17

General Introduction: Communication’s Role in Establishing and Maintaining Business Relationships Michael B. Hinner Relationships and trust play an important, even decisive role in the world of business (Abrams et al, 2004; Argyris, 1962; Axelrod, 1984; Brenkert, 1998a; Brenkert, 1998b; Christopher & Jüttner, 2000; Cooper et al, 1997; Corsten & Gössinger, 2001; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Duffy & Fearne, 2004; Earley, 1986; Ellis & Shockley-Zalabak, 2001; Hosmer, 1995; Humphries & Wilding, 2001; Jones & George, 1998; Kirby, 2003; Krapfel et al, 1991; Kuhn & Hellingrath, 2002; Lambert & Knemeyer, 2004; Lambert et al, 1996; Lambert et al, 1998; Likert, 1967; McAllister, 1995; McGregor, 1967; Ripperger, 1998; Robinson, 1996; Simatupang & Sridharan, 2005). Relationships are created at the place of work among fellow colleagues, with supervisors, between employers and em-ployees as well as management and trade union representatives. But business relationships are also established and maintained between various companies including suppliers and OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers), wholesalers and retailers, governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations as well as consumers and clients (Brenkert, 1998a; Cooper et al, 1997; Corsten & Gössinger, 2001; Humphries & Wilding, 2001; Jones & George, 1998; Kirby, 2003; Kuhn & Hellingrath, 2002; Lambert et al, 1998). Indeed, virtually all as-pects of business involve some type of relationship at one time or another. Rela-tionships could, for example, revolve around two people and, thus, occur at the micro level or include large-scale international networks with literally hundreds of member companies and organizations, i.e. at the macro level (Cooper et al, 1998; Krapfel et al, 1991; Lambert et al, 1996; Lambert & Knemyer, 2004). While some relationships are relatively short-lived, others endure for a long time (Cooper et al, 1998; Lambert et al, 1996). In fact, most business activities and transactions would not exist without relationships having been established in the first place (Hinner, 2005; Hinner, 2007). By their very nature, relationships rely on communication because no relationship would come into being, continue to exist, and/or end without communication (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2002; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003).

18

That is why it is essential to consider communication when analyzing relation-ships – including business relationships. At the same time, relationships also involve trust because trust can evolve in the course of a relationship and, thus, help stabilize the relationship by making it more predictable (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Bhattacharya et al, 1998; Brenkert, 1998b; Cooper et al, 1997; De Vito, 2002; Dwyer et al, 1987; Gamble & Gam-ble, 2005; Huang et al, 2003; Kuhn & Hellingrath, 2002; Kumar, 1996; Tubbs & Moss, 2003; Zaheer et al, 1998). And this degree of predictability helps reduce the uncertainty associated with most communication (Bhattacharya et al, 1998; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). In fact, even hostile relationships such as those encountered during the Cold War period actually made the world more predictable than the post-Cold War period has been so far. That is why it might be well worth the effort to see what role communication and communication principles play in business relationships so as to gain insights into business relationships and to help make them more effec-tive and efficient (Hoyt & Huq, 2000). And during these turbulent economic times, a degree of predictability is essential. Business Relationships Business relationships can be formal, such as the regulated interactions one finds between a company and the Internal Revenue Service revolving around taxes which are due at fixed, predetermined periods of time. Or the relationships can be informal, such as the relationship between two colleagues at work which might even be intermittent (Cooper et al, 1997; Krapfel et al, 1991; Lambert et al, 1996). Through established relationships, it is possible for businesses to co-operate closely with one another. Through cooperation, it is possible to become more efficient by streamlining business processes which, in turn, makes the in-teraction of all participants more efficient and effective (Chu & Fang, 2006; Daugherty et al, 2003; Humphries & Wilding, 2001; Kirby, 2003; Lambert et al, 1996; Lambert & Knemeyer, 2004). Good business relationships actually have a positive impact on team work, leadership, goal setting, and overall perform-ance (Grossman, 2004). And decisions are also reached quicker amidst good relationships because it is not necessary to control and monitor transactions as often in good relationships as is the case in bad relationships (Kirby 2003; Chu & Fang, 2006). That is why greater efficiency can ultimately help increase the benefits for all parties involved in the relationship (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Duffy & Fearne, 2004; Hoyt & Huq, 2000; Kirby, 2003; Kumar, 1996). General Electric, for example, established an efficient and effective relationship with its retailers in a supply chain network which allowed General Electrics to save

19

about twelve percent of its distribution and marketing costs while the retailers increased their profit margins on General Electric products and exhibited con-siderable reductions in their out-of-stocks (Simatupang & Sridharan, 2005). Hence, benefiting all involved parties. While many companies are seeking to create successful relationships with other businesses in order to tap the potential benefits associated with such relation-ships, only a small proportion of those companies actually reap those benefits (Kumar, 1996; Lambert & Knemeyer, 2004). In other words, it is easy to initi-ate a relationship, but it does not always end up being a mutually beneficial rela-tionship because if the perceived trust has been broken, then it often results in disappointment and exacerbation (Berquist et al, 1995; Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Chu & Fang, 2006; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Hoyt & Huq, 2000; Hosmer, 1995; Jones & George, 1998; Kirby, 2003; Kuhn & Hellingarth, 2002). That is why it is crucial to have an understanding of the principles and factors involved in building, maintaining, and improving business relationships because success-ful relationships can reduce uncertainty and distrust (De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). Consequently, it is imperative that trust and its role in relationships be also considered when at-tempting to determine what makes relationships successful (De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). In fact, relation-ships need trust to be successful because the greater the degree of trust in a rela-tionship, the greater the degree of predictability which, in turn, decreases the level of uncertainty and increases the level of achievable cooperation among the participants. This, in turn, increases the likelihood of establishing mutually beneficial and profitable relationships. That is why mutually beneficial relation-ships require trust – whether at the micro or the macro level (Bhattachary et al, 1998; Brenkert, 1998a; Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Chu & Fang, 2006; Grossman, 2004; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Hosmer, 1995; Hoyt & Huq, 2000; Huang et al, 2003; Humphries & Wilding, 2001; Jones & George, 1998; Kirby, 2003; Kumar, 1996; Lambert et al, 1996; Ripperger, 1998). Towards that end, this text will examine why relationships are created, how they evolve, are maintained, and are terminated to then transfer these insights into a business context. Social Exchange Theory The social exchange theory, which is also called the cost-benefit theory, states that humans will only work to maintain relationships as long as the benefits they perceive for themselves outweigh the costs, i.e. their input into such a relation-ship. In other words, the moment a person perceives the costs of a relationship to outweigh the benefits, then that person will decide to exit that relationship

20

(Homans, 1958). These benefits can include self-worth, personal growth, in-creased ability to cope with problems, more security, and additional resources to accomplish tasks(De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). The costs include time spent making the relationship work, psychological and physi-cal stress, a damaged self-image, and lost resources (De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Obviously, the social exchange theory can be transferred into the world of business as well. After all, one of the primary pur-poses of conducting any business is to benefit from such activity. When people feel that the rewards equal or surpass this comparison level, then they derive sat-isfaction from this business relationship (Berquist et al, 1995; Chu & Fang, 2006; Grossman, 2004; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Kirby, 2003; Kumar, 1996). But people also have a comparison level for alternatives (Homans, 1958). This means that people compare the rewards they get from a current relationship with the ones they think they can get from a possible alternative relationship (De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). People might, thus, de-cide to terminate a current relationship and enter another one if they assume that the other relationship provides better benefits. And when relationships are thought of in economic terms, then the relationship will be perceived as more satisfying the greater the reward and the lower the cost (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Chu & Fang, 2006; Grossman, 2004; Hosmer, 1995; Kirby, 2003; Kumar, 1996). It is here, quite obviously, that a direct link is established between hu-man relations in general and business relationships in particular. A number of studies indicate that good relationships actually increase a person’s overall well-being (Argyle, 1994; Argyle & Henderson, 1985; De Vito, 2002; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hazan & Shaver, 1994; Perlman & Peplau, 1981, Reis, 1984). In fact, the quality and quantity of an individual’s interpersonal relationships seem to have a direct impact on that individual’s physical and psy-chological health. For example, ten times as many divorced men die of tubercu-losis than married men and twice as many divorced women die of pneumonia than married women (Argyle & Henderson, 1985). These studies seem to indi-cate that there is in fact a direct benefit to be reaped from relationships; thus, providing evidence to support the social exchange theory. One could, thus, also argue that good business relationships create healthier, sounder businesses. And indeed there is evidence that this may actually be true as Kwon and Suh (2004) note. One reason is due to the fact that information is shared in trustful relation-ships which helps reduce behavioral uncertainty, makes the dealings more pre-dictable and, thus, assures long-term planning (Kwon & Suh, 2004). But these observations are not entirely surprising because the establishment and mainte-nance of good relationships is crucial for human survival (Ehrlich, 2000). And since humans are at the core of business relationships, the same probably also applies to business relationships.

