Dealer Dependence Levels and Reciprocal Actions in a Channel of Distribution in a Developing Country

Frazier, Gary L.; Gill, James D.; Kalé, Sudhir H.

doi:10.1177/002224298905300105

Cited by 275 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The specific items used to assess each party's level of dependence (see Appendix B) were adaptations of items used in prior studies of inter-organizational dependence (Frazier and Rody 1991, Gulati and Sytch 2007, Kumar et al 1998 to represent the concentration of the exchange, the availability of alternatives, and the level of relationship-specific investments. Several prior studies have modeled inter-organizational dependence as a formative rather than a reflective construct (e.g., El-Ansary and Stern 1972, Frazier et al 1989, Howell 1987, Kumar et al 1998), and we follow this precedent. In deciding whether to model a construct as reflective or formative, it is advised that researchers ask two related questions (Bollen 2011, Bollen and Lennox 1991, Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001, MacCallum and Browne 1993: (i) Do the indicators (i.e., items) represent a unidimensional concept?…”

Section: Measurementmentioning

confidence: 95%

How Service Provider Dependence Perceptions Moderate the Power–Opportunism Relationship with Professional Services

Handley

Jong²,

Benton³

2019

Production and Operations Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we develop a novel theoretical model of how the relationship between the buyer's use of power and the service provider's opportunism is moderated by the provider's perceptions of dependence advantage. Analyzing a dyadic dataset of 109 professional service relationships, we find that the extent to which the buyer's use of mediated and non‐mediated power aligns with the service provider's perceptions of relative dependence is germane to the power–opportunism relationship. The notion that firm A's opportunism, in response to firm B's use of power, is in part influenced by firm A's perceptions of the relative dependence in the relationship, constitutes a significant theoretical contribution to the power‐dependence literature. Our findings underline the importance of (i) understanding the relative dependence in an inter‐organizational relationship, (ii) managing the other firm's perception of this dependence, and (iii) ensuring that the use of power is aligned with the other firm's perception of the relative dependence in the relationship.

show abstract

Section: Measurementmentioning

confidence: 95%

How Service Provider Dependence Perceptions Moderate the Power–Opportunism Relationship with Professional Services

Handley

Jong²,

Benton³

2019

Production and Operations Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All constructs included in this study were measured using multi-item scales adapted from prior studies (Frazier, Gill, and Kale 1989;Ganesan 1994;Sako and Helper 1998) (see Appendix for comprehensive scale items). In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to think about the supplier of a new product added within the last year; if they carried several new products, they were asked to focus on the supplier that represented the greatest portion of their buying.…”

Section: Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

When and How Does Supplier Opportunism Matter for Small Retailers' Channel Relationships with the Suppliers?

Chung¹

2012

Journal of Small Business Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the moderating influences of power‐dependence structure and environmental volatility on the relationships between supplier opportunism and its outcomes. Data were collected from 102 small retailers using a mail survey. The results of multiple regressions indicate that supplier opportunism decreases small retailer credibility/benevolence and long‐term orientation. Further, the findings show that the lower the small retailer dependence, the stronger the negative influences of supplier opportunism on small retailer long‐term orientation. Finally, the lower the environmental volatility, the stronger the negative influences of supplier opportunism on small retailer credibility/benevolence and its long‐term orientation. Marketing implications and recommendations are provided.

show abstract

“…For instance, Provan and Skinner (1989) found that dealers of agricultural equipment were less opportunistic when they depended on a primary supplier, whereas suppliers with greater control over dealers' decisions exhibited greater opportunism. Also, Frazier, Gill and Kale (1989) posit that firms often employ a number of coercive influences on trading partners under various conditions of dependence, including threats, promises, and legalistic pleas. A later study by Smith and Aldrich (1991) found that greater levels of trust between buyers and suppliers resulted in fewer bureaucratic controls, but only when mediated through information sharing.…”

Section: Theoretical Motivation: the Dynamics Of Asymmetrical Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Buyer Dependency and Relational Capital Formation: The Mediating Effects of Socialization Processes and Supplier Integration

Petersen

Handfield

Lawson

et al. 2008

J Supply Chain Manag

144

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective supply chain configurations are increasingly cited as a key driver of value creation. However, many supplier relationships are characterized by differing levels of dependence between the parties, which has the potential to influence the outcomes achieved. We build and test an empirical model to examine how buyer firms respond to dependency on a supplier by undertaking either socialization processes or closer integration in order to achieve relational capital. Using empirical data collected from 111 UK purchasing executives, a structural equation model is used to test the theoretical framework. The results provide support for four of the five hypotheses developed. Buyer firms facing high supplier dependency are found to undertake socialization processes to mitigate the dependency and generate relational capital. However, buyer dependency did not, in isolation, lead to increased levels of supplier integration. The study extends our understanding of how firms deal with asymmetric power within their supplier relationships and suggests important implications for both research and practice.

show abstract

Dealer Dependence Levels and Reciprocal Actions in a Channel of Distribution in a Developing Country

Cited by 275 publications

References 48 publications

How Service Provider Dependence Perceptions Moderate the Power–Opportunism Relationship with Professional Services

How Service Provider Dependence Perceptions Moderate the Power–Opportunism Relationship with Professional Services

When and How Does Supplier Opportunism Matter for Small Retailers' Channel Relationships with the Suppliers?

Buyer Dependency and Relational Capital Formation: The Mediating Effects of Socialization Processes and Supplier Integration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About