A construct of META‐RELQUAL: measurement model and theory testing

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to test a measurement model of a META-RELQUAL construct. Design/methodology/approach -This study is based upon a survey and random sample of smalland medium-sized companies in Norway. Respondents were contacted by phone and a total of 581 surveys were mailed. In total, 212 surveys were returned generating a response rate of 36.5 percent. Findings -The goodness-of-fit measures of the tested measurement model of the META-RELQUAL construct were all found to be within the recommended guidelines. The recommended guidelines for convergent, discriminant and nomological validity, as well as construct reliability, were all met. It is concluded that the measurement properties of the META-RELQUAL construct applied in Norwegian manufacturer-supplier relationships indicate acceptable validity and reliability.Research limitations/implications -The tested META-RELQUAL construct appears to be accurate for those Norwegian business relationships studied, but only further testing in other companies will verify its universal application if it is to be seen as a valid and reliable measurement for other companies' business relationships too. Suggestions for further research are provided. Practical implications -This study is of managerial interest to executives since it provides a framework of constructs to be considered in corporate efforts in maintaining satisfactory levels of relationship quality in business relationships. Originality/value -The META-RELQUAL construct makes a contribution to theory since it outlines a higher order construct and measurement instrument for the benefit of other researchers and practitioners in the field.

Validating action and social alignment constituents of collaboration in business relationships

“…Cooperation refers to the willingness of two agents to work together (Payan and Svensson, 2007;McNeilly and Russ, 1992) and implies a working orientation. By contrast, coordination is related more to the outcome, that is, the specific joint activities of parties (Svenson and Mysen, 2011). Hence, cooperation is more of an attitude whereas coordination relates more to actions.…”

The relational embeddedness as the differentiator of the cluster supply chain collaboration – a multidimensional comparative analysis

“…Researchers underline various reasons for adaptation, starting from the legitimacy in the environment, enforcement of power (Łupicka, 2016), to justification for ongoing investments (Fynes et al, 2005). In the conducted study, it will be important to verify both the possibility of adapting the surveyed companies to their partners, as well as the Kumar et al (1995) Conflict, trust, commitment, willingness to invest in cooperation, expectation of continuity Dorsch et al (1998) Trust, satisfaction, commitment, opportunism, customer orientation, ethical profile Walter et al (2003) Customer satisfaction, trust, commitment Woo and Ennew (2004) Cooperation, adaptation, atmosphere Benton and Maloni (2005) Commitment, trust, cooperation, conflict resolution Lages et al (2005) Information sharing, communication quality, long-term orientation, satisfaction Fynes et al (2005) Communication, trust, adaptation, commitment, dependence, cooperation Rauyruen and Miller (2007) Trust, commitment, satisfaction, quality of service Skarmeas et al (2008) Satisfaction, trust, commitment Su et al (2008) Communication, trust, institutionalization, cooperation, adaptation, atmosphere Payan et al 2010Satisfaction, trust, commitment, cooperation, coordination, specific resources Ferrer et al 2010Strength, sharing, interdependence, trust Svensson and Mysen (2011) Satisfaction, commitment, trust, opportunism, cooperation, coordination, continuity expectation, formalization, interdependence, specific resources Mohaghar and Ghasemi (2011) Communication, trust, adaptation, commitment, interdependence, cooperation, atmosphere Collins et al 2012Trust, commitment, adaptation, shared values, communication, opportunism, satisfaction, cooperation Kühne et al 2013Trust, satisfaction, reputation, coordination, conflict, strength, dependence Tsanos et al 2014Trust, commitment, common goals, cooperation, satisfaction, reciprocity…”

A review of inter-firm relationship quality in supply chains

“…Čater and Čater, 2010;Payan et al, 2010;Svensson and Mysen, 2011;Sjoerdsma and van Weele, 2015 Long-term orientation 11It is associated with the expectation of relationship continuity and the focus on longterm goals in the relationship. Jiang et al, 2011;Jiang et al, 2016 Dependence and power 11Dependence refers to the extent to which one party needs to maintain the relationship with the partner in order to achieve the desired goals.…”

“…One firm may use its power to influence the other firm to act in a manner that it would not have otherwise. Jiang et al, 2011;Svensson and Mysen, 2011;Chang et al, 2012a;Lai et al, 2013;Nyaga et al, 2013 Source: Own illustration.…”