21

Relationships According to Argyle and Henderson (1985), relationships are social interactions which occur at regular intervals over a certain period of time with the expecta-tion of a certain degree of constancy. Through constancy, it is possible to make better predictions. Better predictability improves the effectiveness and effi-ciency of communication as Berger’s Uncertainty Reduction Theory postulates (De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). Relation-ships are actually based on interdependence because the actions of one party have consequences for the other party. This dyadic relationship makes the rela-tionship more predictable due to its interdependence (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Bhattacharya et al, 1998; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003; Za-heer et al. 1998). If, for example, a person buys a particular cheese on a regular basis from a specific store, then this person might go to that store on a regular basis if this person consumes that cheese every week. Over time, the store owner might come to anticipate the regular shopping habit of that person and order the required quantity of that particular cheese in anticipation of that person coming to the store and purchasing the same amount of cheese at regular inter-vals. If that person is the only customer in the store to buy that particular cheese, then the store owner might be stuck with the unsold portion of the cheese if that customers stops coming to the store to buy the cheese, or no longer has a taste for that cheese. This could frustrate the store owner because no one else might be interested in this particular cheese which the store owner had pur-chased earlier on the assumption that it would be sold as usual. Hence, the ac-tion of that one person has direct consequences for the other person. Relationships like communication can be measured by their quality and their quantity (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Quality relationships seek to enhance the status or condition of each party while quantity relationships seek to focus on gaining as many partners as possible. Often both approaches are treated as separate and distinct forms, but a combination of both quality and quantity is possible as well. The same has been noted in the world of business relationships as well (Christopher & Jüttner, 2000; Cooper et al, 1997; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Krapfel et al, 1991; Kuhn & Hellingrath, 2002; Lambert et al, 1996) Relationships are not only advantageous, but they can also entail disadvantages (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). An advantage of relationships is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Rela-tionships can also reduce uncertainty and facilitate the communication due to

22

better predictability as noted above (De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Disadvantages include pressure to reveal oneself and expose one’s vulnerabili-ties (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Re-lationships also increase obligations which can include time, money, or emo-tional energy. A particular relationship can also result in abandoning other rela-tionships because one does not have time for them anymore or because the one partner does not like to have any associations with the other partners. It can also be difficult to get out of a relationship once it has been entered because one feels a certain degree of emotional attachment, responsibility, and/or dependence (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Clearly, all of these factors are true for business relationships as well (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Kuhn & Hellingarth, 2002; Kumar; 1996; Lambert et al, 1996). A car manufacturer, for example, is dependent on the various suppliers delivering the needed parts in the right quality and quantity at the right time; otherwise, the entire production process stops. The manufac-turer can, thus, benefit from a functioning relationship. Likewise, the manufac-turer will have to trust the suppliers not to reveal company secrets to competi-tors. Conversely, the suppliers are dependent upon the financial well-being of the manufacturer because that manufacturer may be the primary purchaser of the parts made by the suppliers. That is why recently a number of suppliers in the automobile industry went bankrupt because the major automakers encountered substantial difficulties in the aftermath of the financial and economic crisis and, thus, sold significantly fewer cars. Reasons for Relationships Why do people or businesses enter relationships? According to Hybels and Weaver (2004), the reasons for entering relationships include attraction, per-ceived gain, similarities, differences, and proximity. Attraction can refer to physical attraction, but could also be due to non-physical appearance, e.g. a particular talent or finances (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). In other words, one is attracted to another person or company because of perceived tangible and intangible assets associated with that other person or company (Christopher & Jüttner, 2000; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Huang et al, 2003; Humphries & Wilding, 2001; Lambert et al, 1996). Perceived gain follows the social benefit theory because people sometimes do hope to gain materially, emotionally, immaterially from a relationship (Hybels

23

& Weaver, 2004). This clearly is one of the primary reasons why companies, for example, enter into a business relationship in the first place (Christopher & Jüttner, 2000; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Huang et al, 2003; Humphries & Wilding, 2001; Lambert et al, 1996). Similarities refer to similar beliefs, values, and attitudes (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). In the world of business, relationships may be developed because both partners have similar end users such as McDonald’s and Coca-Cola which causes them to cooperate in the restaurant business (Lambert et al, 1996). And smaller companies can sometimes join forces so that together they can achieve economies of scale that they would not be able to achieve individually due to their small size. For example, small, family-owned appliance stores might co-operate in purchasing so as to be able to purchase appliances in sufficiently large quantities in order to get a lower price which they can then pass on to their cus-tomers. This allows these small companies to compete with large discount re-tailers. Compatibility refers to similar attitudes, personality, and liking the same activi-ties; and if it should exist between two individuals, then the relationship may actually last longer (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). In a business context, it is often the case that different, but related types of businesses cooperate because they complement each other (Kuhn & Hellingrath, 2002; Lambert et al, 1996; Lam-bert & Knemeyer, 2004). For example, a pharmacy may be located next to a doctor’s office because the doctor’s patients will purchase their prescriptions at the nearest pharmacy. Or a large automobile manufacturer may attract a number of suppliers to its vicinity since they can reduce delivery time and, thus, reduce their transportation cost. Differences are important if these differences complement each other; for ex-ample, someone may be good in math while another person is good in writing which could be a good study group – because one does not want all of the mem-bers of such a group to have the same abilities and characteristics (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). Very often, prior to setting up a business, one may study the competition at a particular location. If there are no direct competitors in the immediate neighborhood, then it might be a good idea to establish a business at this location because it improves the probability of profitability. For example, a department store may decide to move into a shopping mall if that mall contains a number of small retailers and boutiques, but no other department store. And it might avoid a shopping mall if that mall already has other successful department stores in it.

24

Proximity refers to the close contact which is created when people share experi-ences such as work, a hobby, or neighborhood (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). In a business context, shorter distances typically mean lower costs (Schönsleben & Hieber, 2002). That is one of the reasons why some shipping companies con-tinue to risk shorter shipping routes that may, though, be infested with pirates. There are, thus, a number of reasons why people enter relationships. It should be noted, though, that it is possible that any number or combination of reasons may motivate people to enter relationships. So it may be similarity and prox-imity which cause two people or companies to establish a relationship. Social Penetration Theory The social penetration theory (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; De Vito, 2006; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005) revolves around two concepts – breadth (how many interests the partners share) and depth (how deeply one can penetrate the other’s inner personality). According to this theory, the relation-ship starts out quite narrowly with only a few topics to discuss and little depth since the partners are still unfamiliar with one another. Given time, both can change as one can expand the number of topics one discusses and the insights one gets of the other person. Both variables can appear independently of one another (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; De Vito, 2006; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). In other words, one can increase the number of topics, but not learn more about the other person’s inner personality, or vice versa. How much information is revealed in breadth and depth depends on the degree of the relationship, i.e. the deeper a relationship is, the more is revealed. Like-wise, if there is a problem that might develop in the relationship, then people will narrow the breadth and the depth (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; De Vito, 2006; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). It should be noted, though, that self-disclosure is also influenced by culture. In different cultures, different topics are disclosed. Likewise, what information one discloses with whom varies from culture to culture (Chen & Starosta, 1998; Gudykunst & Kim, 1997; Lustig & Koester, 2006; Oetzel, 2009; Samovar et al, 1998). For example, in some cultures talking about how much money one earns is a topic that can be discussed with strangers whereas in other cultures one never discusses money in public. And while Americans are quick to self-disclose, most Germans would only do so with close friends.

