Causes and outcomes of satisfaction in business relationships

Abstract

PurposeThis study includes relationship marketing concepts (i.e. trust, commitment, and satisfaction) as precursors to transaction cost theory outcomes (i.e. specific investments, opportunism, and formalization) which are rarely, if ever, included together. Trust and commitment lead to satisfaction and satisfaction in turn leads transaction cost outcomes. The paper aims to address these issues.Design/methodology/approachThe random sample is 600 small‐ to medium‐sized Norwegian manufacturers. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling was used to examine the responses from 212 key informants.FindingsThe strongest positive associations are from the relationship marketing portion of the model including trust satisfaction and commitment satisfaction. The highest negative association in the model is satisfaction opportunism. Contrary to predictions, satisfaction did not have a significant association with either specific investments or formalization.Research limitations/implicationsBoth relationship marketing and transaction cost theory concepts are examined because it is likely that business success may be motivated by both theories. Limitations of the study are that it only includes small‐ and medium‐sized companies in Norway. Second, it does not cover all business‐to‐business relationships (i.e. only manufacturer‐supplier relationships are included). Finally, additional concepts should be included (i.e. dependence, cooperation, and control).Practical implicationsThe results suggest that managers should work developing high levels of satisfaction in business relationships to dampen the likelihood that business partners will be opportunistic. In this regard, working on a relationship serves as a safeguard against possible future risks (e.g. opportunism).Originality/valueThis study is a seed for future research about the causes and outcomes of satisfaction in business relationships.

Effect of Information Access through Social Capital on Mitigating Business Opportunism of Small Enterprises in Sri Lanka

“…Table 3 illustrates that the information accessed through SSC has a significant negative effect on the opportunistic behaviour of the exchange partners (β = -0.238 or 24 percent and t-value = -5.79) supporting hypothesis H1. Similar results were provided by the studies of Carey andLawson (2011), Lu (2007) and Mysen et al (2011) confirming that information access through the network structure mitigates the opportunistic behaviour of exchange partners. Okten and Osili (2004) and Ting, Chen, and Bartholomew (2007) explained that the network size helps to tap information in the external environment successfully and reduce information asymmetry.…”

“…Hence, a SE occupying a central location in a network is likely to be perceived as trustworthy by exchange partners in the network (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). Therefore, the risk of opportunism may be averted, if a SE has more network relationship (Mysen et al, 2011). When SEs and its exchange partners are satisfied with each other, they will have more confidence and a sensitive expectation that their future dealings with each other will be positive which will minimize the temptation to take advantage of each other.…”

“…Business opportunism of exchange partners was measured using eight items: exaggeration of needs, sincerity in dealings, truthfulness in dealings, good faith bargaining, dishonesty in dealings, unfair in dealing, cheat in dealing and breach of agreement engaged in by the exchange partner. Those items were adopted Dahlstrom and Nygaard (1999), Archol and Gundlach (1999), Mysen et al (2011), andRokkan et al (2003).…”

“…In literature, some scholars (Adler, 2001;Chow & Chan, 2008;Dyer, 1997: Inkpen & Tsang, 2005Mysen, Svensson, & Payan, 2011) discussed that the trust among businesses are associated with opportunism and a few researchers (Bhagavatula, 2009;Gulati & Singh, 1998;Li & Luo, 2011) analyzed the relationship between network relationships and opportunism. Some scholars (Artz & Brush, 2000;Dyer & Chu, 2003: Heide & John, 1992Rokkan, Heide, & Wathne, 2003) examined the interaction between relational norms and opportunism.…”

Trust and satisfaction: the keys to client loyalty in mobile commerce

“…Several studies have highlighted opportunism as a limiting factor for the development of trust in relationships (Mysen et al, 2011;Ting et al, 2007;Hsieh, 2013). In fact, opportunistic behaviors have been observed to lead to the dissolution of relationships due to a decrease in trust on the side of the consumer (Barney and Hansen, 1994;San-Martín, 2015).…”