pete naudé, manchester business school paper for imp seminar in st. petersburg, 5 th october 2007...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
Pete Naudé, Manchester Business School
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
Measuring Relationship Quality:some international comparisons
Pete Naudé, Manchester Business Schooland a whole lot of good friends:
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
Measuring Relationship Quality:some international comparisons
Pete Naudé, Manchester Business Schooland a whole lot of good friends:
Francis Buttle in AustraliaMaria Smirnova and Sergei Kouchtch in St. Petersburg
And a lot of others!
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
Measuring Relationship Quality:some international comparisons
It all dates back to the IMP Conference in Dublin, 1999
Francis and I thought that we would look at relationship quality
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
Relationship quality:
* it’s certainly important
* it’s certainly a multidimensional construct
* it has largely tended to focus on data from developed economies Leonidou and Kaleka 1998; Buttery and Wong 1999;Ambler and Styles 2000
* there have been a number of different views on how to study itGummesson, 1987; Grönroos 1984; Grönroos 1990Crosby et al., 1990Mohr and Spekman, 1994Storbacka et al., 1994Wilson and Jantrania, 1996.
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
Some of the constructs used
Trust
Satisfaction
Commitment
Coordination
Communication
Joint Problem Solving
Bonds between us
Goal Congruence
Investments
Power
Profit
Cosby Mohr & Storbacka Wilson & et al Spekman et al Jantrania
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
The research methodology used
40 Students on the Executive MBA Programme
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
The research methodology used
40 Students on the Executive MBA Programme
Trust
Satisfaction
Coordination
Power
Profit
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
The constructs used
Trust
Satisfaction
Commitment
Coordination
Communication
Joint Problem Solving
Bonds between us
Goal Congruence
Investments
Power
Profit
Cosby Mohr & Storbacka Wilson & Our et al Spekman et al Jantrania research
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√ Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
The approach we used was conjoint analysis
It comes from considering things jointly
also called trade-off analysis
Green and Wind (HBR, August 1974)
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
How does it work? – Let’s consider a completely inappropriate example
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
How does it work? – Let’s consider a completely inappropriate example
PA – very, very rich
PB – is not
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
How does it work? – Let’s consider a completely inappropriate example
PA – very, very pretty
PB – is not
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
How does it work? – Let’s consider a completely inappropriate example
PB – very, very pretty
PA – is not
PA – very, very rich
PB – is not
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
The Overall UK Results Showing Attribute Scores and Part-Worths
Trust Needs Integration Power Profit
Importance 29.64 20.14 12.79 11.97 25.46
Utilities:
better 2.37 1.67 0.72 -0.03 2.30
the same 0.78 0.45 0.23 0.02 -0.15
worse -3.15 -2.11 -0.95 0.01 -2.16
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine
C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25 Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
23 -+-+ 40 -+ I 21 ---+---+ 15 ---+ +-+ 2 -------+ +-+ 33 -----+---+ I 34 -----+ I 29 -+-+ I 32 -+ +-+ I 24 ---+ +-+ +---+ 1 -----+ +---+ I 16 -------+ I +---+ 22 -----------+ I I 10 ---------+-----+ +---+ 20 ---------+ I I 4 -------------------+ +-------+ 6 -----------+-+ I I 37 -----------+ +---+ I I 3 -------------+ +-----+ +-------+ 19 -----------------+ I I 12 ---------------------+---+ I I 38 ---------------------+ +-----+ I 28 -------------------------+ I 8 ---+---+ I 14 ---+ +---------+ +---------+ 17 -------+ I I I 7 ---+-------+ +---------+ I I 11 ---+ +-+ I I I I 31 ---+-+ I I I I I I 35 ---+ +-----+ +---+ +---+ I I 27 -----+ I I I I I 9 -----------+-+ I +-------+ I 13 -----------+ I I I 18 ---------------------------+ I I 26 -------------------------------+ I 5 ---------+-------+ I 39 ---------+ +-------+ I 25 -----------------+ +-------------+ I 36 -------------------------+ +---------+ 30 ---------------------------------------+
The Conjoint Analysis Results for each Cluster
Trust Needs Integration Power Profit
Overall (n=40) 29.64 20.14 12.79 11.97 25.46
Cluster 1 (23) 38.00 25.25 9.98 8.89 17.88
Cluster 2 (11) 17.28 12.31 10.51 13.91 46.00
Cluster 3 (4) 22.75 15.79 35.99 15.76 9.70
Cluster 4 (1) 13.33 14.07 11.85 44.44 16.30
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
So, what might we know about UK Managers?