25

Relationship Roles According to Hybels and Weaver (2004), relationships can be evaluated accord-ing to the roles the participants assume. This evaluation can occur throughout the duration of the relationship and can include the actual roles, the expectations, possible renegotiations of the roles as well as the costs and rewards of the rela-tionship. Similar to the social benefit theory, Hybels and Weaver (2004) argue that humans essentially enter relationships because they expect to reap certain tangible and/or intangible benefits from such a relationship. And should one or all partners come to the conclusion that the costs outweigh the rewards, then the relationship may be terminated. These costs are associated with the particular role a partner assumes or is expected to assume in the relationship (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). In other words, roles are crucial aspects of relationships; a phe-nomenon that is also observed in business relationships (Christopher & Jüttner, 2000; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Krapfel et al, 1991; Lambert et al, 1996). Sometimes the partners agree to assume certain roles and tasks within the part-nership/relationship, and sometimes it is expected that the participants assume specific roles (Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Specific roles are often associated with specific norms. For example, an employee is expected to carry out the tasks the supervisor assigns. A doctor is expected to treat an illness. People often have more than one role to “play” which is why relationship roles can be complex. This can result in interrole conflict when someone occupies “two (or more) roles that entail contradictory expectations about a given behavior” (Tubbs & Moss, 2003, p. 261). For example, the owner of a company may also be the personal friend of one of the company employees. If that friend happens to cheat a col-league at work, then the company owner may be confronted with a dilemma: Should the owner act as a friend and forgive and forget the actions of the em-ployee, or should the owner discipline the wrongful actions of an employee? This situation is an example of an interrole conflict. The decision as to what needs to be done would depend, to some degree, on what is more important to the owner, i.e. keeping a friend or being an impartial employer. Such a situation could create misunderstandings among all participants because of the interrole conflict (Tubbs & Moss, 2003). The respective roles of the participants may have been the origin of the relation-ship. However, over time these roles can change as can the expectations people bring to a relationship and as they evolve during the course of the relationship. In addition to defining the roles of the partners, all parties involved in a relation-ship have to reach agreement on those roles. For the relationship to continue, the roles and the expectations people have in a relationship must be satisfying to all. If not, the relationship may be terminated or possibly renegotiated (Adler &

26

Rodman, 2003; DeFleur, 1998; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Renegotiating Relationships Sometimes, renegotiations become necessary when the roles of the participants change. When people have been in a particular role for an extended period of time, they often develop habitual ways of behaving as well as assumptions abut how the other party will behave. When the situation/role changes, then it is time to renegotiate the relationship. It is often easier to change roles when it appears to be in the best interest of all. But when this role change is seen as a loss, then the negotiation can be difficult and hard. The ease of role change also depends on the flexibility of all which, in turn, is influenced by internal and external con-straints, though. When the roles and relationships are rigidly defined, then change can be very difficult (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur, 1998; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). The same is also true for business relationships which may also need to be renegotiated from time to time to adjust the relationship to the larger business context (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Doz & Hamel, 1998) Power Distribution In a relationship, the power distribution among the participants can also play a decisive role (DeFleur, 1998; De Vito, 2002; Martin & Nakayama, 1997). Quite often, the role distribution in a relationship is based on the power distribution of the partners. In other words, someone with more power may assume a more de-cisive role in the partnership. In a business context, power often plays a decisive role in relationships as well (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Kumar, 1996). A large corporation can often dictate the price of a certain good that a smaller company produces. For example, Wal-Mart is able to sell its products often at a low price because it can purchase large quantities of a prod-uct. Typically, economies of scale can be applied whenever a product is mass produced. While exerting power may result in short-term advantages, almost all business relationships in which the power of one partner determines the state of the relationship results in failure sooner or later (Chopra & Meindl, 2004). It may even result in the weaker partner exiting the relationship because it estab-lished its own distribution network or found another OEM willing to use the parts developed for the previous OEM (Kumar, 1996). That is why it is gener-ally counterproductive to exert power unilaterally in a business relationship.

27

Time Time is also an important factor in relationships because with time it is possible for a relationship to develop and evolve. With time, relationships develop an interdependence which in turn fosters trust and commitment (Tubbs and Moss, 2003). Time is also essential for the intensity/degree of the relationship. With time, communication styles can change as one gets more familiar with the other participants; communication can become more high context due to the familiar-ity. Of course, it also possible that with time it becomes clear that one is not a good “fit” for the other participant(s); in other words, one learns more about the others and how they relate to oneself and possibly does not like what one dis-covers of the other over time (Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Relationship Stages Relationships evolve and develop over time. Knapp and Vangelisti (1992) iden-tified and classified ten stages of a relationship: Initiating, experimenting, inten-sifying, integrating, bonding, differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoid-ing, and terminating. Broadly speaking, these ten stages can be assigned to three broad categories; namely, coming together (i.e. initiating, experimenting, inten-sifying), relational maintenance (i.e. integrating, bonding, differentiating, cir-cumscribing), and coming apart (i.e. stagnating, avoiding, terminating) (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Initiating refers to the various aspects that are associated when establishing the first contact with another person and, thus, inevitably, involves the first commu-nication one may have with another person or organization. Typically this in-volves the use of established behavioral norms. This stage is important for the subsequent development because it involves the first impressions one has of the other person. And these first impressions can be crucial in deciding whether one is to pursue the potential relationship or to exit it at this stage (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). In a business context, this stage refers to the interest a customer may express in a particular product or service. It could even refer to the stage when a potential customer visits a company website to see what the company offers under what circumstances and conditions. It could also refer to interest a company expresses in another company as a potential business partner or as a possible candidate for a merger or acquisition. Experimenting refers to the attempts people undertake to discover more about the other person. This information gathering stage encompasses communication activities designed to acquaint the participants with one another. This is typi-

28

cally accomplished through small talk. Small talk fulfills a number of functions such as uncovering more integrating topics for deeper conversations, reducing uncertainty, and establishing a sense of community (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). At this stage, the commitment is minimal; and the relationship might not progress beyond this stage. In a business context, this could refer to the direct communication a customer has with a retailer or the in-formation gathering a company undertakes after having identified potential companies for a merger to determine if any or all are suitable for the intended merger. Intensifying refers to the stage of a relationship that progresses beyond experi-menting. During this stage, people tend to share activities, disclose more infor-mation about themselves, and become better at predicting the behavior of the other. The people make a commitment to help maintain the relationship (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). In a business context, this could refer to the point at which the retailer begins to anticipate the wishes and desires of a regular customer and even communicates information not directly related to the business at hand. During a merger or acquisition, this stage refers to the point where a specific company has been isolated and the intense exchange of information between both companies that occurs as a result of this selection. Integrating refers to the stage of further strengthening the relationship to the point where both parties see themselves as a social unit and others do so as well. Partners begin to develop their own routines and might even begin to speak alike. During this stage, people often give up some characteristics of their old selves and assume different ones. With integration, the sense of obligation to the other party increases as well. People feel obligated to share more informa-tion and resources. Communication is often very direct without inquiries and explanations. The partners expect more from the each other than at any previous stage (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). In a business con-text, this could refer to the situation in which a supplier works closely with a car manufacturer in developing, for example, a new seat for a new car model. In-stead of looking for a new supplier that might already have the desired seat in its product portfolio, the car manufacturer might contact its current seat supplier during the development phase of the new car and have that seat manufacturer create the new seat specifically for the upcoming new model. Bonding refers to the stage during which the parties announce that their com-mitment to one another has been formally contracted. The relationship becomes institutionalized and is no longer informal. It is guided by specific rules and regulations some of which cause discomfort or rebellion as the parties try to ad-just to these changes. This is considered to be the critical stage of the relation-

