnson leave to all three descriptors, however, as the magnitude of a relationship. In addition, they discuss magnitude varying as a function of the emblem of relationship, thus conceptualizing the sum of two units as distinct constructs.