Trust Needs Integration Power Profit
C1 23
C2 11
C3 4
C4 1
1 2 4 5 3
2 4 5 3 1
2 3 1 3 5 4 3 5 1 2
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
The Overall Russian Results
Trust Needs Integration Power Profit
Importance(%) 13.04 14.41 10.45 10.82 51.58
Utilities:
Better 0.70 0.93 0.32 0.26 4.60
The same 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.63 -0.40
Worse -1.00 -1.24 -0.85 -0.89 -4.20
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
Conjoint Analysis per Cluster, Russia
Cluster No.
No. of Members
Trust Needs Integration Power Profit
1 10 23.36 14.08 11.33 11.50 39.73
2 5 6.72 18.09 15.75 20.76 38.68
3 6 5.27 17.26 4.64 8.87 63.97
4 16 11.48 11.71 10.42 8.02 58.38
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
0 5 10 15 20 25 +----+----+----+----+----+
Trust Needs Integ. Power Profit Cluster No.
23.78 12.43 10.75 14.34 38.71 31 23.54 12.41 10.66 15.22 38.17 35 18.42 17.38 15.06 11.59 37.54 32 21.78 14.82 13.68 12.54 37.17 36
20 11.86 17.67 9.53 40.93 15 29.1 16.4 11.55 9.24 33.72 29 28.64 16.9 9.39 9.39 35.68 33 24.28 20.23 9.25 11.56 34.68 30 24.79 9.92 4.96 9.09 51.24 7 19.22 8.47 10.35 12.5 49.46
1
34 8.9 6.18 7.39 25.64 51.89 9 8.21 14.76 12.38 23.69 40.95 14 7.59 27.16 19.68 14.96 30.61 10 3.13 28.13 10 17.5 41.25 11 5.79 14.24 29.28 21.99 28.7
2 17
3.47 17.01 1.74 12.15 65.63 21 1.73 17.79 1.38 13.82 65.28 22 6.69 16.24 1.91 12.74 62.42 20 6.55 17.73 10.22 3.83 61.66 24 6.77 16.67 8.91 3.96 63.7 25 6.38 18.12 3.69 6.71 65.1
3 18
17.61 12.89 1.26 6.6 61.64 13 15.09 13.61 5.62 7.69 57.99 23 6.58 8.03 7.38 16.05 61.96 26 6.69 8.16 9.14 13.05 62.97 28 13.09 4.73 9.94 11.04 61.2 16 12.04 10.67 6.25 16.77 54.27 8 9.46 12.62 5.36 13.25 59.31 37 6.18 18.21 5.37 14.63 55.61 19 9.02 11.48 14.75 2.46 62.3 5 9.84 11.48 16.39 0 62.3 6 14.2 10.49 15.43 3.09 56.79 1 13.98 8.81 15.2 6.08 55.93 4 13.99 8.02 14.15 4.72 59.12 3 10.43 14.11 15.34 3.07 57.06 2 13.57 13.42 10.56 4.52 57.92 27 11.84 20.61 14.62 5.26 47.66
4
12
Dendrogram, Indicating Relative Importance for Russian Managers
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007
So, what might we know about Russian Managers?
Trust Needs Integration Power Profit
C1 23
C2 11
C3 4
C4 1
2 3 5 4 1
5 3 4 2 1
4 2 5 3 1 2 2 4 5 1
Paper for IMP Seminar in St. Petersburg, 5th October 2007