29

ship (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). In a business context, it could refer to the situation in which a manufacturer decides to tie a supplier with a long-term contract to assure reliable delivery of the goods in a desired quantity and quality. Or a manufacturer might buy a supplier in order to inte-grate that supplier into its corporate group. This strategy of economies of scope could be used to broaden the base of the corporation in order to be less depend-ent on other companies. Large oil corporations often not only own the oil wells that supply their refineries, but they also own the tankers that ship the crude oil to the refinery. And the gas stations that ultimately sell the refined gasoline to the public are also owned by the oil company. Differentiating refers to the point of a relationship where the parties seek to re-establish their individuality after having formally created commonality. Partners use a number of different strategies to assert their own role such as seeking di-rect confrontation. Or they may not respond to questions directed at them. This stage typically occurs when relationships experience the first stress. While the need for autonomy may result in conflict, it is also beneficial in that it helps each partner retain their individuality (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). In a business context, this is exemplified by mergers and acquisitions that run into difficulties. Instead of emphasizing that the merged companies are now one single corporation, one brand may not wish to emphasize the fact that it is part of that corporate group. For example, after the merger of Daimler and Chrysler, Mercedes tried to deemphasize the fact that it was part of the same corporation that also produced Dodge and Chrysler. Mercedes was afraid of be-ing categorized as a brand that was no longer an exclusive, luxury brand (Schuler & Jackson, 2001). Circumscribing refers to situation during which the quality and quantity of the partners’ communication decreases. Often the partners opt for mental and/or physical withdrawal. Consequently, the interest in the other partners wanes and exhibits a certain degree of exhaustion (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). In a business context, this is often found among employees who no longer identify themselves with their company to the point where they will use every opportunity to avoid having to go to work. The number of sick days often increases in such a situation. Stagnation refers to the stage during which the partners feel that is no longer necessary or beneficial to interact with one another. No growth occurs. The interaction is reduced to sharing the same environment and following the same routine without any enthusiasm (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). In a business context, this is often seen in employees who are no longer motivated for and enthusiastic about their job.

30

Avoiding refers to the stage during which the partners go out their way to be apart from one another. This deliberate separation can be accompanied with ex-cuses or expressed directly and openly. The termination of the relationship be-comes apparent and open (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). In a business context, the employees may now avoid the place of employment and actively seek another job. And merged companies may now openly an-nounce their intention to split up again. Terminating refers to the stage during which the relationship ends. The ending of the relationship can be quick or drawn out, hostile or cordial (Adler & Rod-man, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). In a business context, relationships can also end as a result of a number of different reasons. One of the partners may retire and/or move to a different location, or a company might go bankrupt. It must be realized that some relationships never achieve and experience all ten stages; and it should be clear that some stages may last longer than others. In fact, some relationships never terminate or stagnate. It is also possible that part-ners of a relationship may regress to a previous stage. In other words, all rela-tionships are unique to some degree and, thus, evolve very differently from one another when it comes to the role and direction of that relationship (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2006; Gamble and Gamble, 2005). Relational Dialectics Relational dialectics also seem to play a role in the interaction of humans (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). Because different individuals with different interests enter a relationship, it is very likely that some aspects of the relationship may involve opposite interests. The differ-ing interests can be found among the partners as well as within one person over the period of a relationship (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). Some of these opposing, i.e. dialectic, interests have been identified; namely, connection vs. autonomy, predictability vs. novelty, and openness vs. privacy (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). Some relationships involve individuals who enter a relationship while pursuing incompatible goals throughout the relationship (Adler & Rodman, 2003). As these parties seek to pursue and achieve their goals during the relationship, dialectical tension can occur. Dialectic tension refers to existence of two opposing or incompatible forces within a relationship (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). For example, while some individuals enter a relationship seeking to move closer to another person, others may want to retain or assert their autonomy. It is, of

31

course, also possible that one individual will exhibit these dialectically opposed goals during different phases of a relationship. When one partner seeks to be closer to the other, this may initially spark a similar desire for closeness in the other partner. However, at some point in time, one of the partners may feel con-stricted and may, thus, seek to reassert autonomy. Or if both partners enter a relationship with the dialectically opposite interests, then one, or both, may think that the other partner will change his or her position; this may, though, never happen. In both examples, the relationship will be put under great strain and may actually break up (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Another dialectically opposite interest is predictability vs. novelty in which one partner or both may prefer a predictable routine in their relationship because they have a need for such stability (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). On the other hand, one of the partners may not wish to have the same routine all the time in a relationship. It is, of course, also possible for either one or both partners to change their interests over time. Likewise, one partner, or both, may assume that in time they will be able to get the other partner to as-sume the other’s interest. Again, if such a dialectic opposition is encountered, it may result in tension and possibly be responsible for the termination of the rela-tionship (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). And third pair of dialectically opposite interests refers to the need some people have to share information with others by being open while other people have a need for privacy. Either one of the partners may exhibit such behavior, or both, over a period of time. And again, it would result in tension and possible termi-nation of the relationship (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Some people deny that such tensions may exist when in actual fact they do (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Such a response, though, does not solve the actual problem. It might be better to alternate between the dialectically opposing interests so that both partners may each alternate between a time when they are open and a time when they have their privacy. Another strategy to help manage dialectical tension is to segment and compartmentalize different sector of their relationship (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gam-ble, 2005). In other words, the partners may share information on a particular topic, but agree to not sharing other information. It is also possible for both partners to practice moderation in that they agree to compromise in their posi-tions and decide to move a bit towards the position of the other partner by re-framing their interests so that a degree of convergence is possible. And finally, both partners may accept these differences because they do not want to give them up completely. But it should also be clear that all relationships do change over time because virtually no relationship is going to be constant without any

32

changes at all (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Trust According to Gamble and Gamble (2005), trust “is a reflection of how secure we are that a person will act in a predicted and desirable way” (p. 250). This means that predictability is an essential aspect of trust. Communication involves pre-diction because people encode messages in a particular way because they as-sume that this encoded message will produce a specific result (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). In other words, the en-coder anticipates a particular reaction in the receiver and to elicit that reaction, the message is encoded in the manner it is. Indeed, it has also been proposed that one of the reasons people communicate with one another is to be able to re-duce uncertainty and, thus, increase the accuracy of their prediction (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). According to Millar and Rogers, trust permits people to interact with one another in a reli-able manner which, in turn, produces “sense of certainty about future actions and outcomes that permits decisions and commitments to be made” (Tubbs & Moss, 2003, p. 234). This is, of course, a very beneficial aspect that is desirable and necessary in many business situations as well. A manufacturer has to be able rely on the delivery of raw products to assure the production of goods in the desired quantity and quality. An employer has to be able to trust the workman-ship of the employees. And customers have to be able to trust the expected quality standards of, for example, baby food. As noted above, according to the dialectic theory, too much predictability can result in boredom and stagnation (Adler & Rodman, 2003). So a certain balance is needed. Lewis and Weigert (1985) identified two types of trust; namely, cognitive and emotional trust. According to Lewis and Weigert (1985), the type of trust de-pends on the social relationship. In so-called primary group relationships which include family members and friends, emotional trust is high whereas cognitive trust tends to be relatively low. In secondary group relationships such as busi-ness relationships, cognitive trust is high and emotional trust is often low (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). One could postulate that a combination of both emotional and cognitive trust probably produces the greatest degree of trust which is why such a combination ought to be pursued in good relationships. After all, know-ing that one can trust someone completely through thick and thin is better than feeling or hoping that one can trust the other.

33

Equivocation While there are some situations in which it is easier to turn down the request of a stranger than a friend, there are some situations where the exact opposite is the case. For example, if a stranger asks someone to volunteer for a weekend pro-ject and that someone does not wish to work that weekend, it is easier to turn down the stranger than a good friend who is counting on the friend’s participa-tion (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2002; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Because turning down the invitation of the friend might actu-ally risk the friendship. Conversely, there are also some situations in which it is easier to turn a friend because in such a situation a friend will understand one’s motivation whereas a stranger would not have such understanding. For exam-ple, a shy person may not want to hold a speech at a friend’s birthday party; a friend would understand and respect that. But a teacher may not have such un-derstanding and, thus, give the student who refuses to hold a presentation a poor grade. Likewise, there are some situations in which it is opportune to tell the truth whereas in some other situations, it might not be such a good idea to be clear and true with one’s opinion (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). According to Metts, equivocation can be used to save face in a number of situations (Adler & Rodman, 2003). According to Adler and Rodman (2003), equivocation refers to a deliberately vague statement that could be interpreted in a number of ways. In other words, there are a number of encoding options available to people with which the degree of vagueness and clarity varies as does the degree of truthful-ness and falseness. This may be illustrated by the following matrix (Adler & Rodman, 2003):

Equivocal OPTION I OPTION II Equivocal, True Message Equivocal, False Message True False OPTION III OPTION IV Clear, True Message Clear, False Message

Clear

34

A consumer might be given a particular product to test, but does not like this product. This person can now select a possible response with which to express the dislike of this particular product. For example, that person may express the truth equivocally, i.e. Option I: “What an interesting product.” With this state-ment, the consumer essentially expresses disinterest but formulates this disinter-est indirectly so as not to disappoint the person selling the product – maybe be-cause the sales representative is a friend or a family member, i.e. a person one does not wish to hurt. Or the consumer can opt to lie, but express it equivocally, i.e. Option II: “Yes, I think I will buy it the next time I’m shopping.” Here, the consumer has no intention of actually buying the product but decides to use equivocation to be polite and avoid a long needless discussion. With Option III, the consumer would state the dislike clearly: “No, I don’t like this product, and I will not buy it.” Whereas under Option IV, the consumer would lie outright: “Yes, I truly like this product and will buy it” when in actual fact the consumer does not like it and does not intent to buy the product. It should be noted, though, that a person may select different options for different problems. Equivocation can serve a number of purposes; namely, to protect, for example, the recipient of the message from unpleasant responses and/or the respondent from unpleasant follow-ups (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Here, culture can play a decisive role as to when and how equivocation is used (Chen & Starosta, 1998; Gudykunst & Kim, 1997; Lustig & Koester, 2006; Oetzel, 2009). Most Germans business managers, for example, are fairly clear and direct, to the point of being blunt, with their opinions. A Chinese business manager, however, would attempt to give and save face so as to avoid loosing face. In an intercul-tural business context, it is, thus, possible that a particular situation may call for different options of equivocation among the participants. This could result in misunderstandings and might actually hurt the business relationship if the wrong option is selected. Deception Deception refers to the deliberate communication of information that is known to be false (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Should it become obvious that one partner has deceived the other, then it is possible that the relationship might suffer and might even be terminated (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005; tubs & Moss, 2003). So why would someone deliberately seek to deceive the other partner? According to Lippard, there are five reasons for deception: Resources, affiliation, self-

35

protection, avoiding conflict, and protecting others (Tubbs & Moss, 2003). People deceive others in order to gain or retain resources. Deception is also used to increase or decrease the interaction with other people, i.e. affiliation (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005; tubs & Moss, 2003). Self-protection refers to the use of deception in order to self-disclose, enhance, or protect one’s social image. The use of decep-tion to avoid conflicts is actually the most common reason for deception. And the need to protect others through deception is used to avoid hurting the feeling of another person or to prevent the other person from worrying about the initia-tor of the deception (Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Why do people resort of deception? According to Lippard, deception is a strategy used to help balance the power relationship of the partners. It seems there is a correlation between power, fre-quency of interaction, and deception (Tubbs & Moss, 2003). If, therefore, one partner of a relationship feels that they have little or no control over their lives and/or actions, then it very probable that this partner will resort to deception to rebalance the power structure within the partnership (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). In other words, if employees feel that they are being pressured into doing something they would ordinarily not do or that their opinions are not wanted at the workplace, then they might resort to deception and present ex-cuses as to why they cannot do that something which they had been asked to do. Defensive Communication Defensive communication refers to those situations during which one of the partners of a relationship feels that is necessary to defend a position they hold or a statement they have made (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004). This type of communication is problematic in that one of the relationship partners ends up focusing on defending themselves and, thus, no longer listens to what the other partner says. And if defensive commu-nication revolves around a problem, then all of the efforts going into the defen-sive communication leave little energy left over for the resolution of a conflict (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004). Gibb identified six categories of defensive communication and devised six sup-portive strategies to overcome these categories of defensive communication (Hybels & Weaver, 2004): Evaluation versus description, control versus prob-lem solving, strategy versus spontaneity, neutrality versus empathy, superiority versus equality, and certainty versus provisionalism.

36

Evaluation involves judgments which could be negative; if such judgments are negative, then the other partner may become defensive which could be a step in the direction of conflict. Consequently, Gibb recommends that one uses de-scriptive statements. If a problem exists, it is better to describe the problem without attempting to blame the other party for the problem because a descrip-tive statement might cause the other partner to help solve the problem. A mere description without blame makes such a message less threatening (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). Control refers to those situations in which one partner believes that they are right and that no other opinions are needed. These partners then use and/or exert control over the others to assert their opinion. While most people do not want to be in situations in which they are under the control of others, there are some situations where the power relationship is such that one does not have any choice. This is often the case in an employer-employee relationship and could result in deception as noted above. It is, therefore, better to attempt to work as equal partners in such a situation than to attempt to exert control. If the partner believes that they are treated as equals in the relationship and that their opinions are valued, then it is more likely that both partners will cooperate (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). Strategy can be manipulative. Often when pursuing a particular strategy, people will attempt to manipulate others into going along with their strategy if it be-comes clear that the other partner has other interests. Such manipulation may involve guilt or shame. In such situations, it would be better to abandon the strategy in order to preserve the harmony of the relationship (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). Here, the key term is “manipulative” because there are some strategies that are not manipulative. It is, thus, essential that only those goals are pursued that benefit both partners. Neutrality can indicate a lack of interest which could make the other partner feel defensive or hurt because there are a number of situations in which neutrality is construed to be negative. People often want and need empathy to be expressed by partner. Empathy refers to “the ability to recognize and identify with an-other’s feelings” (Hybels & Weaver, 2004, p. 280). Sometimes certain actions are inevitable, but it would create less resentment if empathy instead of neutral-ity were involved as well. For example, during an economic crisis it might be inevitable that some employees will have to be fired. This traumatic situation could be made worse if the employer expresses little or no sympathy. Superiority is communicated in many ways; in particular, in those situations in which it is clear that one of the partners has more power than the other. Ex-

37

pressing such superiority often causes defensive behavior in the other partner. It is, thus, often better to stress equality even if the true power relationship is such that one partner has more than the other because equality tends to produce less defensive behavior (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). Certainty refers to those situations in which people believe that they are always right. Certainty, unlike confidence and security, is often associated with a stance that refuses change. This unwillingness or inability to accept other opin-ions can lead to frustration in the other partner. Confident and secure people may also have strong opinions, but they are willing to listen to and accept other opinions if such positions are reasonable and acceptable (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). It could be that one of the partners may not even have considered such a possibility. Obviously, these forms of defensive communication can be used in any combi-nation and in the pursuit of specific policies. But as Gibb notes, if one uses only defensive communication, then such a policy may cause frustration in the recipi-ent of such messages. At the first available opportunity, the recipient may de-cide to leave this relationship (Hybels & Weaver, 2004). Often a supplier is de-pendent on the manufacturer. But if the manufacturer only applies defensive communication, then the supplier may decide to that this relationship is too frus-trating because the manufacturer does not appreciate the supplier’s input. Once that particular supplier sees the possibility of working with another manufac-turer, one that is more appreciative, then that supplier will probably terminate the relationship with the manufacturer employing defensive communication at the first available opportunity. Conflict Conflict situations are always a possibility in any relationship simply due to the fact that two or more people are interacting with one another. And since differ-ent individuals have different personalities, wishes, and possibly objectives, it is possible that disagreements may arise as a result of these differences. In and by themselves, conflicts do not necessarily have to be bad because conflicts can reveal what the partners truly think, interests them, or annoys them. While it may not be possible to eliminate all conflicts, it is possible to manage conflict situations (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). According to Frost and Wilmot, conflict is “an expressed struggle be-tween at least two independent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards, and interference from the other parties in achieving their goals” (Adler

38

& Rodman, 2003, p. 231). This essentially means that the partners have to be aware that a conflict, or disagreement, exists in the first place. Often conflicts erupt because one or both partners perceive a situation in which their goals are incompatible (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). For example, when one of the partners suddenly raises the price of a product, the other partner may consider that this price increase is unfair and, hence, assume that goal of a fair partnership is no longer tenable. However, the producer may have had legitimate reasons to increase the sales price because the price for the raw materials had been increased by the supplier. Thus, the pro-ducer is only passing on the extra costs to the buyer. But this crucial bit of in-formation had not been communicated; thus, precipitating the conflict. Conflicts can have varying degrees of intensity ranging from low to high (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). In a low inten-sity conflict, it is possible to work on a solution that is beneficial to all he part-ners. A medium intensity conflict refers to a situation in which both partners are committed to win, but winning is seen as sufficient whereas a high intensity con-flict refers to a situation in which at least one of the partners seeks to destroy the other (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Furthermore, there are also so-called pseudoconflicts when the partici-pants mistakenly believe that a conflict exists, or when it is mistakenly assumed that two or more goals cannot be achieved (Gamble & Gamble, 2005). This type of conflict is resolved when it becomes clear to both partners that no con-flict actually exists. Conflicts may also be classified as conflicts of content, value, and ego (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). A content con-flict revolves around the disagreement over factual matters. If it is possible to verify the facts, then this type of conflict may be resolved relatively quickly (Gamble & Gamble, 2005). For example, one partner may believe that a par-ticular product costs as certain price, and the other partner disagrees. Verifying the actual price of that product should solve this conflict. Value conflicts, how-ever, refer to disagreements which arise when the partners hold different opin-ions on a topic. Since opinions and/or personal or cultural values are involved, it will be more difficult to resolve such conflicts (Gamble & Gamble, 2005). For example, one may believe that it is the government’s responsibility to pro-vide adequate health insurance coverage to every citizen while another may be-lieve that this is not the responsibility of the government at all but rather a deci-

39

sion best left to the individual citizens to decide. If neither partner is willing to give up their opinion in this conflict, then the only possible solution could be for the partners to agree that they disagree on this issue (Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Ego conflicts are the most difficult to resolve because the partners believe that winning or losing this conflict is associated directly with their self worth, pres-tige, or competence. These types of conflict are very difficult to solve rationally (Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Five conflict styles have been identified: Nonassertivenness, direct aggression, passive aggression, indirectness, assertiveness (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Nonassertiveness refers to the inability or unwillingness to express any feelings or thoughts in a conflict and may be expressed either through avoidance or accommodation. In some conflict situations, it might ac-tually be advisable to avoid a conflict or to be accommodating such as when a conflict situation is relatively minor and avoidance or accommodation has greater relevance than fighting. Nonassertive can, though, result in frustration, anger, and/or guilt if one or both partners feel like they should have expressed their true feelings but for some reason did not (Adler & Rodman, 2003). Direct aggression refers to those people who openly seek aggression. This open ag-gression can hurt and humiliate the other partner and may result in the termina-tion of the relationship (Adler & Rodman, 2003). Passive aggression is more subtle and indirect and can take a variety of forms because the real feelings are hidden and concealed. It can result in confusion, frustration, and feelings of manipulation (Adler & Rodman, 2003). Indirectness can protect the other part-ner from being confronted with the true opinion and, thus, acts as a face saving measure (Adler & Rodman, 2003). For example, instead of stating outright that the price of a product is too expensive, one partner may say that at the moment there is no interest in this type of product. The risk of indirectness is that the other partner may not properly decode the message and, thus, assume that there is genuine interest in the product when the right time comes. But that may never be the case. In return, there may be confusion and frustration. Assertiveness refers to those individuals who mange conflicts skillfully by expressing their opinions clearly and openly, but at the same time also respect the opinions of the other and, thus, seek to find a constructive solution that is acceptable to both partners. So while one may feel some discomfort, overall one tends to feel bet-ter for having openly stated one’s position and not ignored it (Adler & Rodman, 2003).

40

Conflict Resolution A number of different ways exist which seek to resolve conflicts (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). In this context, one could also apply a matrix that balances the need to achieve one’s own goals with those of the other partner. Win-lose conflicts, thus, refer to those conflicts in which one partner achieves their goal at the expense of the other partner. This type of reso-lution is an example of an “either-or” situation which also involves power and dominance (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Consequently, the winner of this conflict will feel good while the loser may be frustrated which could have long-term consequences for the relationship. An-other result of a conflict could be a lose-lose situation in which neither side is satisfied with the results. Quite often, many conflicts end up with both partners having lost at least something in the course of the conflict (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). Consequently, both partners are unhappy which could have serious consequences for the relationship. In a compromise, both partners gain something, but also have to give up something. While it is better to compromise than to lose everything, both partners may feel frustrated because they did not really attain their goals. Not having gained their intended goal, both partners may continue to strive and attain it after all. This could result in further conflicts or a dissolution of the partnership if an opportu-nity arises during which it might seem possible to achieve one’s goal (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). So the ideal outcome of any conflict would be a win-win situation. The challenge in this outcome is to find solutions that satisfy both partners which is not easy to attain. In fact, there may be some situations in which it is not possible to achieve a win-win situation at all, for example, when there is insufficient time to find such a solu-tion (Adler & Rodman, 2003; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005). According to Adler and Rodman (2003), it makes sense to consider the follow-ing steps when one is confronted with a conflict (p. 249):

1. Identifying and defining the conflict 2. Generating a number of possible solutions 3. Evaluating the alternative solutions 4. Deciding on the best solution

In this context, it is also necessary for the partners to identify the problem and their needs so that it is clear as to who wants what and why. That having been done, it is then possible to proceed with the conflict resolution steps outlined above. Adler and Rodman (2003) also suggest that it is necessary to follow-up

41

on the solution at the appropriate time to see if and how the partners’ needs have been satisfied or not because the needs of individuals can and do change over time so that temporary satisfaction can change into dissatisfaction at a later date. These procedures should also help strengthen the relationship in that it becomes clear to both partners that there is a method which can be applied to solve con-flicts that respects the needs and goals of all partners (Adler & Rodman, 2003). Dissolving Relationships But sometimes, it is not possible to resolve the differences so that it becomes necessary to dissolve a relationship (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gamble & Gam-ble, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). When it comes to the dissolution of a relation-ship, either one of the partners decides to terminate the relationship unilaterally or both partners wish to end it. Obviously, if both decide to dissolve the rela-tionship, it is less surprising for all partners. It also depends on whether the dis-solution comes about suddenly or has been in the making for a longer period of time so that gradually the partners came to terms with the dissolution whereas an abrupt ending could result in surprise and shock (Adler & Rodman, 2003; Gam-ble & Gamble, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Duck identified four phases of a dissolving relationship: The intrapsychic phase, the dyadic phase, the social phase, and the grave dressing phase (Tubbs & Moss, 2003). The intrapsychic phase refers to the dissatisfaction associated with and the reflection on the relationship as a whole including speculation as to what effect a dissolution would have on the relationship partners. At some point, this dissatisfaction is also confided to outsiders. In the dyadic phase, the participants of the relationship actually confront each other and talk about the perceived problems (Tubbs & Moss, 2003). This phase is quite stressful and could also result in attempts to repair the relationship. If the partners agree to break up, they enter the next phase. During the social phase, the partners seek advice from others in their social network (Tubbs & Moss, 2003). It seems that people want to get confirmation that the decision they have reached is the right one. During the last phase, the grave dressing phase, the former partners seek to justify the reasons for the dissolution so that it appears reasonable and accept-able to have dissolved the partnership which, in turn, allows one to enter new relationships in the future (Tubbs & Moss, 2003). If one should enter into a new relationship, one may wonder what one could do so that the new relationship does not dissolve as well (Adler & Roman, 2003; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Hence, an understanding of what needs to be done to maintain

42

relationships can assume some degree of importance. Virtually all relationships encounter at some point conflicts; but as noted above, conflicts do not always have to automatically result in a breakup. In fact, if the partners can resolve their conflicts without causing the relationship to dissolve, then this should strengthen the relationship because now the partners do not have to worry about the consequences of a potential conflict. It is in this that an answer is found which supports relationship maintenance; namely, communication. This com-munication includes self-disclosure and openness as well as constructive conflict behavior (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gamble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Littlejohn & Foss, 2005; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Openness and self-disclosure seem to be essential elements in maintaining and supporting relationships as do exchanging information in vari-ous forms and media at regular intervals throughout the entire relationship (Adler & Rodman, 2003; DeFleur et al, 1998; De Vito, 2006; Gamble & Gam-ble, 2005; Hybels & Weaver, 2004; Tubbs & Moss, 2003). Improving Relationships How can relationships be improved? According to De Vito (2002, 2006), this can be accomplished through positiveness, openness, supportiveness, interest, truthfulness, involvement, value, equality. A positive attitude and the expres-sion of such positiveness can have an impact on the effectiveness of a relation-ship. Positiveness is not perfection; reasonableness is the better pursuit because it avoids wasting time in the pursuit of perfection in every facet of a relationship so that the relationship does not consume the partners or leaves them chronically dissatisfied (De Vito, 2002; De Vito, 2006). It is also noted in business relation-ships that a positive approach towards the partnership is a decisive element in determining the success or failure of that relationship (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Jones & George, 1998; Lambert and Knemeyer, 2004). Openness includes the willingness to listen to the other person, including their worries and anxieties, and even when one considers them to be minor aspects. Openness also includes seeing the world from the perspective of the other part-ners. It also takes into consideration the fact that there may be significant changes in each of the partners in the relationship with each affecting the other. Since there is an interrelationship in such a partnership, it also means being re-sponsive to such changes and acknowledging that these changes could also change one’s own role. Openness, thus, includes as willingness to consider new ideas, new ways of seeing the other partners and the relationship as well as new ways of interacting with the other partners (De Vito, 2002). Open, honest com-

43

munication is also crucial for successful business relationships because it strengthens the mutual trust which, in turn, has a positive impact on the partners’ evaluation of the overall relationship (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Christopher & Jüttner, 2000; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Kuhn & Hellingrath, 2002). Supportiveness includes being descriptive rather than evaluative, focusing on the problem instead of trying to control the other partners, acting spontaneously rather than strategically, being empathetic, treating the others as equals (De Vito, 2002). Business relationships also benefit from mutual support because it can decrease unproductive work, improve the overall efficiency of both partners, and may even enhance innovation (Kirby, 2003) while also providing cohesive behavior during economic downturns (Hoyt & Huq, 2000) and even help protect the other partner’s rights and interests in certain situations (Handfield & Nich-ols, 1999). The degree of interest in the partner is often reflected by the partner as well. Developing and sharing joint interests may help all partners to learn about the others’ likes and dislikes, values and interests, emotions and motivations. In so doing, one also learns more about oneself; hence, increasing the satisfaction in the relationship for all partners (De Vito, 2002). A close business relationship creates an environment in which the partners consider also the consequences of their actions for the other partners (Kumar, 1996). Over time, the partners of a business relationship become familiar with one another which, in turn, facilitates their cooperation by aligning their interests (Handfield & Nichlos, 1999; Kirby, 2003). Truthfulness does not mean that all secrets are revealed, nor would one expect the other partners to reveal all of their secrets and desires. However, the other partners all have a right to know about behaviors or thoughts or products that may influence the choice one will make so that one does not manipulate the oth-ers into making a decision they might not otherwise have made (De Vito, 2002). Sharing information is considered to be one of the most important factors in building and maintaining successful business relationships (Grossman, 2004). By truthfully sharing information, one partner can assure that the other partner’s interest is protected (Handfield & Nichols, 1999). And truthfulness very often depends on the level of trust the partners have in each other (Kuhn & Hellin-grath, 2002). Involvement means that all partners actively support and participate in the rela-tionship. This includes assuming responsibility for maintaining the relationship, assuring the satisfaction of all partners, and encouraging its growth. It also in-cludes the active search for solutions by everyone if there is a conflict situation

44

(De Vito, 2002). Likewise, business relationships require all partners to be in-volved in sharing tasks and roles while also seeking to resolve conflict situations (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Kumar, 1996). Value refers to the reason why one was attracted to the relationship in the first place. However, the value of that relationship may change over time; or it is essential to reevaluate the relationship on a regular basis. It might be that with time other aspects assume greater value while the original reasons decline (De Vito, 2002). One primary reason for entering business relationships is to create benefits for all partners (Lambert et al, 1996; Simatupang & Sridharan, 2002). And when the partners perceive the relationship to be valuable for both, then the degree of trust is enhanced even further which, in turn, makes the business rela-tionship more effective and efficient (Handfield & Nichols, 1999). Equality refers to the fact that all partners should be considered equals in the relationship. In conflict situations, attempts should be undertaken so that neither party be hurt or that only one or some of the partners benefit from the relation-ship. Equality also includes the sharing of power and the decision making proc-ess (De Vito, 2002). Equality is also a decisive factor in successful business re-lationships (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Simatupang & Sridharan, 2002). Yet equality is often not always existent in most business re-lationships; in particular, in seller-buyer relationships (Daugherty et al, 2003). Such inequality could result in one partner feeling vulnerable which could, in turn, be detrimental for trust building among the partners. That is why all efforts should be undertaken to establish as much perceived equality as possible under the circumstances (Handfield & Nichols, 1999). As noted above, all of these strategies may be applied to business relationships. That is why good business relationships and trust are beneficial and profitable to all partners if they are based on loyalty, reliability, honesty, fairness, and compe-tence while creating common values and goals (Bergquist et al, 1995; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Humphries & Wilding, 2001; Kirby, 2003; Kuhn & Hellin-grath, 2002; Kumar, 1996; Lambert et al, 1996). Any one of the above strate-gies may be used individually or in any combination in order to create such common values and goals. Neglecting these strategies will inevitably result in the deterioration of established relationships because the one or the other partner may feel vulnerable and/or disadvantaged (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Grossman, 2004; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Kuhn & Hellingrath, 2002). In fact, one may never reach a beneficial relationship if one does not apply these strategies from the outset and over an extended period of time (Grossman, 2004; Humphries & Wilding, 2001; Kuhn & Hellingrath, 2002; Lambert et al, 1996). This could happen, for example, during the experimenting or intensifying phase of a bud-

45

ding relationship. Hence, explaining why many potential relationships never come into being. It is, thus, advisable to pursue the above strategies from the very beginning if one seeks to create sound relationships and establish trust with another person or organization – regardless whether it is in a private or in a busi-ness context. And, as noted above, all of these strategies involve active, positive communication. That is why communication is the key to establishing and maintaining successful relationships, including business relationships (Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Handfield & Nichols, 1999; Lambert et al, 1996). That is also why it is so essential to have an understanding of communication’s role in estab-lishing and maintaining relationships. The subsequent chapters of this book de-scribe various aspects of communication. All of them, thus, provide important insights into communication and how it affects human behavior which, in turn, will provide valuable insights into business relationships. References Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Leser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing inter-

personal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64-77.

Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (2003). Understanding human communication (8th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Argyle, M. (1994). The psychology of interpersonal behaviour. London: Pen-guin Group.

Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985). Anatomy of relationships. London: Methuen.

Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Homewood: Irwin-Dorsey Press.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Berquist, W., Betwee, J., & Meuel, D. (1995). Building strategic relationships -

How to extend your organization’s reach through partnerships, alliances, and joint ventures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bhattachary, B., Devinney, T. M., & Pillutla, M. M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review 23, 459-472.

Brenkert, G. G. (1998a). Trust, business and business ethics: An introduction. Business Ethics Quarterly 8, 195-203.

Brenkert, G. G. (1998b). Trust, morality and international business. Business Ethics Quarterly 8, 293-317.

Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communi-cation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2004). Supply chain management: Strategy, plan- ning, and operation. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

46

Christopher, M., & Jüttner, U. (2000). Supply chain relationships: Making the transition to closer integration. International Journal of Logistics: Re-search and Applications 3 (1), 5-23.

Chu, S. Y., & Fang, W.-C. (2006). Exploring the relationships of trust and commitment in supply chain management. The Journal of American Acad-emy of Business, Cambridge 9 (1), 224-228.

Cooper, M. C., Ellram, L. M., Gardner, J. T., & Hanks, A. M. (1997). Meshing multiple alliances. Journal of Business Logistics, 18 (1), 67-89.

Corsten, H., & Gössinger, R. (2001). Einführung in das Supply Chain Manage-ment. Munich: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.

Daugherty, P. J., Richey, R. G., Hudgens, B. J., & Autry, C. W. (2003). Reverse logistics in the automobile aftermarket industry. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 14 (1), 49-62.

DeFleur, M. L., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1998). Fundamentals of human communication (2nd ed.). Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company.

De Vito, J. A. (2002). Essentials of human communication (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

De Vito, J. A. (2006). Human communication: The basic course (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organizational Science, 12, 450-467.

Doz, Y. L., & Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance advantage: The art of creating value through partnering. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Duffy, R., & Fearne, A. (2004). The impact of supply chain partnerships on supplier performance. The International Journal of Logistics Management 15 (1), 57-71.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relation-ships. Journal of Marketing, 51 (2), 11-27.

Earley, P. C. (1986). Trust, perceived importance of praise and criticism and work performance: An examination of feedback in the United States and England. Journal of Management 12, 457-473.

Ehrlich, P. (2000). Human natures: Genes, cultures, and the human prospect. New York: Penguin Books.

Ellis, K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2001). Trust in top management and imme-diate supervisor: The relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness, and information receiving. Communication Quarterly 49, 383-398.

Gamble, T. K., & Gamble, M. (2005). Communication works (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Grossman, M. (2004). The role of trust and collaboration in the internet-enabled supply chain. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 5 (1/2), 391-396.

47

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1997). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication, (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Handfiled, R., & Nichols, E. (1999). Introduction to supply chain management. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry 5 (1), 1-22.

Hinner, M. B. (2005). General introduction: Can quality communication im-prove business relationships? In M. B. Hinner (Ed.), Introduction to busi-ness communication (pp. 15-40). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH.

Hinner, M. B. (2007). General introduction: Some thoughts on perceiving business transactions and relationships. In M. B. Hinner (Ed.), The role of communication in business transactions and relationships (pp. 13-53). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH.

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of So-ciology 63, 597-606.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational the-ory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review 20, 379-403.

Hoyt, J. & Huq, F. (2000). Fropm arms-length to collaborative relationships in the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logis-tics Management, 30 (9), 750-764.

Huang, Y., Rayner, C., & Zhuang, L. (2003). Does intercultural competence matter in intercultural business relationship development? International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 6 (4), 277-288.

Humphries, A. S., & Wilding, R. (2001). Partnerships in UK defense procure- ment. The International Journal of Logistics Management 12 (1), 83-96.

Hybels, S., & Weaver, R. L. (2004). Communicating effectively (7th ed.) Boston: McGraw Hill.

Jones, G. R., George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Im- placations for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Re-view 23, 531-546.

Kirby, J. (2003). Supply chain challenges: Building relationships. A conversa-tion with Scott Beth, David N. Burt, William Copacino, Chris Gopal, Hau L. Lee, Robert Porter Lynch, and Sandra Morris. Harvard Business Review 81 (7), 64-73.

Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1992) Interpersonal communication and human relationships (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Krapfel, R., Salmond, D., & Spekman, R. (1991). A strategic approach to mana-ging buyer-seller relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 25 (9), 22-37.

Kuhn, A., & Hellingrath, B. (2002). Supply Chain Management: Optimierte Zusammenarbeit in der Wertschöpfungskette. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

48

Kumar, N. (1996). The power of trust in manufacturer-retailer relationships. Harvard Business Review, 74 (6), 92-106.

Kwon, I. G., & Suh T. (2004). Factors affecting the level of trust and commit- ment in supply chain relationships. The Journal of Supply chain Manage-ment, 4-24.

Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998). Supply chain manage-ment: Implementation issues and research opportunities. The International Journal of Logistics Management 9 (2), 1-19.

Lambert, D. M., Emmelhainz, M. A., & Gardner, J. T. (1996). Developing and implementing supply chain partnerships. The International Journal of Lo-gistics Management 7 (2), 1-17.

Lambert, D. M., & Knemeyer, A. M. (2004). We’re in this together. Harvard Business Review 82 (12), 114-122.

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 63, 967-985.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of human communication (8th

ed.). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2006). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal

communication across cultures, (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1997). Intercultural communicaiton in con-

texts. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for

interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 38, 24-59.

McGregor, D. (1967). The professional manager. New York: McGraw-Hill. Oetzel, J. G. (2009). Intercultural communication: A layered approach. Upper

Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc. Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a social psychology of loneliness.

In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.). Personal relationships 3: Personal rela-tionships in disorder (pp. 31-56). London: Academic Press.

Reis, H. T. (1984). Social interaction and well-being. In S. Duck (Ed.). Per-sonal relationships 5: Repairing personal relationships (pp. 21-45). Lon-don: Academic Press.

Ripperger, T. (1998). Ökonomik des Vertrauens: Analyse eines Organisations-prinzips. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Robinson, S. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599.

Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & Stefani, L. A. (1998). Communication between cultures, (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

49

Schönsleben, P., & Hieber, R. (2002). Gestaltung von effizienten Wertschöpf-ungspartnerschaften im Supply Chain Management. In A. Busch & W. Dangelmaier (Eds), Integriertes Supply Chain Management (pp. 45-62). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.

Schuler, R., & Jackson, S. (2001). HR issues and activities in mergers and ac-quisitions. European Management Journal, 19 (3), 239-253.

Simatupang, T. M., & Sridharan, R. (2005). An integrative framework for sup-ply chain collaboration. The International Journal of Logistics Manage-ment 16 (2), 257-274.

Tubbs, S. L., & Moss. S. (2003). Human communication: Principles and con-texts (9th ed.) Boston: McGraw Hill.

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science 9, 141-159.